Ok, so if streamers should pay a share (and I'm not suggesting they should) then what about Amazon and Google? Why should it just be the streamers who should have to pay?

Twitch and YouTube respectively make a lot of money off this aswell why shouldn't they also have to pay developers something from their share?

Using Hutchinson's own words "creators of content should be allowed to make some of the money from other people using their content for profit." - Are Amazon and Google the owners of the two biggest platforms not using other people's content for profit?

Of course if that were the case they would pay the streamers even less to make up for it. Leaving only established "big name" streamers who could afford to continue and no new ones coming through.

@joey2010: Typically no, in the cases of account bans your account would usually be locked out of all social features and from buying any further games but games already bought would still be available. Unless you commit some kind of fraud or other major offence against Valve/Steam then account bans are unlikely. Social bans, trading bans, game & VAC (anti-cheat) bans are the more typical kind of bans for offences.

Steam allows digital game sharing but their implementation of it is awful. You can share your library but only one game from a library can be played at any one time, so if you're playing one game nobody else can play any games from your library.

Steam does have gifting yes and is fine as long as the recipient is in the same region as you. However should they live in a different region you'll likely be unable to gift them.

Steam does not sell physical copies of games it is a digital store.

@Enragedhydra: They DID try and charge for multiplayer on Games For Windows Live, when first released games that used it required a gold subscription to play multiplayer. It lasted about a year before they realised nobody was willing to pay for multiplayer on the PC and they made it free.

@xnshd: Technically that's not true either. The whole "you are buying a licence to use one copy of the software, you don't actually own the software" has ALWAYS been there even on physical disks. The same goes for any music or video titles anyone has ever bought.

The EULA isn't a new thing for the digital age, it's just that people are more aware of them now. Nobody ever read them when they bought a VHS tape or a DVD or a vinyl record or a CD but they existed and said pretty much the same thing then as they do now.