The report goes on to talk about the "untapped potential for game publishers to bring video content inside their own ecosystem". I do think that is a bad idea. I remember when I could watch all sorts of content from other companies on Netflix, but then all the other companies made their own streaming service and removed their content from Netflix. I refused to subscribe to a dozen different streaming services, while others simply weren't available internationally, and as a consequence simply stopped watching content from the companies I wasn't subscribed to. The last thing I want is an EAStream service where all streams and videos for EA games are, and an UbiStream service where all the Ubisoft content is, etc. ad infinitum for far too many game companies. Not only would it be very hard for game companies to get people to pay for such services, when YouTube and Twitch are "free" (with advertising). It would also make it much harder to find videos and streams; I don't see how the game companies could stop content creators to still make YouTube videos and Twitch streams, and content would be scattered over too many platforms.

I think a better conclusion from this report is for game companies to offer better integration of YouTube and Twitch. I have already seen a few smaller games with Twitch integration, where for example at a dialogue choice that choice can be transformed with the press of a button into a Twitch poll, with options of whether the streamer is obliged or not to abide by the poll results. Making it easier for content creators to stream your game ultimately promotes your game and increases sales.

My opinion on streams and videos about video games is in a way related to the kind of video games I like: For the 4X, or strategy and tactics games, or role-playing games, there is huge added value in the comments that the streamer makes while playing. A content creator just playing without talking for such a game has much less value to me, although I can understand why when streaming an action game there isn't much time for comments and detailed explanations of what the streamer is doing. I never watched a long video series with somebody playing Baldur's Gate 3, because I simply haven't found a content creator who intelligently describes his thoughts and tactics while playing. (If you know of such a video series, please let me know!) On Twitch and YouTube I often search for the content creator first, and see what my favorite streamers are playing, rather than searching for a game. Which is why a streaming service exclusive to a specific game company and their games wouldn't really work for me.

While a game stream without the comments of a streamer is a lot less interesting to watch, adding a well-known content creator as streamer would be risky for game companies. The history of Twitch is full of streamers who at some point were so blinded by their glory that they started to behave inappropriately, and ended up being cancelled. On the other hand, I doubt many people would be interested in a EAStream service with a EA company employee as a commenter, toeing the company line on everything he says. The trust we have in content creators (rather than game journalists) is often because we know that through the revenue on the platform (especially Twitch) they earn a lot more than what a sponsorship deal is worth, and thus have the financial freedom to give their honest opinion about a game. But that trust also means that a sponsorship of a Twitch stream or YouTube video is a rather good deal for game companies, because it is cheaper than many other forms of advertising, while being more targeted and having a higher impact.

So, yeah, game companies should absolutely be aware of people watching a lot of game streams and use that to promote their games. But trying to compete with the existing platforms and capture subscription and advertising revenues isn't going to work.