>>719137721
They probably can't because streaming would be a derivative of the original work. For example Sega would have no chance of being able to directly make money off of streamers playing Sonic 06 because it is an inherently broken game. Nobody is watching these streams to experience the game directly, they are watching the streams to experience the reactions to Sonic 06's brokenness.

Sega wouldn't be able to argue Sonic 06 was made intentional to get this final result since that would be them admitting they purposefully sold a ""defective"" product to the masses. Both customers and retailers who order those games could sue Sega for that.

Obviously not every game is as shitty as Sonic 06. But that's the Pandoras box they will open if they go down this route. Think about what would happen if CDPRJKTRED had tried that stunt with Cyberpunk 2077 when it first came out? Better yet what if the No Man's Sky devs attempted this?

Truth be told indie devs shouldn't get too greedy here. These Streamers are already giving them free advertising for their games. I'm not sure they are ready for legal labyrinth of rules they would need to adhere to in order to get residuals from Streamers. That would mean guaranteeing anyone who streams their game is getting a complete product that functions as intended. If it goes off rails at any point they become potentially liable.