What do you think of Streamers rerunning old VODS?

[chacotanlines]

Rerunning stuff (or streaming VODs) doesnt make great sense if its just regular ladder day I guess, but its up to everyone if they want to stream that content and if the viewers want to watch that content. Id not do either, but I also cant judge as for me the income from streaming isnt nearly as important so I can live without reaching the 82+ hour goals Id need.

Also the argument about blocking hours for smaller streamers isnt fair. That would assume big streamers are just aiming to build a streaming monopoly, but in fact they almost always host another streamers (including the smaller ones) before going off.

I'm not saying big streamers are intentionally trying to monopolize twitch viewers, but because twitch is making them stream VODs when they aren't on, it is indirectly taking away from small streamers. So basically it is unintentional but still affecting small streamers from getting any limelight.

 

[Helichaos]

Because that is why there is the thing called Rerun, which Twitch directly instituted for this reason (if we omit the negative effect on community in pursuit of money at its expense, which is then a personal decision based on priorities). And why streaming is "live." And if they're doing it because of the compensation, even with explanation, it is directly avoiding the rules for the compensation, which clearly state live streams only, i.e. trying to get money in an unfair way (you shouldn't conflate here that if the streamer in question has lost due to the different prices revenue, he's somehow entitled to do what he wants to "get it back," from Twitch no less - shouldn't it be the viewers donating the difference? Because they are the ones paying less in the end, not Twitch, and that's why the revenue is lower, Twitch is paying still the same percentage - I know it's a complex topic how subs work and their problematic perception by people what they actually mean for the streamer, but that's how things stand, this compensation is actually Twitch giving money from their own pocket, it's not coming from the subscriber as usual). It's faking hours streamed. It's as if at your work you faked your work hours, had your friend beep for you hours later when you're already not there. There's really nothing complicated in this.

Does Twitch mind and pursue this? I don't know, maybe they consider it collateral not to alienate people. But that doesn't make it any less questionable.

You may be thinking what you want of the rules, but they are as they are, and, frankly, they have their reason. Do you for example think it would be okay to stream for three months, get a baseline compensation level, then stream nothing the next three months, logically having no subs in that time, and still get the average in those months paid by Twitch? For nothing? So why would it be okay if someone did for the next three months only VoD streams (in the extreme, demonstrative case) and nothing actually live - would you consider it okay for that person to get compensated when they actually weren't effectively streaming at all? The limit has to be set somewhere, and yeah, it is up for debate if it could've been placed differently, or if the summer timing is ideal, or if it all should've been done in another way (or the pricing at all), etc., sure. But it's meant to compensate your approximate activity and income in case the new change in sub pricing hurts you, not give you money for nothing. The compensation scheme didn't have to be put in place in the first place, but they realised they need to save some PR as some streamers will be hurt by this (though overall they're doing this to make more money, and that means creators should make more as well, but, well, case by case, and maybe in different time frames).

What I see questionable about this is the timing with Subtember, which will effectively solve for them a lot of compensations due to higher natural and gifted subbing due to further discount (they probably timed it pretty well for themselves).

Fair response. I guess I just can completely understand and sympathize with their position, having to stream x amount of hours in order to be paid the same amount per sub, and potentially not being able to without a bit of "gaming the system".

I would probably do the same if I was in their position, and the fact that all the streamers I've seen have been quite transparent about what they are doing and why, gives me the impression there is no ill intent towards the community.

I guess I'm one of the smaller streamers that is potentially negativily affected by this (e.g. Jordan almost never streams my time but has been recently),but he hosted me with a couple of hundred viewers the other day so it's swings and roundabouts.

 

[robdyrob]

So here is the story. Some time ago Twitch introduced regional pricing for subscriptions, meanin that countries where earnings are low don't have to pay $5,00 for a subscription. This is a great initiative, since subs are much more affordable in low income countries.

So you don't have to pay the full price if you use a VPN and pretend to watch from a low-income country? Just asking for a friend ...

 

[Black Adder]

Fair response. I guess I just can completely understand and sympathize with their position, having to stream x amount of hours in order to be paid the same amount per sub, and potentially not being able to without a bit of "gaming the system".

See that's the misunderstanding of the situation (and I wonder how often from the streamers intentionally portraying it that way, because I understand asking your viewers to pay you more money is not easy) - they are being paid the same for the sub by Twitch - the same percentage. It's the viewers who are paying less in total, and supporting the creator less.

If you would be wanting now the same payment for sub in total sum from Twitch as you say, which is what this compensation is, then that comes directly from Twitch, above the standard cut, and has nothing to do with viewers/supporters and what they pay, they are effectively giving extra. Twitch is not taking away anyone's money.

They are not taking bigger cut. No. They gave an option to everyone (in the specific countries) to pay less for the sub. However, nothing is preventing anyone from supporting the creator the same way as before by donating the difference. Will people do it? As I said before, mostly no, because there is a significant disconnect in general viewer's appreciation of what the sub and it's monetary value mean for the streamer (a lot don't even understand the cuts). But that doesn't mean Twitch "stole" anyone's money as this' being presented everywhere, and that Twitch somehow owes anyone anything, and therefore it's okay to game them and the system that is supposed to help actually hurt streamers (again, up for debate if it could've been done differently - but to just mention the average streaming hours are even lowered by 15% to reach the compensation, they are somewhat trying to account for excessive stream-hour bouts some streamers might have had - yes, the compensation seems to be more geared towards more consistent streamers, as, well, they are also logically going to be probably having more regular revenue this change touches). The theory behind this change is that more people will sub, and therefore both Twitch, and the streamer, will make in the end more money even without the need for the dono leveling. Will it work out? Well, as said, case by case I guess, and maybe for some it will take longer. But I've already seen quite highly increased sub counts in places, however it will probably really depend on the creator and his audience, and I suspect the bigger the streamer, the better chance at more subs.

What this behaviour by streamers means is they are trying to wrench money from the wrong source, under false pretenses. They should be trying to motivate their viewers to donate the difference from the old sub. After all, they would actually have a chance to make more money, as donos are always better monetary-wise for streamers than subs (there's the argument for regular, recurring support, but that's kind of beside the point here). I understand if someone is offering money, you want to reach for it, but like, do you really need to do it so desperately as to try and game the system when you don't fit the criteria? If you really want that money, you can, you know, just actually stream the hours, and effectively get paid for that extra work you didn't initially want to do. Doesn't that seem like a good deal? Instead, they want the extra money for nothing. It's just in my opinion a difference of perspective, and the feeling of entitlement somehow, that Twitch owes you the money.

I'm not arguing if the whole price change and how it was done and everything was the right step, I'm arguing the principle of the situation here, and I'm not really liking the willingness to forgive obviously wrong behaviour, more so excused by probably often purposeful misinformation and misunderstanding/misappreciation of the situation, because, again, it's easier to blame evil corporate Twitch than tell viewers the truth that it's them paying less - that them being happy they pay less for sub means the creator gets less sub revenue as a result.

Frankly I think it might not be a bad idea if creators could set their own sub levels and prices, I would think Twitch is keeping it this way as kind of incentives based on some statistics which they believe will tilt more people to pay above what they wanted than if the subs were differently staggered, had different options, etc.

So you don't have to pay the full price if you use a VPN and pretend to watch from a low-income country? Just asking for a friend ...

It's based on the location of the payment method.

 

[Helichaos]

See that's the misunderstanding of the situation (and I wonder how often from the streamers intentionally portraying it that way, because I understand asking your viewers to pay you more money is not easy) - they are being paid the same for the sub by Twitch - the same percentage. It's the viewers who are paying less in total, and supporting the creator less.

If you would be wanting now the same payment for sub in total sum from Twitch as you say, which is what this compensation is, then that comes directly from Twitch, above the standard cut, and has nothing to do with viewers/supporters and what they pay, they are effectively giving extra. Twitch is not taking away anyone's money.

They are not taking bigger cut. No. They gave an option to everyone (in the specific countries) to pay less for the sub. However, nothing is preventing anyone from supporting the creator the same way as before by donating the difference. Will people do it? As I said before, mostly no, because there is a significant disconnect in general viewer's appreciation of what the sub and it's monetary value mean for the streamer (a lot don't even understand the cuts). But that doesn't mean Twitch "stole" anyone's money as this' being presented everywhere, and that Twitch somehow owes anyone anything, and therefore it's okay to game them and the system that is supposed to help actually hurt streamers (again, up for debate if it could've been done differently - but to just mention the average streaming hours are even lowered by 15% to reach the compensation, they are somewhat trying to account for excessive stream-hour bouts some streamers might have had - yes, the compensation seems to be more geared towards more consistent streamers, as, well, they are also logically going to be probably having more regular revenue this change touches). The theory behind this change is that more people will sub, and therefore both Twitch, and the streamer, will make in the end more money even without the need for the dono leveling. Will it work out? Well, as said, case by case I guess, and maybe for some it will take longer. But I've already seen quite highly increased sub counts in places, however it will probably really depend on the creator and his audience, and I suspect the bigger the streamer, the better chance at more subs.

What this behaviour by streamers means is they are trying to wrench money from the wrong source, under false pretenses. They should be trying to motivate their viewers to donate the difference from the old sub. After all, they would actually have a chance to make more money, as donos are always better monetary-wise for streamers than subs (there's the argument for regular, recurring support, but that's kind of beside the point here). I understand if someone is offering money, you want to reach for it, but like, do you really need to do it so desperately as to try and game the system when you don't fit the criteria? If you really want that money, you can, you know, just actually stream the hours, and effectively get paid for that extra work you didn't initially want to do. Doesn't that seem like a good deal? Instead, they want the extra money for nothing. It's just in my opinion a difference of perspective, and the feeling of entitlement somehow, that Twitch owes you the money.

I'm not arguing if the whole price change and how it was done and everything was the right step, I'm arguing the principle of the situation here, and I'm not really liking the willingness to forgive obviously wrong behaviour, more so excused by probably often purposeful misinformation and misunderstanding/misappreciation of the situation, because, again, it's easier to blame evil corporate Twitch than tell viewers the truth that it's them paying less - that them being happy they pay less for sub means the creator gets less sub revenue as a result.

Frankly I think it might not be a bad idea if creators could set their own sub levels and prices, I would think Twitch is keeping it this way as kind of incentives based on some statistics which they believe will tilt more people to pay above what they wanted than if the subs were differently staggered, had different options, etc.



It's based on the location of the payment method.

No I completely understand that twitch is subsidizing the difference in cases where the streamer is able to stream similar amount of hours to the previous months. The fact that they do this means that twitch knows this will impact content creators negatively and want to mitigate that impact.

I am unwilling to judge them too harshly because, again, I find it very easy to see myself doing something similar if put in the same situation. As it does not seem fair that streamers lose income based on something outside of their control (I am giving the benefit of the doubt that they couldn't make up the hours without these restreams).

I also don't really see that much of an impact on smaller streamers. If I can't be more engaging than a rerun of someone else's stream do I really deserve their viewership?

 

[GmanStreams]

Imagine shilling for twitch and their absurd rules. What else were they expecting but malicious compliance..