This is an interesting reaction. It could seemingly apply for the game creator or the "Let's Play" creator.
For the game creator, their work is being built upon without permission or license (other than, hopefully, a single game sale) to create something new and interesting, but their name and pedigree is bolstered by the exposure.
For the "Let's Play" creator, their work is produced without expectation of licensing payments but they gain the ability to grow their audience using another's work as raw material.
This comment put into words the weird, hand-wavey feeling I've had about the two being symbiotic. I'm still not sure that we've found a good example of the right balance between the two, but I like the Dragon team's tone when describing the tensions.
I still had to purchase the game to stream it, but your point is taken in this regard...except it goes both ways.
As a Let's Play streamer - why the hell should I play your game if I can play some other game that will allow me to be compensated for my time? Name me an advertisement agency that will advertise your product for free. Because that's essentially what large streamers have become.
Can always license out the rights to stream the game to already large streamers rather than rolling the dice with small no-names.
You're free to play some other game and be compensated. I suspect though that most streamers would lose their audiences very quickly if they weren't streaming the top 30 games. People tune in for Fallout, Uncharted, Last of Us, GTA5, Division, etc, not for Fuzzy Bear's Adventures. In other words is more about the games, not the streamers. Again this would be easily provable. Remove the games. If the streamers manage to keep their audiences for several months then it was about the streamers. If not it was about the games.
In any case, I suggested some kind of split would be more equitable. IMO. They already kind of do this for music. Why not for games but give the streamers more than people get for music since they are adding more to it.
