Resident Evil Creator Shinji Mikami Says Streamers Aren’t Hurting Game Sales

If you enjoy independent indie game coverage, consider supporting Indie-Games.eu on Patreon. It helps keep the site independent.

The gaming industry keeps debating whether livestreams, Let’s Plays, and full playthrough videos help or hurt game sales. Some developers worry that viewers can experience an entire game through YouTube or Twitch without ever purchasing it themselves. Others see content creators as valuable partners who introduce games to audiences that traditional marketing could never reach. Few opinions carry more weight in that discussion than those of Resident Evil creator Shinji Mikami.

As the creator of the original Resident Evil and the director behind Resident Evil 4, Mikami helped define both survival horror and modern third-person action games. His influence can still be seen across the industry today, which makes his recent comments about streaming particularly interesting.

Speaking with Japanese comedian and streamer Eiko Kano, Mikami was asked a question that many content creators have likely wondered about at some point. Kano, who has become well known in Japan for his often chaotic Resident Evil playthroughs, admitted that he had always worried about whether streaming games might upset developers by revealing puzzles, story twists, and surprises.

Even though Capcom had granted permission for his content, he still wanted to hear directly from one of the industry’s most respected creators. Mikami’s response was surprisingly simple: “If viewers watch a playthrough of a game all the way to the end and are satisfied with just that, then it was only that good of a game.”

It’s a statement that immediately shifts responsibility away from streamers and back onto developers. Rather than treating content creators as a threat, Mikami argues that developers should focus on building experiences that viewers still want to participate in, even after they’ve seen someone else play them.

Games Are More Than Stories

One reason the debate around streaming remains controversial is because different types of games offer different kinds of experiences. If someone watches a movie, they have essentially experienced the entire product. The same is true for a television series or a novel. Once the story has been consumed, there is often little reason to experience it again unless the viewer particularly enjoyed it.

Games operate differently. While narrative is certainly important in many titles, the experience isn’t solely defined by what happens. It is also defined by how it happens. Player decisions, mechanical mastery, failures, successes, experimentation, and personal agency all contribute to the final experience.

This is a belief Mikami has expressed throughout his career. In previous interviews, he has described games as a “collaborative medium where developers create only part of the experience”. The player completes the other half through their actions, choices, and emotional responses. Two people may play the same game and emerge with completely different stories about what happened.

That is particularly true in games like Resident Evil. Watching someone carefully manage ammunition, panic during an unexpected encounter, or barely survive a difficult boss fight is entertaining. Experiencing those moments yourself, however, creates an entirely different emotional response. The tension feels more personal because the consequences belong to you rather than the person holding the controller. That’s something no stream can fully replicate.

The Rise of Gaming as Spectator Entertainment

Research published by Midia found that gamers now spend more time watching gaming-related content than actively playing games. According to the report, players averaged approximately 8.5 hours per week watching gaming videos compared to around 7.4 hours spent playing games themselves. That statistic would have seemed unbelievable a decade ago.

Today, however, it reflects how dramatically gaming culture has evolved. Platforms such as YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, and Kick have transformed gaming into a form of entertainment that exists beyond the games themselves. Many people follow specific personalities rather than specific games. Others watch competitive esports, challenge runs, speedruns, lore videos, or simply use streams as background entertainment while doing other activities.

For younger audiences especially, watching games has become as normal as watching television. This shift has naturally raised concerns among some developers and publishers. If players can watch an entire game online, why would they spend $70 purchasing it? Mikami’s answer is essentially that they will, if the game offers something genuinely interactive.

Why Some Games Survive Streaming Better Than Others

There is some truth to the fear that streaming can reduce sales for certain games. Narrative-heavy titles with limited player agency are perhaps the most vulnerable. If the primary appeal of a game is discovering plot twists or reaching the ending, watching a complete playthrough may satisfy much of that curiosity.

However, games built around mechanics, mastery, experimentation, or personal storytelling tend to benefit far more from exposure. Minecraft remains popular despite billions of hours of online content. The same is true for Counter-Strike, Elden Ring, Baldur’s Gate 3, Fortnite, Grand Theft Auto V, and countless other games that continue attracting players even after years of extensive coverage.

People watch these games because they are interested in them. They play them because watching cannot fully replace participation. Resident Evil itself provides an excellent example. Viewers may know exactly where every enemy appears and understand every puzzle solution. Yet the tension of managing limited resources, surviving encounters, and navigating dangerous environments remains fundamentally different when you’re the one making the decisions.

The Real Challenge for Developers

Perhaps the most important aspect of Mikami’s comments is that they challenge developers to stop viewing streamers as the problem. Whenever discussions about streaming arise, they often focus on copyright concerns, spoilers, or lost sales. Those are understandable issues, but they may overlook a more fundamental question.

Why does someone choose to watch instead of play? In many cases, the answer has little to do with streaming itself. Modern games are expensive. New releases frequently cost $70 or more, while many players already have enormous backlogs they may never finish. Time is also becoming an increasingly valuable resource. Watching a few hours of gameplay requires far less commitment than investing dozens of hours into learning systems and completing a game yourself.

The competition for attention has never been greater. In that environment, developers face a difficult challenge. They must create experiences compelling enough to convince viewers that participation offers something valuable beyond observation. That doesn’t mean every game needs endless replayability or complex systems. It simply means developers need to understand what makes their game uniquely interactive.

A Philosophy That Feels Increasingly Relevant

Instead of worrying that streaming might damage games, Mikami views it as an opportunity for great games to prove their value. If watching generates interest, excitement, and curiosity, then it becomes one of the most effective forms of marketing available. The burden, in his view, falls on developers to create experiences worth playing rather than merely watching.

As gaming continues evolving into both an interactive medium and a spectator activity, that philosophy feels increasingly relevant. Millions of people now spend more time watching games than playing them, and that trend is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Rather than fighting that reality, Mikami suggests embracing it.

After all, if someone watches an entire game and still feels the urge to pick up a controller, perhaps that’s the strongest endorsement a developer can hope for.