|
On February 10 2013 19:03 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 18:28 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 18:13 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 18:03 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 12:05 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 07:32 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 07:27 crms wrote:On February 09 2013 23:17 Martijn wrote:On February 09 2013 23:14 Fingerpin wrote:
The 10 dollars for Twitch Turbo goes to Twitch only. The streamers do not get a cut from that pot.
You do not support the streamers buying turbo, you're supporting Twitch.
It's important that people understands this. Except if you were previously adblocking, in which case, you're now giving the streamers ad-revenue they weren't getting previously and supporting the streamers. It's important to think things through and not misrepresent things. You're right but that level of 'support' is negligible. It's like really, really, really not even worth considering. You know how much money adblock costs us? It's a huge chunk. If even just 1% of the people adblocking would have turbo, we'd feel it. Maybe, but it's still worse than 0.01% of those people subscribing to your channel. Good thing a majority of streamers didn't use subscriptions. Most big events don't either. It's still true that buying Turbo does not support the streamers in any way. If you are using adblock and you want to support the streamers, you could just turn off adblock. Buying Turbo is a second option but none of that money benefits your favorite streamers. You can make the case that Turbo is a net positive for stream income and I won't argue with you, but that doesn't change the fact that Twitch could have implemented it in a way where more money goes to the streamers, but instead chose the greediest possible route. Turbo gives ad revenue to streamers even from people with ad block. This means streamers get more money, and supports the streamers. What you're arguing is purely semantics. It doesn't really matter how the money gets to the streamers, just that it does. Your statement that buying Turbo supports the streamers is completely false, it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity beyond what you could've done if you simply disabled Adblock for their stream.
But if you disable adblock you will have ads.
Getting turbo will support the streamers, and you wont see ads.
I watch tons of streams so subbing for them all is not an option.
Turbo is a great choice for me and people like me.
|
On February 05 2013 02:21 Al Bundy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 02:17 dubRa wrote:On February 05 2013 02:06 Al Bundy wrote:On February 05 2013 02:01 GogoKodo wrote:On February 05 2013 01:57 Al Bundy wrote:
Gotta love the fact that we have to PAY in order to NOT watch ads. Feels like i'm in business with the Mafia here Mafia, what? They aren't going to break your kneecaps if you don't pay. This is a pretty regular way of monetizing things. Well, that's not a very honest way to do business if you ask me. Back in the days, when people wanted to avoid ads, they simply switched channels. Anyway, there are a lot of foolish people on the internet who are willing to pay for stuff they can get for free, so GLHF to twitch. The back in the day attitude is what holds back innovation. Freemium is much more beneficial to a growing scene than a paywall. See MLG Arenas. The real ''innovation" would be to broadcast tournaments on an actual TV channel, like the koreans do. There, ads make perfect sense.
You're trolling, right? Nobody can actually be this stupid.
How do ads somehow make more sense on a TV channel than on a stream? In either case they're providing you the same content and during the breaks they advertise their sponsors. It's a win-win-win, you get your tournaments, the companies running them don't go broke, and the sponsors get to advertise.
|
France1920 Posts
|
On February 10 2013 19:03 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 18:28 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 18:13 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 18:03 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 12:05 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 07:32 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 07:27 crms wrote:On February 09 2013 23:17 Martijn wrote:On February 09 2013 23:14 Fingerpin wrote:
The 10 dollars for Twitch Turbo goes to Twitch only. The streamers do not get a cut from that pot.
You do not support the streamers buying turbo, you're supporting Twitch.
It's important that people understands this. Except if you were previously adblocking, in which case, you're now giving the streamers ad-revenue they weren't getting previously and supporting the streamers. It's important to think things through and not misrepresent things. You're right but that level of 'support' is negligible. It's like really, really, really not even worth considering. You know how much money adblock costs us? It's a huge chunk. If even just 1% of the people adblocking would have turbo, we'd feel it. Maybe, but it's still worse than 0.01% of those people subscribing to your channel. Good thing a majority of streamers didn't use subscriptions. Most big events don't either. It's still true that buying Turbo does not support the streamers in any way. If you are using adblock and you want to support the streamers, you could just turn off adblock. Buying Turbo is a second option but none of that money benefits your favorite streamers. You can make the case that Turbo is a net positive for stream income and I won't argue with you, but that doesn't change the fact that Twitch could have implemented it in a way where more money goes to the streamers, but instead chose the greediest possible route. Turbo gives ad revenue to streamers even from people with ad block. This means streamers get more money, and supports the streamers. What you're arguing is purely semantics. It doesn't really matter how the money gets to the streamers, just that it does. That's nonsense. I'm arguing that Twitch could have implemented something like a referral program, where users can sign up for Turbo through a streamer's page, and that streamer gets 10% of the monthly revenue. This would give incentive for streamers to plug Turbo, as opposed to the way it is now where it is merely a burden on streamers with subscription bases. The only reason Twitch wouldn't consider something like this is because they no longer have any competition. Your statement that buying Turbo supports the streamers is completely false, it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity beyond what you could've done if you simply disabled Adblock for their stream. And by the way, you have absolutely no evidence that this is even going to bring streamers more revenue overall. It is most likely going to be a negligible gain for most streamers and a massive hit for a few. I personally believe that the net loss will outweigh the gain, but again, nobody really knows for sure.
"Your statement..is completely false."
"it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity"
"beyond if you simply disabled Adblock"
You can't make an absolute statement and then follow it up with the reason it's wrong.
You're saying, and I quote "Turbo does not support the streamers in any way". In any way. Yet it's quite obvious that for people that don't want ads and still feel streamers should get revenue from their viewership, this is a perfectly fine option.
We can argue the benefits of Turbo. We can argue about whether there's enough value to convince enough people. We can argue about whether the revenue from previous adblockers makes up for lost subscriptions. But you can't argue that it doesn't support streamers at all, because that's simply not true. You yourself have implied as much.
On February 10 2013 19:10 Sea_Food wrote:
There are people who think this is a good thing lol.
Athene was right. Because we destroyed own3d twitch now has a sort of monopoly which is always a bad thing, no exceptions. Even if you think this update causes no harm, you will see updates that u will agree are bad aswell.
This will not end here.
Own3d destroyed Own3d, no one else.
|
On February 11 2013 01:28 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 19:03 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 18:28 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 18:13 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 18:03 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 12:05 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 07:32 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 07:27 crms wrote:On February 09 2013 23:17 Martijn wrote:On February 09 2013 23:14 Fingerpin wrote:
The 10 dollars for Twitch Turbo goes to Twitch only. The streamers do not get a cut from that pot.
You do not support the streamers buying turbo, you're supporting Twitch.
It's important that people understands this. Except if you were previously adblocking, in which case, you're now giving the streamers ad-revenue they weren't getting previously and supporting the streamers. It's important to think things through and not misrepresent things. You're right but that level of 'support' is negligible. It's like really, really, really not even worth considering. You know how much money adblock costs us? It's a huge chunk. If even just 1% of the people adblocking would have turbo, we'd feel it. Maybe, but it's still worse than 0.01% of those people subscribing to your channel. Good thing a majority of streamers didn't use subscriptions. Most big events don't either. It's still true that buying Turbo does not support the streamers in any way. If you are using adblock and you want to support the streamers, you could just turn off adblock. Buying Turbo is a second option but none of that money benefits your favorite streamers. You can make the case that Turbo is a net positive for stream income and I won't argue with you, but that doesn't change the fact that Twitch could have implemented it in a way where more money goes to the streamers, but instead chose the greediest possible route. Turbo gives ad revenue to streamers even from people with ad block. This means streamers get more money, and supports the streamers. What you're arguing is purely semantics. It doesn't really matter how the money gets to the streamers, just that it does. That's nonsense. I'm arguing that Twitch could have implemented something like a referral program, where users can sign up for Turbo through a streamer's page, and that streamer gets 10% of the monthly revenue. This would give incentive for streamers to plug Turbo, as opposed to the way it is now where it is merely a burden on streamers with subscription bases. The only reason Twitch wouldn't consider something like this is because they no longer have any competition. Your statement that buying Turbo supports the streamers is completely false, it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity beyond what you could've done if you simply disabled Adblock for their stream. And by the way, you have absolutely no evidence that this is even going to bring streamers more revenue overall. It is most likely going to be a negligible gain for most streamers and a massive hit for a few. I personally believe that the net loss will outweigh the gain, but again, nobody really knows for sure. "Your statement..is completely false." "it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity" "beyond if you simply disabled Adblock" You can't make an absolute statement and then follow it up with the reason it's wrong. You're saying, and I quote "Turbo does not support the streamers in any way". In any way. Yet it's quite obvious that for people that don't want ads and still feel streamers should get revenue from their viewership, this is a perfectly fine option. We can argue the benefits of Turbo. We can argue about whether there's enough value to convince enough people. We can argue about whether the revenue from previous adblockers makes up for lost subscriptions. But you can't argue that it doesn't support streamers at all, because that's simply not true. You yourself have implied as much.
If you keep Adblock on and donate $1 to any streamer, you are supporting streamers much more than if you pay $8.99 for Turbo. It's depressing to hear about people who used Adblock and have now switched to Turbo to clear their conscience, because they don't realize how badly Twitch is shafting its streamers with this system. Twitch is guilt tripping them into believing Turbo is the best solution to not see ads+still give money to streamers, and that is simply far from the truth.
And no, nothing you have said indicates that Turbo supports the streamers. Disabling adblock supports the streamers. Turbo allows you to disable adblock without seeing ads. It's perhaps the single positive benefit that Turbo creates, and there are also many negative ones which you are choosing not to weigh in the statement that "Turbo supports the streamers".
|
On February 09 2013 16:46 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 03:06 Yoshi- wrote:On February 09 2013 03:05 Martijn wrote:On February 09 2013 02:52 Yoshi- wrote:On February 08 2013 01:27 Martijn wrote:On February 08 2013 01:19 Cel.erity wrote:On February 08 2013 01:16 Lash- wrote:
Only time will tell us wether this is good or bad for them streamers Why would it be good for them? If a significant number of people that adblock buy turbo, it's great for streamers. Actually, it's great for 99.99% of the streamers regardless because they don't use subscribers. If it's a considerable number, then even the streamers with subscribers benefit. Why would anyone that uses adblock anyway buy turbo? To support the players/streamers. Which is wishful thinking and will rarely happen and buying subscription to the channels will certainly help the streamers more than twitch turbo. Buying multiple subscriptions is costly, likely outside of the budget of many people. Turbo is more reasonable for many. You can say it's wishful thinking, but I adblocked and now have turbo. Surely I'm not the only one.
And you really think it's going to be the same for the streamers? less money flowing so less money will go to the streamers. This turbo is something that will only work with a higher volume, and it's what they are trying, to sell in huge volumes. But looking at the actual benefits and poor marketing of this new initiative I don't think that will happen.
|
On February 11 2013 02:11 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 01:28 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 19:03 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 18:28 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 18:13 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 18:03 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 12:05 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 07:32 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 07:27 crms wrote:On February 09 2013 23:17 Martijn wrote:
[quote]
Except if you were previously adblocking, in which case, you're now giving the streamers ad-revenue they weren't getting previously and supporting the streamers. It's important to think things through and not misrepresent things. You're right but that level of 'support' is negligible. It's like really, really, really not even worth considering. You know how much money adblock costs us? It's a huge chunk. If even just 1% of the people adblocking would have turbo, we'd feel it. Maybe, but it's still worse than 0.01% of those people subscribing to your channel. Good thing a majority of streamers didn't use subscriptions. Most big events don't either. It's still true that buying Turbo does not support the streamers in any way. If you are using adblock and you want to support the streamers, you could just turn off adblock. Buying Turbo is a second option but none of that money benefits your favorite streamers. You can make the case that Turbo is a net positive for stream income and I won't argue with you, but that doesn't change the fact that Twitch could have implemented it in a way where more money goes to the streamers, but instead chose the greediest possible route. Turbo gives ad revenue to streamers even from people with ad block. This means streamers get more money, and supports the streamers. What you're arguing is purely semantics. It doesn't really matter how the money gets to the streamers, just that it does. That's nonsense. I'm arguing that Twitch could have implemented something like a referral program, where users can sign up for Turbo through a streamer's page, and that streamer gets 10% of the monthly revenue. This would give incentive for streamers to plug Turbo, as opposed to the way it is now where it is merely a burden on streamers with subscription bases. The only reason Twitch wouldn't consider something like this is because they no longer have any competition. Your statement that buying Turbo supports the streamers is completely false, it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity beyond what you could've done if you simply disabled Adblock for their stream. And by the way, you have absolutely no evidence that this is even going to bring streamers more revenue overall. It is most likely going to be a negligible gain for most streamers and a massive hit for a few. I personally believe that the net loss will outweigh the gain, but again, nobody really knows for sure. "Your statement..is completely false." "it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity" "beyond if you simply disabled Adblock" You can't make an absolute statement and then follow it up with the reason it's wrong. You're saying, and I quote "Turbo does not support the streamers in any way". In any way. Yet it's quite obvious that for people that don't want ads and still feel streamers should get revenue from their viewership, this is a perfectly fine option. We can argue the benefits of Turbo. We can argue about whether there's enough value to convince enough people. We can argue about whether the revenue from previous adblockers makes up for lost subscriptions. But you can't argue that it doesn't support streamers at all, because that's simply not true. You yourself have implied as much. If you keep Adblock on and donate $1 to any streamer, you are supporting streamers much more than if you pay $8.99 for Turbo. It's depressing to hear about people who used Adblock and have now switched to Turbo to clear their conscience, because they don't realize how badly Twitch is shafting its streamers with this system. Twitch is guilt tripping them into believing Turbo is the best solution to not see ads+still give money to streamers, and that is simply far from the truth. And no, nothing you have said indicates that Turbo supports the streamers. Disabling adblock supports the streamers. Turbo allows you to disable adblock without seeing ads. It's perhaps the single positive benefit that Turbo creates, and there are also many negative ones which you are choosing not to weigh in the statement that "Turbo supports the streamers".
Yes, donating $1 to any streamer I watch would support them more than buying turbo. With the amount of different streams I watch that is however absolutely unrealistic and unreasonable. Think for a second how many different streams a lot of us pass by during a whole month.
But even then that is completely besides the point. That's the degree to which you support the streamers. If you want to say that direct subscriptions support streamers more, that's an argument you can make and we'd have to check the numbers to see where it ends up overall. You can't say something doesn't support streamers and then say "this supports them more" which inherently implies that it does support streamers.
Turbo isn't for everyone and doesn't benefit everyone equally. People that use subscriptions, people that only depend on a group of regular viewers that will buy subscriptions and that don't get many irregular viewers will more than likely see a decrease. But for every streamer that doesn't use subscriptions and that depends on viewers that tune in occasionally and wouldn't buy subscription this is very beneficial.
I never said we can't argue about whether the benefit outweighs the cost, seeming no one has the numbers, that's a fair point to debate. You however can't in one breath say Turbo doesn't support streamers and argue about how much Turbo supports streamers.
On February 11 2013 02:17 Cinim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 16:46 Martijn wrote:On February 09 2013 03:06 Yoshi- wrote:On February 09 2013 03:05 Martijn wrote:On February 09 2013 02:52 Yoshi- wrote:On February 08 2013 01:27 Martijn wrote:On February 08 2013 01:19 Cel.erity wrote:On February 08 2013 01:16 Lash- wrote:
Only time will tell us wether this is good or bad for them streamers Why would it be good for them? If a significant number of people that adblock buy turbo, it's great for streamers. Actually, it's great for 99.99% of the streamers regardless because they don't use subscribers. If it's a considerable number, then even the streamers with subscribers benefit. Why would anyone that uses adblock anyway buy turbo? To support the players/streamers. Which is wishful thinking and will rarely happen and buying subscription to the channels will certainly help the streamers more than twitch turbo. Buying multiple subscriptions is costly, likely outside of the budget of many people. Turbo is more reasonable for many. You can say it's wishful thinking, but I adblocked and now have turbo. Surely I'm not the only one. And you really think it's going to be the same for the streamers? less money flowing so less money will go to the streamers. This turbo is something that will only work with a higher volume, and it's what they are trying, to sell in huge volumes. But looking at the actual benefits and poor marketing of this new initiative I don't think that will happen.
I know that regardless of what event I'm streaming, be it IEM or DH or whatever, every person that normally uses adblock and also has Turbo is one extra impression. So obviously, the more of those, the better for me as a streamer. People saying it doesn't support streamers, discouraging others from getting it, and telling people to just keep using adblock as such have a negative effect on me as a streamer.
|
On February 11 2013 02:11 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 01:28 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 19:03 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 18:28 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 18:13 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 18:03 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 12:05 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 07:32 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 07:27 crms wrote:On February 09 2013 23:17 Martijn wrote:
[quote]
Except if you were previously adblocking, in which case, you're now giving the streamers ad-revenue they weren't getting previously and supporting the streamers. It's important to think things through and not misrepresent things. You're right but that level of 'support' is negligible. It's like really, really, really not even worth considering. You know how much money adblock costs us? It's a huge chunk. If even just 1% of the people adblocking would have turbo, we'd feel it. Maybe, but it's still worse than 0.01% of those people subscribing to your channel. Good thing a majority of streamers didn't use subscriptions. Most big events don't either. It's still true that buying Turbo does not support the streamers in any way. If you are using adblock and you want to support the streamers, you could just turn off adblock. Buying Turbo is a second option but none of that money benefits your favorite streamers. You can make the case that Turbo is a net positive for stream income and I won't argue with you, but that doesn't change the fact that Twitch could have implemented it in a way where more money goes to the streamers, but instead chose the greediest possible route. Turbo gives ad revenue to streamers even from people with ad block. This means streamers get more money, and supports the streamers. What you're arguing is purely semantics. It doesn't really matter how the money gets to the streamers, just that it does. That's nonsense. I'm arguing that Twitch could have implemented something like a referral program, where users can sign up for Turbo through a streamer's page, and that streamer gets 10% of the monthly revenue. This would give incentive for streamers to plug Turbo, as opposed to the way it is now where it is merely a burden on streamers with subscription bases. The only reason Twitch wouldn't consider something like this is because they no longer have any competition. Your statement that buying Turbo supports the streamers is completely false, it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity beyond what you could've done if you simply disabled Adblock for their stream. And by the way, you have absolutely no evidence that this is even going to bring streamers more revenue overall. It is most likely going to be a negligible gain for most streamers and a massive hit for a few. I personally believe that the net loss will outweigh the gain, but again, nobody really knows for sure. "Your statement..is completely false." "it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity" "beyond if you simply disabled Adblock" You can't make an absolute statement and then follow it up with the reason it's wrong. You're saying, and I quote "Turbo does not support the streamers in any way". In any way. Yet it's quite obvious that for people that don't want ads and still feel streamers should get revenue from their viewership, this is a perfectly fine option. We can argue the benefits of Turbo. We can argue about whether there's enough value to convince enough people. We can argue about whether the revenue from previous adblockers makes up for lost subscriptions. But you can't argue that it doesn't support streamers at all, because that's simply not true. You yourself have implied as much. "If you keep Adblock on and donate $1 to any streamer, you are supporting streamers much more than if you pay $8.99 for Turbo. " " Disabling adblock supports the streamers. " "there are also many negative ones which you are choosing not to weigh in the statement"
-So Im supposed to give $1 to every stream I watch?
-For the streamer, me using Turbo is exactly the same as me disabling adblock.
-What negative things?
|
On February 11 2013 02:41 sekalf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 02:11 Cel.erity wrote:On February 11 2013 01:28 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 19:03 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 18:28 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 18:13 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 18:03 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 12:05 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 07:32 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 07:27 crms wrote:
[quote]
You're right but that level of 'support' is negligible. It's like really, really, really not even worth considering. You know how much money adblock costs us? It's a huge chunk. If even just 1% of the people adblocking would have turbo, we'd feel it. Maybe, but it's still worse than 0.01% of those people subscribing to your channel. Good thing a majority of streamers didn't use subscriptions. Most big events don't either. It's still true that buying Turbo does not support the streamers in any way. If you are using adblock and you want to support the streamers, you could just turn off adblock. Buying Turbo is a second option but none of that money benefits your favorite streamers. You can make the case that Turbo is a net positive for stream income and I won't argue with you, but that doesn't change the fact that Twitch could have implemented it in a way where more money goes to the streamers, but instead chose the greediest possible route. Turbo gives ad revenue to streamers even from people with ad block. This means streamers get more money, and supports the streamers. What you're arguing is purely semantics. It doesn't really matter how the money gets to the streamers, just that it does. That's nonsense. I'm arguing that Twitch could have implemented something like a referral program, where users can sign up for Turbo through a streamer's page, and that streamer gets 10% of the monthly revenue. This would give incentive for streamers to plug Turbo, as opposed to the way it is now where it is merely a burden on streamers with subscription bases. The only reason Twitch wouldn't consider something like this is because they no longer have any competition. Your statement that buying Turbo supports the streamers is completely false, it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity beyond what you could've done if you simply disabled Adblock for their stream. And by the way, you have absolutely no evidence that this is even going to bring streamers more revenue overall. It is most likely going to be a negligible gain for most streamers and a massive hit for a few. I personally believe that the net loss will outweigh the gain, but again, nobody really knows for sure. "Your statement..is completely false." "it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity" "beyond if you simply disabled Adblock" You can't make an absolute statement and then follow it up with the reason it's wrong. You're saying, and I quote "Turbo does not support the streamers in any way". In any way. Yet it's quite obvious that for people that don't want ads and still feel streamers should get revenue from their viewership, this is a perfectly fine option. We can argue the benefits of Turbo. We can argue about whether there's enough value to convince enough people. We can argue about whether the revenue from previous adblockers makes up for lost subscriptions. But you can't argue that it doesn't support streamers at all, because that's simply not true. You yourself have implied as much. "If you keep Adblock on and donate $1 to any streamer, you are supporting streamers much more than if you pay $8.99 for Turbo. " " Disabling adblock supports the streamers. " "there are also many negative ones which you are choosing not to weigh in the statement" -So Im supposed to give $1 to every stream I watch? -For the streamer, me using Turbo is exactly the same as me disabling adblock. -What negative things?
No, you're supposed to give $1 to any streamer, your favorite streamer. Nobody watches $1 worth of commercials per month unless they're watching multiple streams all day every day. It's better to support streamers by donating anything to them directly than subscribing to Turbo, and that's the main problem. Most viewers don't understand this and the Turbo cost comes out of their direct donation budget.
|
On February 11 2013 07:04 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 02:41 sekalf wrote:On February 11 2013 02:11 Cel.erity wrote:On February 11 2013 01:28 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 19:03 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 18:28 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 18:13 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 18:03 Martijn wrote:On February 10 2013 12:05 Cel.erity wrote:On February 10 2013 07:32 Martijn wrote:
[quote]
You know how much money adblock costs us? It's a huge chunk. If even just 1% of the people adblocking would have turbo, we'd feel it. Maybe, but it's still worse than 0.01% of those people subscribing to your channel. Good thing a majority of streamers didn't use subscriptions. Most big events don't either. It's still true that buying Turbo does not support the streamers in any way. If you are using adblock and you want to support the streamers, you could just turn off adblock. Buying Turbo is a second option but none of that money benefits your favorite streamers. You can make the case that Turbo is a net positive for stream income and I won't argue with you, but that doesn't change the fact that Twitch could have implemented it in a way where more money goes to the streamers, but instead chose the greediest possible route. Turbo gives ad revenue to streamers even from people with ad block. This means streamers get more money, and supports the streamers. What you're arguing is purely semantics. It doesn't really matter how the money gets to the streamers, just that it does. That's nonsense. I'm arguing that Twitch could have implemented something like a referral program, where users can sign up for Turbo through a streamer's page, and that streamer gets 10% of the monthly revenue. This would give incentive for streamers to plug Turbo, as opposed to the way it is now where it is merely a burden on streamers with subscription bases. The only reason Twitch wouldn't consider something like this is because they no longer have any competition. Your statement that buying Turbo supports the streamers is completely false, it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity beyond what you could've done if you simply disabled Adblock for their stream. And by the way, you have absolutely no evidence that this is even going to bring streamers more revenue overall. It is most likely going to be a negligible gain for most streamers and a massive hit for a few. I personally believe that the net loss will outweigh the gain, but again, nobody really knows for sure. "Your statement..is completely false." "it doesn't support the streamers in any capacity" "beyond if you simply disabled Adblock" You can't make an absolute statement and then follow it up with the reason it's wrong. You're saying, and I quote "Turbo does not support the streamers in any way". In any way. Yet it's quite obvious that for people that don't want ads and still feel streamers should get revenue from their viewership, this is a perfectly fine option. We can argue the benefits of Turbo. We can argue about whether there's enough value to convince enough people. We can argue about whether the revenue from previous adblockers makes up for lost subscriptions. But you can't argue that it doesn't support streamers at all, because that's simply not true. You yourself have implied as much. "If you keep Adblock on and donate $1 to any streamer, you are supporting streamers much more than if you pay $8.99 for Turbo. " " Disabling adblock supports the streamers. " "there are also many negative ones which you are choosing not to weigh in the statement" -So Im supposed to give $1 to every stream I watch? -For the streamer, me using Turbo is exactly the same as me disabling adblock. -What negative things? No, you're supposed to give $1 to any streamer, your favorite streamer. Nobody watches $1 worth of commercials per month unless they're watching multiple streams all day every day. It's better to support streamers by donating anything to them directly than subscribing to Turbo, and that's the main problem. Most viewers don't understand this and the Turbo cost comes out of their direct donation budget.
So why reward 1 streamer instead of the many different ones I watch? How is that fair to tournaments that run one weekend every few months, or how is that fair to the little guy that people tune into irregularly?
Of course sending money directly is more efficient. Adopting a kitten from the street is also more efficient than paying some charity that takes care of street animals. There's overhead, expenses. Yeah everyone could adblock and use direct donations to by-pass twitch completely, but how long before it goes the way of own3d then?
Like you said "turning off adblock is a way to support streamers", buying Turbo supports streamers equivalently and you don't have to watch ads.
|
I think you're both arguing from different perspective (semantics). What Celerity seems to mean that turbo does not support the streamer in any meaningful way, and so far I seem to agree. If you reduce the subscription numbers of streamers because turbo becomes more favorable, it would be nigh impossible for the vast majority of streamers to recoup such losses just by having your turbo viewers leave impressions.
Let's do some very rudimentary, basic math, yes?
If a previously subscribed person joins turbo instead it would result in -$2.50/month for that previously subscribed stream. (I believe streamers get 50% of sub fee, might be wrong).
To make up that $2.50 from just that 1 subscriper switching, that turbo user would have to leave between ~1,000-2,500 impressions on that individuals stream, per month. That, to say the least, that isn't going to happen. In fact, that user won't leave 1,000 to 2,500 impressions on all of twitch.tv per month, so the end result for streamers will be a loss, but for twitch (8.99month) a net gain.
I understand ad-block cuts into profits quite significantly when you look at the community as a whole but the 'turbo' impressions have absolutely no chance to make a significant impact on streamer income and if the turbo features cause individual streamers to lose just a handful of subscribers, it would be down right devastating and an unrecoupable loss for MOST streamers.
So while the turbo users may 'help' those streamers you watch that you would never sub because you're giving impressions, the assistance is negligible where the fallout (potential lost subscribers to streamers) results in a net loss for the streamers on twitch. The numbers just don't addup for it to be a net gain for streamers. However, it will be a huge net gain for twitch.tv.
|
On February 12 2013 07:19 crms wrote:
I think you're both arguing from different perspective (semantics). What Celerity seems to mean that turbo does not support the streamer in any meaningful way, and so far I seem to agree. If you reduce the subscription numbers of streamers because turbo becomes more favorable, it would be nigh impossible for the vast majority of streamers to recoup such losses just by having your turbo viewers leave impressions.
Let's do some very rudimentary, basic math, yes?
If a previously subscribed person joins turbo instead it would result in -$2.50/month for that previously subscribed stream. (I believe streamers get 50% of sub fee, might be wrong).
To make up that $2.50 from just that 1 subscriper switching, that turbo user would have to leave between ~1,000-2,500 impressions on that individuals stream, per month. That, to say the least, that isn't going to happen. In fact, that user won't leave 1,000 to 2,500 impressions on all of twitch.tv per month, so the end result for streamers will be a loss, but for twitch (8.99month) a net gain.
I understand ad-block cuts into profits quite significantly when you look at the community as a whole but the 'turbo' impressions have absolutely no chance to make a significant impact on streamer income and if the turbo features cause individual streamers to lose just a handful of subscribers, it would be down right devastating and an unrecoupable loss for MOST streamers.
So while the turbo users may 'help' those streamers you watch that you would never sub because you're giving impressions, the assistance is negligible where the fallout (potential lost subscribers to streamers) results in a net loss for the streamers on twitch. The numbers just don't addup for it to be a net gain for streamers. However, it will be a huge net gain for twitch.tv.
Doesn't your math only hold true for subscribers?
|
On February 12 2013 07:27 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 07:19 crms wrote:
I think you're both arguing from different perspective (semantics). What Celerity seems to mean that turbo does not support the streamer in any meaningful way, and so far I seem to agree. If you reduce the subscription numbers of streamers because turbo becomes more favorable, it would be nigh impossible for the vast majority of streamers to recoup such losses just by having your turbo viewers leave impressions.
Let's do some very rudimentary, basic math, yes?
If a previously subscribed person joins turbo instead it would result in -$2.50/month for that previously subscribed stream. (I believe streamers get 50% of sub fee, might be wrong).
To make up that $2.50 from just that 1 subscriper switching, that turbo user would have to leave between ~1,000-2,500 impressions on that individuals stream, per month. That, to say the least, that isn't going to happen. In fact, that user won't leave 1,000 to 2,500 impressions on all of twitch.tv per month, so the end result for streamers will be a loss, but for twitch (8.99month) a net gain.
I understand ad-block cuts into profits quite significantly when you look at the community as a whole but the 'turbo' impressions have absolutely no chance to make a significant impact on streamer income and if the turbo features cause individual streamers to lose just a handful of subscribers, it would be down right devastating and an unrecoupable loss for MOST streamers.
So while the turbo users may 'help' those streamers you watch that you would never sub because you're giving impressions, the assistance is negligible where the fallout (potential lost subscribers to streamers) results in a net loss for the streamers on twitch. The numbers just don't addup for it to be a net gain for streamers. However, it will be a huge net gain for twitch.tv.
Doesn't your math only hold true for subscribers?
Yes, in that example it was 1 previous subscriber who switched to Turbo. However, I went on to point out how even those users that NEVER subscribed but are now Turbo users, would offer next to nothing to the personal streamers but would end up being a windfall for Twitch. A Turbo user would have to leave ~1000 impressions on your site to make you $1. What we can extrapolate from this is that if this model 'forces' most users into going Turbo instead of subscribing, it will have a negligible impact on streamers incoming, but a big bonus for Twitch's income. The end result would be streamers at a net loss because losing subscribers would be unrecouplable through the increased impressions.
And to be fair, I don't have a dog in this race. I'm not saying what Twitch is doing is 'wrong' or 'immoral' or something. I'm just looking at it objectively. And I can't see anyway that this model helps streamers in any meaningful way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
