|
i propose TL do a poll and see just how many people are using adblock and how many are using adblock consistantly that are now going to subscribe to twitch turbo rather than just continue using adblock
|
On February 05 2013 21:25 Thurokiir wrote:
Let's say out of curiosity that a full half of the TSL viewers aren't actually watching it in etchasketch mode. Instead they are watching it in FUCKYEA mode. They are dl'ing from their pipe to level3 at 17.5MBps. so... 30000. (The actual amount of people watching in perfect 1080 is not remotely close to this.) ASSUMING you've paid for the highest tier of service from level3 and have unadulterated access to their backbone, you're now punching out 525000MBps. 525 GB a second. You are asking a backbone and laterally a commercial isp to deliver a 500 GB hdd a second. Those go for 64 dollars.
People really need to start using the wonderful service called multicast and anycast, IPTV has been using that for a long time already. There is no excuse to send 500 GB HDD every second when it's not necessary. At least make deals with major ISPs that they have distribution nodes in their datacenters, so you don't have to push it from just few Twitch servers across several countries. Waste of bandwidth and money.
|
On February 06 2013 00:52 LiMEX17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 00:17 theqat wrote:
Didn't you just say that "making a statement involving so highly how this will "still support" the players which is total crap if ur not using adblock in the first place this does absolutely 0 more for the players...."
I'm using adblock and will be in any circumstance without turbo so, by your own definition, wouldn't it support the players I view without a subscription? Would that not be doing them more good than me continuing to view their streams without a subscription and with adblock? because your probably the minority your viewing 1 add does not make up for the subscriber amounts that will most likely be lost because of this the people using adblock the MAJORITY by common sense will just keep using adblock for free rather than pay 9$ a month..... so i would assume the people using adblock that will somehow have a change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month are in my eyes going to be very few people...
I think more people than you realize understand that twitch needs money to continue operating. Plenty of adblock + twitch users love twitch as much as the next person and would hate to see it go. Plenty of those people are no doubt happy to see a way to support twitch without having to view inconvenient, obnoxious ads.
Neither of us know any figures from twitch that would suss out this issue, anyway. There's not much point in discussing it with my "I think" and your "your [sic] probably the minority."
|
On February 06 2013 01:03 LiMEX17 wrote:
i propose TL do a poll and see just how many people are using adblock and how many are using adblock consistantly that are now going to subscribe to twitch turbo rather than just continue using adblock
I adblocked and subscribed to turbo, there's a good number of people posting they did the same. I only saw one guy post that he'd just unsubscribe others and go turbo and really, he was obviously never in it to support anyone so I have no clue why he wasn't using adblock rather than subscribing in the first place heh.
|
On February 06 2013 00:59 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 00:52 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 00:17 theqat wrote:
Didn't you just say that "making a statement involving so highly how this will "still support" the players which is total crap if ur not using adblock in the first place this does absolutely 0 more for the players...."
I'm using adblock and will be in any circumstance without turbo so, by your own definition, wouldn't it support the players I view without a subscription? Would that not be doing them more good than me continuing to view their streams without a subscription and with adblock? because your probably the minority your viewing 1 add does not make up for the subscriber amounts that will most likely be lost because of this the people using adblock the MAJORITY by common sense will just keep using adblock for free rather than pay 9$ a month..... so i would assume the people using adblock that will somehow have a change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month are in my eyes going to be very few people... By your reasoning, no one is subscribing to any players because they could just be using adblock instead. If you do the numbers, what you're saying just doesn't nearly add up. It's really hard to imagine there being a large number of people subscribing only to block ads to begin with. They're offering a solution that attempts to compete with adblock and still gets revenue to the streamers.
for one i never once said that people are subscribing to block ads majority of them do it just to help the streamer.... but any subscriber players lose over this is a big deal because the players arent benefitting from this pretty much @ all.... in comparison to a 5$ subscriber per month.... do the math how many adblock users that suddenly decided to no longer use adblock and use this service instead would any player need to make up for even 1 lost subscription? even if the majority of people are subscribing to streams for other reasons than no ads im positive that "SOME" of the subscribers are mostly doing it to be ad free...
|
On February 05 2013 00:09 Grettin wrote:Here is the announcementShow nested quote +Ad-free Twitch: No pre-rolls, no mid-rolls, no companions, no display ads, and broadcasters still get paid. All you see are front-page takeovers. All i hope is that Twitch won't turn for the same as Justin.tv. If you aren't subscriber, you won't be able to watch a certain stream sometimes because of the limit where X amount of people are able to watch the stream from your country, or whatever it is. But i doubt that will happen.
Well I know a lot of us would stop watching watching random players play games because honestly why would you pay to watch demslim ladder. I get paying for a MLG arena or something ( I did that), but I don't really like the idea of subscribering to watch video game content.
|
On February 06 2013 01:04 theqat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 00:52 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 00:17 theqat wrote:
Didn't you just say that "making a statement involving so highly how this will "still support" the players which is total crap if ur not using adblock in the first place this does absolutely 0 more for the players...."
I'm using adblock and will be in any circumstance without turbo so, by your own definition, wouldn't it support the players I view without a subscription? Would that not be doing them more good than me continuing to view their streams without a subscription and with adblock? because your probably the minority your viewing 1 add does not make up for the subscriber amounts that will most likely be lost because of this the people using adblock the MAJORITY by common sense will just keep using adblock for free rather than pay 9$ a month..... so i would assume the people using adblock that will somehow have a change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month are in my eyes going to be very few people... I think more people than you realize understand that twitch needs money to continue operating. Plenty of adblock + twitch users love twitch as much as the next person and would hate to see it go. Plenty of those people are no doubt happy to see a way to support twitch without having to view inconvenient, obnoxious ads. Neither of us know any figures from twitch that would suss out this issue, anyway. There's not much point in discussing it with my "I think" and your "your [sic] probably the minority."
you guys are getting off topic, my arguement is about does this hurt the players or dosnt it...... and in my eyes this is worse for the players.... now your telling me twitch needs money to operate after stating that neither of us know any figures..... twitch as far as i can see has grown exponentially in the last couple of years and continues to gain more and more viewers and now has a monopoly on the video game streaming world for the next couple of months.... to suggest twitch is broke or in the path of becoming broke seems a little naive in my eyes...
|
On February 06 2013 01:12 HeeroFX wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 00:09 Grettin wrote:Here is the announcementAd-free Twitch: No pre-rolls, no mid-rolls, no companions, no display ads, and broadcasters still get paid. All you see are front-page takeovers. All i hope is that Twitch won't turn for the same as Justin.tv. If you aren't subscriber, you won't be able to watch a certain stream sometimes because of the limit where X amount of people are able to watch the stream from your country, or whatever it is. But i doubt that will happen. Well I know a lot of us would stop watching watching random players play games because honestly why would you pay to watch demslim ladder. I get paying for a MLG arena or something ( I did that), but I don't really like the idea of subscribering to watch video game content.
what happens @ mlgs now that are using twitch? or any tournaments..... i bet u still gotta pay that 20 bucks to be ad free there now dont u
|
On February 06 2013 01:12 LiMEX17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 01:04 theqat wrote:On February 06 2013 00:52 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 00:17 theqat wrote:
Didn't you just say that "making a statement involving so highly how this will "still support" the players which is total crap if ur not using adblock in the first place this does absolutely 0 more for the players...."
I'm using adblock and will be in any circumstance without turbo so, by your own definition, wouldn't it support the players I view without a subscription? Would that not be doing them more good than me continuing to view their streams without a subscription and with adblock? because your probably the minority your viewing 1 add does not make up for the subscriber amounts that will most likely be lost because of this the people using adblock the MAJORITY by common sense will just keep using adblock for free rather than pay 9$ a month..... so i would assume the people using adblock that will somehow have a change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month are in my eyes going to be very few people... I think more people than you realize understand that twitch needs money to continue operating. Plenty of adblock + twitch users love twitch as much as the next person and would hate to see it go. Plenty of those people are no doubt happy to see a way to support twitch without having to view inconvenient, obnoxious ads. Neither of us know any figures from twitch that would suss out this issue, anyway. There's not much point in discussing it with my "I think" and your "your [sic] probably the minority." you guys are getting off topic, my arguement is about does this hurt the players or dosnt it...... and in my eyes this is worse for the players.... now your telling me twitch needs money to operate after stating that neither of us know any figures..... twitch as far as i can see has grown exponentially in the last couple of years and continues to gain more and more viewers and now has a monopoly on the video game streaming world for the next couple of months.... to suggest twitch is broke or in the path of becoming broke seems a little naive in my eyes...
You started this by responding to my post on the previous page that is about my views on why twitch made this move and why it might be a good thing overall--nothing to do with the players--so you don't get to tell me that I'm off-topic. In any case you just got finished saying that you thought "very few people" would have a "change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month" and I explained to you why I thought it might be more than very few people. So it's at least partly your derail.
It's far from clear that twitch is swimming in cash and the number of viewers they pull in when there isn't something huge going on pales in comparison to even very weak television shows. Do I know that they're in cash trouble? No, but I can reasonably expect that things aren't easy for them, especially since a competitor with a very similar model just went out of business.
Do you think you could try writing your posts in a normal way? They are very difficult to read.
|
On February 06 2013 01:15 LiMEX17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 01:12 HeeroFX wrote:On February 05 2013 00:09 Grettin wrote:Here is the announcementAd-free Twitch: No pre-rolls, no mid-rolls, no companions, no display ads, and broadcasters still get paid. All you see are front-page takeovers. All i hope is that Twitch won't turn for the same as Justin.tv. If you aren't subscriber, you won't be able to watch a certain stream sometimes because of the limit where X amount of people are able to watch the stream from your country, or whatever it is. But i doubt that will happen. Well I know a lot of us would stop watching watching random players play games because honestly why would you pay to watch demslim ladder. I get paying for a MLG arena or something ( I did that), but I don't really like the idea of subscribering to watch video game content. what happens @ mlgs now that are using twitch? or any tournaments..... i bet u still gotta pay that 20 bucks to be ad free there now dont u
I think most people are probably subscribing to tournaments for higher quality stream rather than the ad free stream. So I imagine Turbo will still apply and will give you the ad free stream and tournaments will still charge to give out the higher quality options. (Not all tournaments)
|
On February 06 2013 00:43 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 15:53 FXOUnstable wrote:On February 05 2013 11:09 dae wrote:On February 05 2013 10:42 banzaiib wrote:
I use adblock, and I'm not sure why the vast majority of people don't. I'm not saying anyone should or should not use it, I'm just saying I fricking love it. yeah yeah... you can say, "well if everyone did that, there would be nothing to watch," but that isn't true. Twitch and youtube would just figure out a way around it. Bottom line is, adblock is not seriously enough affecting "impressions" to warrant doing anything about it directly... unless I'm completely wrong and twitch has yet to implement a solution, but I see this "subscription move" on twitch's part as evidence against that. They're simply making bank on the vast majority of peoples' ignorance of adblock and how to use it. I watched ads during the superbowl, because I couldn't block them, but 1/2 the time, i just muted the TV (they were pretty bad... I mean, how the hell was there a pistacio harvesting commercial during the damned superbowl... but I digress). Are you saying I shouldn't mute my TV? Same logic as saying I shouldn't use adblock. <shrug>
<3 You are wrong. Adblock is cutting ad revenue for the sites/streamers by way more then 50%. Cutting into it short term yes, long term no, making people watch ads just to support streamers when they have no intention of buying the products in the first place does nothing other than lower the CPM rate for the ad because the company isnt getting the return they expect. Example, company gets 1000 impressions, they expect $20 in sales from it, so the CPM will be $10 Lets say people stopped using adblock, and just watched to support, say its 20% of people do this. that turns this 1000 impressions into 800 because 200 are completely pointless and will never buy the product. This means that the company doesn't see a $20 sale, they see $16 so the next time they buy addspace they will lower the CPM to accomodate for the reduction in sales. This was a rough off the top of my head but you should get the point. In the long run let adblock people adblock but just tell them to piss off if they EVER ask for anything from the streamer or organisation running the stream because they are useless to them. Uhh, advertising doesn't work like that. It is a very nebulous investment for a company to make, and basically impossible for the company to determine whether the advertisement is paying off or not. Sure, there are some ads that have referral ID's when you click them to help the company track it, but the majority of Twitch ads are for things like cars, deodorant, McDonald's...there is no way for them to pinpoint their sales as accurately as you are describing.
You'd be astonished. Cue 'conversion pixel'.
Of course things like McDonalds are about raising awareness, not for generating clicks.
And about ecpm: A lot of ad inventory is being auctioned off in real-time auctions nowadays, with some bids being extremely high. I'm talking 100 dollars CPM high.
|
On February 05 2013 00:51 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 00:02 yorkey wrote:
I've recently read that twitch have announced a turbo feature to their site, which is a premium service in which you pay $8.99 a month to not see adverts on their site.
Now i'm based in the UK and i don't see this when i access twitch so is it just a US thing currently?
So firstly i'm wondering if this is actually a thing or if it's just very new.
I like the idea of this service but what i'm wondering is who does this money go to? I never block adverts on streams as i know it brings in some money to the streamer and i like to support them as much as possible.
So my worry is, if I was to buy this service do the streamers lose out on money from adverts i could be watching? Why pay them 8.99 per month when you can just use adblock? It's free.
Strong this^^
People are just going to use ad block, and the people that are subbed to individual channels will just pay the extra 2 dollars and get turbo. This is REALLY terrible for people who run sub based streams. I think this is really fucking a lot of streamers over, but in the end this is obviously not a very financially stable way of making money. So if you were relying on this for cash I think its best to further your education or job prospects.
|
The problem with subscribing to individual channels is you always get this situation where it's like "Hey guys! I will be streaming every day now that I got my new computer! Please subscribe!" and then they disappear for the rest of the month. Someone like Violet. People can get burned that way and may sour on the whole idea of subbing to individual gamers.
|
Well this thread certainly gives you a good idea of who actually intends to support esports and who's just leeching along for the ride.
|
On February 06 2013 01:17 theqat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 01:12 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 01:04 theqat wrote:On February 06 2013 00:52 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 00:17 theqat wrote:
Didn't you just say that "making a statement involving so highly how this will "still support" the players which is total crap if ur not using adblock in the first place this does absolutely 0 more for the players...."
I'm using adblock and will be in any circumstance without turbo so, by your own definition, wouldn't it support the players I view without a subscription? Would that not be doing them more good than me continuing to view their streams without a subscription and with adblock? because your probably the minority your viewing 1 add does not make up for the subscriber amounts that will most likely be lost because of this the people using adblock the MAJORITY by common sense will just keep using adblock for free rather than pay 9$ a month..... so i would assume the people using adblock that will somehow have a change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month are in my eyes going to be very few people... I think more people than you realize understand that twitch needs money to continue operating. Plenty of adblock + twitch users love twitch as much as the next person and would hate to see it go. Plenty of those people are no doubt happy to see a way to support twitch without having to view inconvenient, obnoxious ads. Neither of us know any figures from twitch that would suss out this issue, anyway. There's not much point in discussing it with my "I think" and your "your [sic] probably the minority." you guys are getting off topic, my arguement is about does this hurt the players or dosnt it...... and in my eyes this is worse for the players.... now your telling me twitch needs money to operate after stating that neither of us know any figures..... twitch as far as i can see has grown exponentially in the last couple of years and continues to gain more and more viewers and now has a monopoly on the video game streaming world for the next couple of months.... to suggest twitch is broke or in the path of becoming broke seems a little naive in my eyes... You started this by responding to my post on the previous page that is about my views on why twitch made this move and why it might be a good thing overall--nothing to do with the players--so you don't get to tell me that I'm off-topic. In any case you just got finished saying that you thought "very few people" would have a "change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month" and I explained to you why I thought it might be more than very few people. So it's at least partly your derail. It's far from clear that twitch is swimming in cash and the number of viewers they pull in when there isn't something huge going on pales in comparison to even very weak television shows. Do I know that they're in cash trouble? No, but I can reasonably expect that things aren't easy for them, especially since a competitor with a very similar model just went out of business. Do you think you could try writing your posts in a normal way? They are very difficult to read.
"a good thing overall nothing to do with the players" anything involved with a video game stream has EVERYTHING to do with the players.... and your comparing twitch to own3d when own3d was clearly making promises they couldn't keep we read the media friendly version of what happend at own3d..... who knows what really happend wasnt it stated this was mostly a management problem??? easy to pawn all of your fuck ups onto oh its a hard business to run and it costs a lot...... without the players u dont have a business so doing things like this that could potentially HURT there revenue prolly will not "be a good thing overall"
|
On February 06 2013 02:00 LiMEX17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 01:17 theqat wrote:On February 06 2013 01:12 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 01:04 theqat wrote:On February 06 2013 00:52 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 00:17 theqat wrote:
Didn't you just say that "making a statement involving so highly how this will "still support" the players which is total crap if ur not using adblock in the first place this does absolutely 0 more for the players...."
I'm using adblock and will be in any circumstance without turbo so, by your own definition, wouldn't it support the players I view without a subscription? Would that not be doing them more good than me continuing to view their streams without a subscription and with adblock? because your probably the minority your viewing 1 add does not make up for the subscriber amounts that will most likely be lost because of this the people using adblock the MAJORITY by common sense will just keep using adblock for free rather than pay 9$ a month..... so i would assume the people using adblock that will somehow have a change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month are in my eyes going to be very few people... I think more people than you realize understand that twitch needs money to continue operating. Plenty of adblock + twitch users love twitch as much as the next person and would hate to see it go. Plenty of those people are no doubt happy to see a way to support twitch without having to view inconvenient, obnoxious ads. Neither of us know any figures from twitch that would suss out this issue, anyway. There's not much point in discussing it with my "I think" and your "your [sic] probably the minority." you guys are getting off topic, my arguement is about does this hurt the players or dosnt it...... and in my eyes this is worse for the players.... now your telling me twitch needs money to operate after stating that neither of us know any figures..... twitch as far as i can see has grown exponentially in the last couple of years and continues to gain more and more viewers and now has a monopoly on the video game streaming world for the next couple of months.... to suggest twitch is broke or in the path of becoming broke seems a little naive in my eyes... You started this by responding to my post on the previous page that is about my views on why twitch made this move and why it might be a good thing overall--nothing to do with the players--so you don't get to tell me that I'm off-topic. In any case you just got finished saying that you thought "very few people" would have a "change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month" and I explained to you why I thought it might be more than very few people. So it's at least partly your derail. It's far from clear that twitch is swimming in cash and the number of viewers they pull in when there isn't something huge going on pales in comparison to even very weak television shows. Do I know that they're in cash trouble? No, but I can reasonably expect that things aren't easy for them, especially since a competitor with a very similar model just went out of business. Do you think you could try writing your posts in a normal way? They are very difficult to read. "a good thing overall nothing to do with the players" anything involved with a video game stream has EVERYTHING to do with the players.... and your comparing twitch to own3d when own3d was clearly making promises they couldn't keep we read the media friendly version of what happend at own3d..... who knows what really happend wasnt it stated this was mostly a management problem??? easy to pawn all of your fuck ups onto oh its a hard business to run and it costs a lot...... without the players u dont have a business so doing things like this that could potentially HURT there revenue prolly will not "be a good thing overall"
There are plenty of streams that have very little to do with the players--primarily ones brought to twitch by large organizations. I don't think 100k+ viewer LOL tournaments, 20k+ viewer SC2 tournaments, and all the rest of twitch's cash cows have much need for subscription fees. They are driven by cash from their sponsors, backers, and advertisers that get screen time during the actual games and on the broadcaster booth. Many of them don't even offer subscriptions through twitch. The percentage of channels that can't live without $5/mo from their viewers is quite tiny from what I can tell. It wasn't so long ago that twitch subscriptions didn't exist and everyone seemed to get along fine.
You're kind of getting all over the place here. I keep trying to address your points but I'm seeing a lot of goalpost-moving. Do you have a core point? I mean I know you said "no one can honestly say this is good for the streamers" but I'm not sure how you can claim to know that and how you can ignore twitch's well-being. I don't think it's possible to say categorically whether this is good or bad for the streamers yet. It looks like it will be good for low-viewercount streamers who didn't offer subscriptions (a huge percentage of the streaming population) and bad for high-viewercount streamers who did (a tiny percentage of the streaming population), so at worst it's a gray area. If you're only interested in discussing whether it's good for the streamers then I'm done with the discussion. Events must be discussed in their full context to be understood and that involves a lot more than just being shrill about "IS IT GOOD FOR THE STREAMERS" whether you like it or not.
|
On February 06 2013 02:13 theqat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 02:00 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 01:17 theqat wrote:On February 06 2013 01:12 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 01:04 theqat wrote:On February 06 2013 00:52 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 00:17 theqat wrote:
Didn't you just say that "making a statement involving so highly how this will "still support" the players which is total crap if ur not using adblock in the first place this does absolutely 0 more for the players...."
I'm using adblock and will be in any circumstance without turbo so, by your own definition, wouldn't it support the players I view without a subscription? Would that not be doing them more good than me continuing to view their streams without a subscription and with adblock? because your probably the minority your viewing 1 add does not make up for the subscriber amounts that will most likely be lost because of this the people using adblock the MAJORITY by common sense will just keep using adblock for free rather than pay 9$ a month..... so i would assume the people using adblock that will somehow have a change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month are in my eyes going to be very few people... I think more people than you realize understand that twitch needs money to continue operating. Plenty of adblock + twitch users love twitch as much as the next person and would hate to see it go. Plenty of those people are no doubt happy to see a way to support twitch without having to view inconvenient, obnoxious ads. Neither of us know any figures from twitch that would suss out this issue, anyway. There's not much point in discussing it with my "I think" and your "your [sic] probably the minority." you guys are getting off topic, my arguement is about does this hurt the players or dosnt it...... and in my eyes this is worse for the players.... now your telling me twitch needs money to operate after stating that neither of us know any figures..... twitch as far as i can see has grown exponentially in the last couple of years and continues to gain more and more viewers and now has a monopoly on the video game streaming world for the next couple of months.... to suggest twitch is broke or in the path of becoming broke seems a little naive in my eyes... You started this by responding to my post on the previous page that is about my views on why twitch made this move and why it might be a good thing overall--nothing to do with the players--so you don't get to tell me that I'm off-topic. In any case you just got finished saying that you thought "very few people" would have a "change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month" and I explained to you why I thought it might be more than very few people. So it's at least partly your derail. It's far from clear that twitch is swimming in cash and the number of viewers they pull in when there isn't something huge going on pales in comparison to even very weak television shows. Do I know that they're in cash trouble? No, but I can reasonably expect that things aren't easy for them, especially since a competitor with a very similar model just went out of business. Do you think you could try writing your posts in a normal way? They are very difficult to read. "a good thing overall nothing to do with the players" anything involved with a video game stream has EVERYTHING to do with the players.... and your comparing twitch to own3d when own3d was clearly making promises they couldn't keep we read the media friendly version of what happend at own3d..... who knows what really happend wasnt it stated this was mostly a management problem??? easy to pawn all of your fuck ups onto oh its a hard business to run and it costs a lot...... without the players u dont have a business so doing things like this that could potentially HURT there revenue prolly will not "be a good thing overall" There are plenty of streams that have very little to do with the players--primarily ones brought to twitch by large organizations. I don't think 100k+ viewer LOL tournaments, 20k+ viewer SC2 tournaments, and all the rest of twitch's cash cows have much need for subscription fees. They are driven by cash from their sponsors and backers. Many of them don't even offer subscriptions through twitch. The percentage of channels that can't live without $5/mo from their viewers is quite tiny from what I can tell. It wasn't so long ago that twitch subscriptions didn't exist and everyone seemed to get along fine. You're kind of getting all over the place here. I keep trying to address your points but I'm seeing a lot of goalpost-moving. Do you have a core point? I mean I know you said "no one can honestly say this is good for the streamers" but I'm not sure how you can claim to know that and how you can ignore twitch's well-being. I don't think it's possible to say categorically whether this is good or bad for the streamers yet. It looks like it will be good for low-viewercount streamers who didn't offer subscriptions (a huge percentage of the streaming population) and bad for high-viewercount streamers who did (a tiny percentage of the streaming population), so at worst it's a gray area. If you're only interested in discussing whether it's good for the streamers then I'm done with the discussion. Events must be discussed in their full context to be understood and that involves a lot more than just being shrill about "IS IT GOOD FOR THE STREAMERS" whether you like it or not.
my core point is this, the main streamers the popular ones the ones we all love to watch, the ones that are semi reliant on subscribers..... are the ones that are gonna get hurt you know the "tiny percentage".... they are the ones that are gonna lose subscribers over this... the "huge percentage" are the ones that are just streaming to be known..... the ones not reliant on streaming as a revenue whatsoever... the ones where it dosnt effect them is because they arent doing this as a job in the first place?....
|
I only use adblock for twitch because I don't watch a lot of streams. I don't want to spend a lot of my time watching ads moreso than the stream itself.
|
On February 06 2013 02:13 theqat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 02:00 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 01:17 theqat wrote:On February 06 2013 01:12 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 01:04 theqat wrote:On February 06 2013 00:52 LiMEX17 wrote:On February 06 2013 00:17 theqat wrote:
Didn't you just say that "making a statement involving so highly how this will "still support" the players which is total crap if ur not using adblock in the first place this does absolutely 0 more for the players...."
I'm using adblock and will be in any circumstance without turbo so, by your own definition, wouldn't it support the players I view without a subscription? Would that not be doing them more good than me continuing to view their streams without a subscription and with adblock? because your probably the minority your viewing 1 add does not make up for the subscriber amounts that will most likely be lost because of this the people using adblock the MAJORITY by common sense will just keep using adblock for free rather than pay 9$ a month..... so i would assume the people using adblock that will somehow have a change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month are in my eyes going to be very few people... I think more people than you realize understand that twitch needs money to continue operating. Plenty of adblock + twitch users love twitch as much as the next person and would hate to see it go. Plenty of those people are no doubt happy to see a way to support twitch without having to view inconvenient, obnoxious ads. Neither of us know any figures from twitch that would suss out this issue, anyway. There's not much point in discussing it with my "I think" and your "your [sic] probably the minority." you guys are getting off topic, my arguement is about does this hurt the players or dosnt it...... and in my eyes this is worse for the players.... now your telling me twitch needs money to operate after stating that neither of us know any figures..... twitch as far as i can see has grown exponentially in the last couple of years and continues to gain more and more viewers and now has a monopoly on the video game streaming world for the next couple of months.... to suggest twitch is broke or in the path of becoming broke seems a little naive in my eyes... You started this by responding to my post on the previous page that is about my views on why twitch made this move and why it might be a good thing overall--nothing to do with the players--so you don't get to tell me that I'm off-topic. In any case you just got finished saying that you thought "very few people" would have a "change of heart and decide rather to pay 9$ a month" and I explained to you why I thought it might be more than very few people. So it's at least partly your derail. It's far from clear that twitch is swimming in cash and the number of viewers they pull in when there isn't something huge going on pales in comparison to even very weak television shows. Do I know that they're in cash trouble? No, but I can reasonably expect that things aren't easy for them, especially since a competitor with a very similar model just went out of business. Do you think you could try writing your posts in a normal way? They are very difficult to read. "a good thing overall nothing to do with the players" anything involved with a video game stream has EVERYTHING to do with the players.... and your comparing twitch to own3d when own3d was clearly making promises they couldn't keep we read the media friendly version of what happend at own3d..... who knows what really happend wasnt it stated this was mostly a management problem??? easy to pawn all of your fuck ups onto oh its a hard business to run and it costs a lot...... without the players u dont have a business so doing things like this that could potentially HURT there revenue prolly will not "be a good thing overall" There are plenty of streams that have very little to do with the players--primarily ones brought to twitch by large organizations. I don't think 100k+ viewer LOL tournaments, 20k+ viewer SC2 tournaments, and all the rest of twitch's cash cows have much need for subscription fees. They are driven by cash from their sponsors, backers, and advertisers that get screen time during the actual games and on the broadcaster booth. Many of them don't even offer subscriptions through twitch. The percentage of channels that can't live without $5/mo from their viewers is quite tiny from what I can tell. It wasn't so long ago that twitch subscriptions didn't exist and everyone seemed to get along fine. You're kind of getting all over the place here. I keep trying to address your points but I'm seeing a lot of goalpost-moving. Do you have a core point? I mean I know you said "no one can honestly say this is good for the streamers" but I'm not sure how you can claim to know that and how you can ignore twitch's well-being. I don't think it's possible to say categorically whether this is good or bad for the streamers yet. It looks like it will be good for low-viewercount streamers who didn't offer subscriptions (a huge percentage of the streaming population) and bad for high-viewercount streamers who did (a tiny percentage of the streaming population), so at worst it's a gray area. If you're only interested in discussing whether it's good for the streamers then I'm done with the discussion. Events must be discussed in their full context to be understood and that involves a lot more than just being shrill about "IS IT GOOD FOR THE STREAMERS" whether you like it or not.
anyways lets just see what happens if you wanna support it support it... i find it as a greedy move with the potential of hurting players Its nice for twitch to give the option of not having ads but for 9$ a month its a rip off in my eyes especially considering there is a "free alternative". using adblock is pointless and having this is pointless players dont do anything while ads are on and neither do shows or tournaments..... so not having the first ad is fine but the rest of it dosnt even matter theres no content to be watched during them regardless
|
It would be extraordinarily poor planning to rely on twitch-type income for your entire living with no backup plan. I don't really have any sympathy for someone who makes that choice unless twitch explicitly misled them. Just the facts that streamers aren't privy to twitch's financial figures or participants in meetings on the future path of the company makes it a very, very foolish idea.
In any case, quite a few streamers were doing all right financially before subscriptions existed, and there's not much reason to think that this would be much more than an income adjustment for that type of streamer.
using adblock is pointless and having this is pointless players dont do anything while ads are on and neither do shows or tournaments..... so not having the first ad is fine but the rest of it dosnt even matter theres no content to be watched during them regardless
This is categorically untrue and my post on the previous page already explained why. If there was no point, people wouldn't use adblock. The "point" of adblock is convenience--the convenience of not having to constantly adjust your volume, not having to hear something that jarringly interrupts the flow of whatever else you're listening to, not having to view advertising in the first place, and on and on. Maybe you've never noticed, but most advertising has a particular tone of trying to sell you something. To me it's very grating; I don't want to hear it and I'll go to some lengths to avoid it. Ads are extremely annoying to many people and your understanding of the situation would be enhanced if you'd acknowledge that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
