Lately there has been some controversy about two of the biggest, if not the biggest, names in the community abandoning Twitch for Facebook, ostensibly for economic reasons. I have spoken my mind about it elsewhere and don't want to repeat myself (in case whoever reads this is interested in my position but can't be bothered to look for it, I'll just say that I believe it's their choice alone, that I think they made a good call and hope them the best in the future). However, one of the things many of the detractors seemed to take issue with was the fact that, according to them, streamers already made "enough" money on Twitch. The issue of whether the money they made is "enough" or not is very much subjective (and moral in nature) so I'll avoid it altogether. This discussion, nonetheless, prompted me to open a thread about a different issue that directly affects streamer income and disproportionally lowers the revenue of streamers who cater to a public that hails from low income countries. I'm speaking, of coursed, about regionalised pricing.
On paper, it's great. More people can subscribe because subs are now cheaper, and bigger numbers will compensate for the fact that each sub now brings in less money. In practice, however, things are not so simple. Before regionalised pricing was introduced, Prime subs counted as regular subs in that they gave a streamer $2.5 per prime sub, and while Amazon Prime was largely useless in many countries, Prime Video was (and is) widely available, and was often quite cheap, too - in some countries Prime Video was around $5, which meant you could get access to series and movies AND a free sub for the price of a regular sub. It's easy too see how this was a less-than-ideal situation for Bezos, but incredibly advantageous for Twitch viewers (even though it can safely be assumed that a lot of Prime Video subscribers never used their Prime sub and/or are uninterested in Twitch altogether). I know for a fact that many Latin American streamers got most of their regular (not counting gifted subs, that is) streaming income out of these Prime subs. There were also people who could afford to sub to one channel every month. In both cases, given the fact that these people would usually only ever sub to a single channel, they would pick their favourite streamer and sub to him (usually one of the bigger names). While this usually concentrated most of the money into a few hands, it also allowed some streamers to go full time or at least try to establish a regular streaming schedule for their public, and grow their channels.
Enter regionalised pricing. Both Prime and regular subs are now adjusted according to a user's country. In places like Colombia or Argentina, the cost of a sub went from $5 to $2 (a streamer would, accordingly, get only $1). In some countries I believe it's even less. On the plus side, this allowed people who didn't usually subscribe to now do so, and it allowed channels who had close to no subs to now at least have a handful. Twitch also promised to partially compensate for the income loss. The good stuff more or less ends here - compensation from Twitch will decrease over time, and it depends on the streamer keeping up with their schedule in past months (something that was made harder by RB, in some cases, and that will likely repeat itself as players practice for KotD). Those who used to sub to "Third World" (no offense meant) channels, be them big or small, casual or full time, still do - but they do not cover the income loss suffered by the streamer by gifting subs (and why should they?) now that it's cheaper, but choose instead to sub to other channels as well (which is an entirely reasonable choice). They, along with the new subs, however, do not always go to the streamers that "need" the money, but often to the bigger international channels in the community (T90, Viper, Hera, mbl), which once again is an entirely reasonable (and rational) decision, but it partially cancels out one of the biggest potential benefits of regionalised pricing. And lastly, the amount of new subscribers probably covered, or will cover, any potential loss to Twitch, but it is nowhere near enough to compensate for the income loss of full time "Third World" streamers - hypothetically, a streamer who had 500 Colombian subs before regionalised pricing would have to reach 1250 subs to earn the same amount of money he used to once the compensation fully runs out. The situation is even worse for those streamers who live in Europe or North America but cater to a Latin American/Asian public, who saw their revenue cut drastically but still have to meet "First World" expenses (off the top of my head, Nicov, who lives in Italy, and FeAge, living in Canada, would be in this situation, although the latter isn't a full time streamer AFAIK).
With all this in mind, I would not be surprised if, eventually, some of these streamers decide to move on to other platforms. YouTube is very popular as a streaming platform in Latin America (some of the bigger Spanish-language casters, such as Mario Ovalle or LocoSer, stream there already), and I believe it enables streamers to set their own price for subs, as well as giving a more generous cut to content creators than Twitch, and an easier potential for ad revenue as well. Insta rewind on YT is also a plus for viewers. Doubtlessly FB Gaming will eventually come knocking on some doors, too, and the allure of financial security will probably be too great for some of these streamers to stick to Twitch, and there are also other platforms who have been trying to poach them as well (Capoch, I think, has started streaming on Trovo, Tencent's brand-new streaming website).
Summing up, while regionalised pricing may have gone largely unnoticed by the likes of T90, Viper, Hera, and other big streamers in (and outside) the community, I believe it has largely had a detrimental effect on some streamers who cater to perhaps more limited audiences (but by no means small - the aforementioned Capoch has often had over 1k viewers). Since they more often than not stream in languages other than English, perhaps many here won't notice their absence if they decide to move on to another platform, but still I predict that at least some of them will in the medium term, unless their situation somehow improves. I neither judge Twitch for taking a business decision, nor the streamers if they decide to move on, and least of all the viewers who decide when, how, and who to sub to. I offer no potential solutions either, for I have none. I most definitely do not speak for any streamer when posting this, either. This is my opinion and mine alone (and I, of course, can be wrong as well!). I'm just pointing out what I see as an issue which some streamers are and will be facing, and that may end up with more people leaving Twitch and dispersing the community across a number of platforms. Whether that's good or bad is [yet] another matter.
On paper, it's great. More people can subscribe because subs are now cheaper, and bigger numbers will compensate for the fact that each sub now brings in less money. In practice, however, things are not so simple. Before regionalised pricing was introduced, Prime subs counted as regular subs in that they gave a streamer $2.5 per prime sub, and while Amazon Prime was largely useless in many countries, Prime Video was (and is) widely available, and was often quite cheap, too - in some countries Prime Video was around $5, which meant you could get access to series and movies AND a free sub for the price of a regular sub. It's easy too see how this was a less-than-ideal situation for Bezos, but incredibly advantageous for Twitch viewers (even though it can safely be assumed that a lot of Prime Video subscribers never used their Prime sub and/or are uninterested in Twitch altogether). I know for a fact that many Latin American streamers got most of their regular (not counting gifted subs, that is) streaming income out of these Prime subs. There were also people who could afford to sub to one channel every month. In both cases, given the fact that these people would usually only ever sub to a single channel, they would pick their favourite streamer and sub to him (usually one of the bigger names). While this usually concentrated most of the money into a few hands, it also allowed some streamers to go full time or at least try to establish a regular streaming schedule for their public, and grow their channels.
Enter regionalised pricing. Both Prime and regular subs are now adjusted according to a user's country. In places like Colombia or Argentina, the cost of a sub went from $5 to $2 (a streamer would, accordingly, get only $1). In some countries I believe it's even less. On the plus side, this allowed people who didn't usually subscribe to now do so, and it allowed channels who had close to no subs to now at least have a handful. Twitch also promised to partially compensate for the income loss. The good stuff more or less ends here - compensation from Twitch will decrease over time, and it depends on the streamer keeping up with their schedule in past months (something that was made harder by RB, in some cases, and that will likely repeat itself as players practice for KotD). Those who used to sub to "Third World" (no offense meant) channels, be them big or small, casual or full time, still do - but they do not cover the income loss suffered by the streamer by gifting subs (and why should they?) now that it's cheaper, but choose instead to sub to other channels as well (which is an entirely reasonable choice). They, along with the new subs, however, do not always go to the streamers that "need" the money, but often to the bigger international channels in the community (T90, Viper, Hera, mbl), which once again is an entirely reasonable (and rational) decision, but it partially cancels out one of the biggest potential benefits of regionalised pricing. And lastly, the amount of new subscribers probably covered, or will cover, any potential loss to Twitch, but it is nowhere near enough to compensate for the income loss of full time "Third World" streamers - hypothetically, a streamer who had 500 Colombian subs before regionalised pricing would have to reach 1250 subs to earn the same amount of money he used to once the compensation fully runs out. The situation is even worse for those streamers who live in Europe or North America but cater to a Latin American/Asian public, who saw their revenue cut drastically but still have to meet "First World" expenses (off the top of my head, Nicov, who lives in Italy, and FeAge, living in Canada, would be in this situation, although the latter isn't a full time streamer AFAIK).
With all this in mind, I would not be surprised if, eventually, some of these streamers decide to move on to other platforms. YouTube is very popular as a streaming platform in Latin America (some of the bigger Spanish-language casters, such as Mario Ovalle or LocoSer, stream there already), and I believe it enables streamers to set their own price for subs, as well as giving a more generous cut to content creators than Twitch, and an easier potential for ad revenue as well. Insta rewind on YT is also a plus for viewers. Doubtlessly FB Gaming will eventually come knocking on some doors, too, and the allure of financial security will probably be too great for some of these streamers to stick to Twitch, and there are also other platforms who have been trying to poach them as well (Capoch, I think, has started streaming on Trovo, Tencent's brand-new streaming website).
Summing up, while regionalised pricing may have gone largely unnoticed by the likes of T90, Viper, Hera, and other big streamers in (and outside) the community, I believe it has largely had a detrimental effect on some streamers who cater to perhaps more limited audiences (but by no means small - the aforementioned Capoch has often had over 1k viewers). Since they more often than not stream in languages other than English, perhaps many here won't notice their absence if they decide to move on to another platform, but still I predict that at least some of them will in the medium term, unless their situation somehow improves. I neither judge Twitch for taking a business decision, nor the streamers if they decide to move on, and least of all the viewers who decide when, how, and who to sub to. I offer no potential solutions either, for I have none. I most definitely do not speak for any streamer when posting this, either. This is my opinion and mine alone (and I, of course, can be wrong as well!). I'm just pointing out what I see as an issue which some streamers are and will be facing, and that may end up with more people leaving Twitch and dispersing the community across a number of platforms. Whether that's good or bad is [yet] another matter.