5 ms·

Twitch: New TOS bans multi-streaming/simulcasting

76 points by obittner 3y ago

causi 3y ago
Is Twitch having money issues? This type of "it hurt itself in its confusion", "fuck everybody that likes us" behavior is typical for failing companies but I thought Twitch was healthy.
- haunter 3y ago
  Unlikely when they are subsidiary of Amazon + they have near monopoly. Mixer got shutdown, Youtube Gaming and Facebook Gaming doesn't even come close.
- Jaydenaus 3y ago
  Potentially due to Kick providing some competitive pressure. I've noticed a lot of smaller streamers multi-streaming with Kick mentioned in their stream title.
- BasedAnon 3y ago
  Alot of companies seem to be having money issues now that they're not being bankrolled by infinite loans, such as Reddit
SllX 3y ago
I thought this was already prohibited by Twitch and conversely YouTube Live? Will this change actually affect any existing Twitch streamer practices?
- f33d5173 3y ago
  Banned for twitch partners. So it won't affect major streamers, but smaller ones yes.
  - SllX 3y ago
    Ah, okay. I didn’t realize that was the distinction. Thanks!
  - carstenhag 3y ago
    Note that being a twitch partner doesn't give you monetary benefits or a better share from bits (one-time-"donations") or subscriptions. It only gives the streamer/community a verified profile and more emojis. So perhaps some more visibility on the start page but that's it.
- jedberg 3y ago
  The big music streamers will often stream on Twitch, Instagram, and FB all at once. Looks like Instagram is fine but FB has a desktop client and may not be allowed.
  - SllX 3y ago
    TIL. Thanks!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
minimaxir 3y ago
More importantly, the new TOS bans in-stream ads (i.e. burned-in sponsorship logos) which is how most events on Twitch earn revenue: > Twitch has the exclusive right to monetize the Twitch Services, including without limitation, the exclusive right to sell, serve, and display advertisements on the Twitch Services. This means you may not, nor may you allow a third party to, insert or embed prerecorded advertising units into your live stream, including without limitation video advertisements (whether pre-, mid-, or post-roll); display or “banner” advertisements; and audio advertisements. https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1666111039736258561 https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1666111039736258561
- whateveracct 3y ago
  I assume this also applies to donations?
- EvanAnderson 3y ago
  So, product placement it is, then!
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > i.e. burned-in sponsorship logos This is actually not something that is banned but they do call it "limited". One of the images on the tweet[0] shows that "On-stream brand overlays are limited to 3% of screen size." I'd imagine the mention of "banner" advertisements is for logos which take up more than 3% of the screen. [0] https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1666111039736258561/photo/1 https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1666111039736258561/ph...
  - jsmith45 3y ago
    Somebody on twitter pointed out that twitches own example of an overlay that is 3% of the screen, seems like it may exceed 3% of the example image, not by a whole lot, perhaps it is 3.5% or so, but still... Be interesting to segment and measure. Like honestly, I feel like most people have trouble conceptually 3% of the area of the screen. Like I see a stream with a sponsor logo over a small portion, and without literally counting pixels, knowing is something is 3% or 5% does not seem easy.
wilg 3y ago
It's a shame there's not an easy-to-use version of Twitch where you pay your own bandwidth costs and whatnot. It would make the economics a lot clearer to everyone.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  The problem is that basically no content creators could self start in that world. Right now, most of these companies benefit from having a massive pipeline of kids dreaming to be stars, who all shoot their shot at streaming. Some inevitably have a knack, or catch some fad, or something, and can generate massive revenue and replace the people who have been chewed up and extracted by the machine, because it's basically designed to burn you out. Any content distribution system that doesn't give away a free tier would have to build it's own pipeline for training, filtering, testing, and motivating creators.
  - rektide 3y ago
    What evidence do you have that getting self started is so impossible?
    - d1str0 3y ago
      Common sense given economy of scale. There’s definitely a barrier between totally free and even just a few dollars a month in bandwidth.
      - tomkarho 3y ago
        I agree with the sentiment but I'd love to see some numbers to that effect. Here's my lousy attempt (someone more fluent in math than me, please correct because these numbers seem crazy to me so I concede the high probability that I am wrong). Let's say I want to stream hd picture so bandwidth requirement would be roughly 3MB/s. That's what I presume it takes to deliver one second of hd video to a single person. Let's assume that there is some mighty compression in play and that brings it down to 1mb/s. Let's assume I became popular enough that my servers are streaming data 24/7. that's 86 400 seconds so 86 400MB ~ 86GB. Per day. For one person to get my awesome video content constantly. Most VPS providers give certain amount of bandwidth with the initial offerings. I am using Digital Ocean as reference which means roughly that for each 5$ (the cheapest VPS) you get 1tb (or 1000 GB) of bandwidth until they start billing for more. So for "free" you get to send data to 1000 / 86GB = 11.6 ~ 12 people max until you start getting billed extra. Per day. DO bills 0.01$ per GB over the limit. If it takes 86GB to deliver content 24/7 to one person, imagine a thousand. That's 860$. Per day. Let's add some server costs and extra transfer for all the youtube-ish ui experience and I think we can land to a solid 1000$. Per. Day.
bdcravens 3y ago
> For clarity, you may Simulcast on mobile-first services that support live streaming. As I read it, this means that TikTok or similar services aren't covered by this ban.
femboy 3y ago
Twitter, Reddit, Slack, Twitch
- nathanaldensr 3y ago
  It's amazing what the era of cheap money coming to an end is exposing.
ChrisLTD 3y ago
I don't see how they can enforce this. Nor should they.
- ebiester 3y ago
  This is very enforceable for the smaller group of actually profitable streamers. They're trying to make it more difficult for people to reduce their dependence on twitch.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Enforcement seems like the easy part. Simply suspend or ban accounts. I don't like the changes, but nobody has a constitutional right to stream on Twitch
willcipriano 3y ago
Antitrust enforcement when? This behavior seems very anticompetitive. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_dealing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_dealing
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Exclusive dealing is pretty different. Twitch isn't selling something to streamers, and giving them noncompetitive terms. They are paying them to stream, which is the opposite. It is more like putting limitations on what advertising a NASCAR driver can put on the car you are paying them to drive. I still dont like the decision from twitch. Let people do what they can to make money and keep streaming.
  - everforward 3y ago
    I think donations are where the NASCAR analogy falls apart. Twitch keeps a percentage of donations made on the platform, which starts to look a lot like Twitch selling a platform (and access to users) where the pricing is a percentage of revenue. I don't think Twitch paying the streamers really nullifies that, otherwise companies could escape an Exclusive Dealing conviction by just adding an "oh, and we pay you $3" clause to their contracts. Twitch makes more sense as a company if they're a seller. There's a clear story there where streamers buy access in exchange for a percentage of their revenue on the platform. If they're a buyer, what are they buying from streamers? Just to add on top, I think streamers only get money from ads if they're at some tier with Twitch (partner, I think?). There's a whole bunch of streamers that aren't getting paid anything directly by Twitch, and are only getting donations after Twitch has taken their cut.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I routinely watch streamers with double-digit viewers that run ads for the profit sharing so I don't think there's a cut off there. As for what twitch is buying, they are buying the performance and or content, not dissimilar from Netflix or cable TV. If you follow the money, all the donations and all of their ad Revenue go to Twitch, which then cuts a check. The exception as I understand it is sponsored content ( playing a specific game) or extra in stream ads which is what twitch is trying to Crackdown on. Some streamers have sponsored banners on stream or play videos ads from advertisers that contracted directly with them and not twitch. The situation is somewhat complicated because streamers have the option to select how many twitch ads they play on their Channel. If they are running their own ads that twitch doesn't get a cut of, then they won't want to run as many ads from twitch
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
snvzz 3y ago
Worse yet: https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-twitch-s-new-monetized-streamer-agreement-a948cd2d8ba4 https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...
snvzz 3y ago
Much more concerning: Sponsorship guidelines. https://youtu.be/-5zGuFPxW88 https://youtu.be/-5zGuFPxW88

76 points by obittner 3y ago

Is Twitch having money issues? This type of "it hurt itself in its confusion", "fuck everybody that likes us" behavior is typical for failing companies but I thought Twitch was healthy.

haunter 3y ago
Unlikely when they are subsidiary of Amazon + they have near monopoly. Mixer got shutdown, Youtube Gaming and Facebook Gaming doesn't even come close.
Jaydenaus 3y ago
Potentially due to Kick providing some competitive pressure. I've noticed a lot of smaller streamers multi-streaming with Kick mentioned in their stream title.
BasedAnon 3y ago
Alot of companies seem to be having money issues now that they're not being bankrolled by infinite loans, such as Reddit

SllX 3y ago

I thought this was already prohibited by Twitch and conversely YouTube Live? Will this change actually affect any existing Twitch streamer practices?

f33d5173 3y ago
Banned for twitch partners. So it won't affect major streamers, but smaller ones yes.
- SllX 3y ago
  Ah, okay. I didn’t realize that was the distinction. Thanks!
- carstenhag 3y ago
  Note that being a twitch partner doesn't give you monetary benefits or a better share from bits (one-time-"donations") or subscriptions. It only gives the streamer/community a verified profile and more emojis. So perhaps some more visibility on the start page but that's it.
jedberg 3y ago
The big music streamers will often stream on Twitch, Instagram, and FB all at once. Looks like Instagram is fine but FB has a desktop client and may not be allowed.
- SllX 3y ago
  TIL. Thanks!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

minimaxir 3y ago

More importantly, the new TOS bans in-stream ads (i.e. burned-in sponsorship logos) which is how most events on Twitch earn revenue: > Twitch has the exclusive right to monetize the Twitch Services, including without limitation, the exclusive right to sell, serve, and display advertisements on the Twitch Services. This means you may not, nor may you allow a third party to, insert or embed prerecorded advertising units into your live stream, including without limitation video advertisements (whether pre-, mid-, or post-roll); display or “banner” advertisements; and audio advertisements. https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1666111039736258561 https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1666111039736258561

whateveracct 3y ago
I assume this also applies to donations?
EvanAnderson 3y ago
So, product placement it is, then!
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> i.e. burned-in sponsorship logos This is actually not something that is banned but they do call it "limited". One of the images on the tweet[0] shows that "On-stream brand overlays are limited to 3% of screen size." I'd imagine the mention of "banner" advertisements is for logos which take up more than 3% of the screen. [0] https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1666111039736258561/photo/1 https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1666111039736258561/ph...
- jsmith45 3y ago
  Somebody on twitter pointed out that twitches own example of an overlay that is 3% of the screen, seems like it may exceed 3% of the example image, not by a whole lot, perhaps it is 3.5% or so, but still... Be interesting to segment and measure. Like honestly, I feel like most people have trouble conceptually 3% of the area of the screen. Like I see a stream with a sponsor logo over a small portion, and without literally counting pixels, knowing is something is 3% or 5% does not seem easy.

wilg 3y ago

It's a shame there's not an easy-to-use version of Twitch where you pay your own bandwidth costs and whatnot. It would make the economics a lot clearer to everyone.

mrguyorama 3y ago
The problem is that basically no content creators could self start in that world. Right now, most of these companies benefit from having a massive pipeline of kids dreaming to be stars, who all shoot their shot at streaming. Some inevitably have a knack, or catch some fad, or something, and can generate massive revenue and replace the people who have been chewed up and extracted by the machine, because it's basically designed to burn you out. Any content distribution system that doesn't give away a free tier would have to build it's own pipeline for training, filtering, testing, and motivating creators.
- rektide 3y ago
  What evidence do you have that getting self started is so impossible?
  - d1str0 3y ago
    Common sense given economy of scale. There’s definitely a barrier between totally free and even just a few dollars a month in bandwidth.
    - tomkarho 3y ago
      I agree with the sentiment but I'd love to see some numbers to that effect. Here's my lousy attempt (someone more fluent in math than me, please correct because these numbers seem crazy to me so I concede the high probability that I am wrong). Let's say I want to stream hd picture so bandwidth requirement would be roughly 3MB/s. That's what I presume it takes to deliver one second of hd video to a single person. Let's assume that there is some mighty compression in play and that brings it down to 1mb/s. Let's assume I became popular enough that my servers are streaming data 24/7. that's 86 400 seconds so 86 400MB ~ 86GB. Per day. For one person to get my awesome video content constantly. Most VPS providers give certain amount of bandwidth with the initial offerings. I am using Digital Ocean as reference which means roughly that for each 5$ (the cheapest VPS) you get 1tb (or 1000 GB) of bandwidth until they start billing for more. So for "free" you get to send data to 1000 / 86GB = 11.6 ~ 12 people max until you start getting billed extra. Per day. DO bills 0.01$ per GB over the limit. If it takes 86GB to deliver content 24/7 to one person, imagine a thousand. That's 860$. Per day. Let's add some server costs and extra transfer for all the youtube-ish ui experience and I think we can land to a solid 1000$. Per. Day.

bdcravens 3y ago

> For clarity, you may Simulcast on mobile-first services that support live streaming. As I read it, this means that TikTok or similar services aren't covered by this ban.

femboy 3y ago

Twitter, Reddit, Slack, Twitch

nathanaldensr 3y ago
It's amazing what the era of cheap money coming to an end is exposing.

ChrisLTD 3y ago

I don't see how they can enforce this. Nor should they.

ebiester 3y ago
This is very enforceable for the smaller group of actually profitable streamers. They're trying to make it more difficult for people to reduce their dependence on twitch.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Enforcement seems like the easy part. Simply suspend or ban accounts. I don't like the changes, but nobody has a constitutional right to stream on Twitch

willcipriano 3y ago

Antitrust enforcement when? This behavior seems very anticompetitive. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_dealing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_dealing

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Exclusive dealing is pretty different. Twitch isn't selling something to streamers, and giving them noncompetitive terms. They are paying them to stream, which is the opposite. It is more like putting limitations on what advertising a NASCAR driver can put on the car you are paying them to drive. I still dont like the decision from twitch. Let people do what they can to make money and keep streaming.
- everforward 3y ago
  I think donations are where the NASCAR analogy falls apart. Twitch keeps a percentage of donations made on the platform, which starts to look a lot like Twitch selling a platform (and access to users) where the pricing is a percentage of revenue. I don't think Twitch paying the streamers really nullifies that, otherwise companies could escape an Exclusive Dealing conviction by just adding an "oh, and we pay you $3" clause to their contracts. Twitch makes more sense as a company if they're a seller. There's a clear story there where streamers buy access in exchange for a percentage of their revenue on the platform. If they're a buyer, what are they buying from streamers? Just to add on top, I think streamers only get money from ads if they're at some tier with Twitch (partner, I think?). There's a whole bunch of streamers that aren't getting paid anything directly by Twitch, and are only getting donations after Twitch has taken their cut.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I routinely watch streamers with double-digit viewers that run ads for the profit sharing so I don't think there's a cut off there. As for what twitch is buying, they are buying the performance and or content, not dissimilar from Netflix or cable TV. If you follow the money, all the donations and all of their ad Revenue go to Twitch, which then cuts a check. The exception as I understand it is sponsored content ( playing a specific game) or extra in stream ads which is what twitch is trying to Crackdown on. Some streamers have sponsored banners on stream or play videos ads from advertisers that contracted directly with them and not twitch. The situation is somewhat complicated because streamers have the option to select how many twitch ads they play on their Channel. If they are running their own ads that twitch doesn't get a cut of, then they won't want to run as many ads from twitch

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

snvzz 3y ago

Worse yet: https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-twitch-s-new-monetized-streamer-agreement-a948cd2d8ba4 https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...

snvzz 3y ago

Much more concerning: Sponsorship guidelines. https://youtu.be/-5zGuFPxW88 https://youtu.be/-5zGuFPxW88