|
BMS posted:What a fuckin' putz. I thought failing upwards was relegated to the rich.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:You've not mentioned the trigger for this new wave of panic at all. Could be ads being pulled, it could be ad unfriendly flags, it could be some banning, content ID, anything at all. It seems to be coming down to what's being call adpocalypse 2.0 wherein more major advertisers have pulled out of youtube due to very inappropriate content involving kids, including predatory comments. How this effects those that only use twitch for income, I have no idea but it definitely effects those that rely on youtube since the chances of making money have even further decreased if your videos don't get falsely flagged first. Doseku fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Doseku posted:It seems to be coming down to what's being call adpocalypse 2.0 wherein more major advertisers have pulled out of youtube due to very inappropriate content involving kids, including predatory comments. Eh, most of the people making enough ad revenue to matter also supplement via Patreon, some making way more than enough to live off of from Patreons alone, along with the amount of sponsorships they could take. It's just overreaction as always.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Well, keep in mind that if the ad revenue dries up, Google itself may decide to pull the plug on the platform. When its users are getting their money through an outside company, Google doesn't get a cut of it, and they're not going to keep a platform around if there's no profit in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
I don't see that happening in the near future. Even if it does, alternate hosting and streaming is still a thing. Everything is fine still and will stay that way for those relevant enough for this to matter unless they are inflexible or incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Unfortunately, everything isn't just fine, and these changes hit more people than LPers you love to hate. Steep declines in ad revenues for good, relevant content producers on YT are a thing, and it's not that simple to say everyone effected can just replace passive ad revenues with active subscription revenues through means like Patreon. YT has a huge user base of a size that really can't be beaten by anyone else. Given the recent changes (like not being able to include external links unless your video is monetized, and the ability to monetize being determined by rather brain-dead algorithms, as well as the trend of hiding videos with certain types of content), we're going to probably see less innovation and more homogenization of content and presentation style as some people give up and others try to shift their style to whatever it is Google/YT/Alphabet want today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
I kinda wonder why YouTube hasn't just implemented a Patreon-style system into the site.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:I kinda wonder why YouTube hasn't just implemented a Patreon-style system into the site. They probably will, given the apparent success of that platform. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw that sometime Q2 next year. e. vvv well, there ya go. POOL IS CLOSED fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Youtube are actually testing a "sponsorship" feature where you can sponsor a channel for $5 a month.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Wiseblood posted:Youtube are actually testing a "sponsorship" feature where you can sponsor a channel for $5 a month. Google's cut will be 51% of that at least,I'd be willing to bet. EDIT: senrath posted:I mean Twitch's cut is 50%, so that wouldn't be surprising. After a couple of months in the program, a good portion of accounts will be flagged for "Invalid Sponsorship Activity", after which, they will still be allowed to stream, upload content & have sponsorship's, only 100% of the sponsor amount will then go to Google. There, that actually sounds more accurate. BMS fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
BMS posted:Google's cut will be 51% of that at least,I'd be willing to bet. I mean Twitch's cut is 50%, so that wouldn't be surprising.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
BMS posted:
ftfy
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
cool, nobody should have ever been able to make money off of playing video games on the internet and I'm happy Google and Nintendo are finally cutting off that revenue stream
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
They will then change the ToS to make This sort of thing is kind of why people were so concerned when the also-ran video hosts all died off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:cool, nobody should have ever been able to make money off of playing video games on the internet and I'm happy Google and Nintendo are finally cutting off that revenue stream Are you being serious or sarcastic?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
100% serious
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
How dare you impose judgement upon the free market
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:100% serious 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
here's the thing. i don't care how much production budget you put into your let's plays, the game developers put more of their time & energy into it or else you wouldn't make it the centerpiece of your video. if you're good enough to be doing your own thing you don't need to be relying on someone else's game for material and then you can make your own money fair and square. the usual exceptions are the "fair use" ones: reviews, criticism, parody, etc. you might deserve it in that case but youtube's gonna beat you up and take your lunch money anyway and what are you gonna do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
So what you're saying is fire all critics and reviewers of all kinds.  Edit: Because otherwise it seems like a picky grudge to just poo poo on the people playing games and everything to make some money, but it's okay if it's MST3K and people like that or someone doing book readings and such. Yardbomb fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
i put in that ninja edit to stop exactly that kind of snarky remark but it looks like the ninja has become the ninjee
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:here's the thing. i don't care how much production budget you put into your let's plays, the game developers put more of their time & energy into it or else you wouldn't make it the centerpiece of your video. if you're good enough to be doing your own thing you don't need to be relying on someone else's game for material and then you can make your own money fair and square. What If I exclusively lets play bottom of the barrel crap from gamejolt
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
they say the law is full of contradictions, my friend
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:Edit: Because otherwise it seems like a picky grudge to just poo poo on the people playing games and everything to make some money, but it's okay if it's MST3K and people like that or someone doing book readings and such. ... you do know they paid the original people to use that movie, right? the reason they used lovely sci-fi movies was because they could get broadcast rights on the cheap
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
But what if we just do let's play for free and for fun? I think that's a pretty cool thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
What about speedrunners? They pull off technically impressive stuff in an entertaining manner, and it's hard to really replicate that outside video games. I kinda relate general game streamers to sitcoms. There's a lot of terrible ones that probably don't deserve the views/money they get, but there's a few that are good that put effort into things and/or have natural charisma and can make anything charming. And of course who is "deserving" is a huge manner of debate depending on one's tastes, and I doubt even this thread would ever come to consensus on which streamers are "good". Streaming's really not my thing, but if people enjoy watching and funding them, then who gives a poo poo what I think?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
More serious opinion: if you can make money with a let's play then all power to you. Don't rely on it as anything stable. When YouTube and Twitch decides to gently caress you over because of algorithm changes or policy updates (and it's a when, not an if) or Nintendo coming to collect their dues because they made all the interesting content in your video, don't complain, just realize the rodeo is over. Pack your bags and move on. You aren't entitled to make money and you have no power in the relationship and you don't have a legal leg to stand on. Eventually we will have things like standard broadcast license rates for games and eventually you will have to pay them. I am happy all these companies are shaking down content creators who don't understand this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Don't complain, just realize the rodeo is over. Pack your bags and move on. What has to break in a person to have an opinion like this, jesus christ dude, please vigorously fellate the multi-billionaires harder. What's with some people that seemingly get this giant hardon off the ultra rich once again stomping on people who most times are barely making an okay living at best off streaming and stuff, like oh no, the giant corporation's intellectual property is ever so microscopically under attack, those plebes should know their place! Yardbomb fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Mega64 posted:What about speedrunners? They pull off technically impressive stuff in an entertaining manner, and it's hard to really replicate that outside video games. I don't think anyone would have the balls to touch the GDQ crowd, because who the gently caress wants to be known as the company who shut down cancer fundraising?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:What has to break in a person to have an opinion like this, jesus christ dude, please vigorously fellate the multi-billionaires harder. Like what's with some of you people that seemingly get this giant hardon off the ultra rich once again stomping on people who most times are barely making an okay living at best off streaming and stuff. I'm not saying that this is a good system, I'm saying this is how YouTube works and if you don't like it, tough luck??? Content creators need to get through their system that YouTube doesn't give a poo poo about supporting them because it's a quantity play. One creator drops out? I'm sure the suggestion algorithm has 20 other let's players your fan base will flock to. Online advertising is hosed and Google has systematically managed to get all the profit on ads while sites continually get less and less money. Twitch is fine riding on DAUs and don't have to turn a profit under Amazon for quite some time. But when they start needing to make money, you betcha they'll be dropping payout rates to streamers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
hey, it's the trimestral That Guy with the polemic and strong take of "people shouldn't make moneys on a 'fake job'" people really do become their parents Honestly though, you're saying something that a LOT of the content creators have already realized. It's why people have flocked to Patreon, Twitch, why they're selling merch and doing cons, all that stuff. I'unno how many big-name content creators are making most of their money through ad-revenue alone. I think the complaining nowadays is more about how INCONSISTENT that system is, since these changes usually are knee-jerk reactions to something ELSE being exploited in the system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
I liken it to the supermarket that features an "Employee of the Month" and gives the award to Bob, the owner's nephew, every month without fail. There's a reward that ultimately doesn't affect money, but the fact that it exists and consistently favors someone clearly undeserving hurts everyone's morale and shows how tone-deaf the management is. Even if the people whose videos get flagged aren't losing any money from it, the very idea that Youtube has an algorithm that demotes content by subject and promotes garbage like those knockoff cartoons about Disney characters both discourages the people creating the thoughtful content and demonstrates how little Youtube cares about hosting them. It's all well and good to say that making non-gaming videos is a superior endeavor, but the platform actively works against that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
Hey if we're still on this subject, here's a link to the New Yorker article I mentioned before. Don't forget to check the sidebar for 'Where Millennials Come From!' (If the subject ever comes up in casual conversation, I find it's easier to just describe that one Far Side cartoon with the parents dreaming of 'we need this princess rescued/goombas stomped' classified ads in their son's future and saying "this is real now, but just like every other 'dream job' it turns out to be a lot more of a hassle than you'd expect.")
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:What has to break in a person to have an opinion like this, jesus christ dude, please vigorously fellate the multi-billionaires harder. What's with some people that seemingly get this giant hardon off the ultra rich once again stomping on people who most times are barely making an okay living at best off streaming and stuff, like oh no, the giant corporation's intellectual property is ever so microscopically under attack, those plebes should know their place! Can't the same be applied to smaller developers? Why does this only adhere to large companies? If I make a product that doesn't sell well enough for the time I put in to be profitable, even if it has merit to stand on its own. Then people make video content (and decent money for effort involved) involving my product, should I be grateful for exposure?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:What has to break in a person to have an opinion like this, jesus christ dude, please vigorously fellate the multi-billionaires harder. What's with some people that seemingly get this giant hardon off the ultra rich once again stomping on people who most times are barely making an okay living at best off streaming and stuff, like oh no, the giant corporation's intellectual property is ever so microscopically under attack, those plebes should know their place! Well, some time ago an indie dev pointed out that PewDiePie played one of his games and Pewds got more from the ad revenue on that video than the dev did in sales for the game with the dev getting no piece of that ad revenue. Sure, it probably netted him a spike in sales, but is that really a fair exchange? This was before the "adpocalypse" but I think it illustrates Suspicious Dish's point a bit better on where this kind of setup is unfair to where the dev is the little guy in the situation. And I agree making money on video games feels like it'll inevitably stop/change drastically as companies realize there's additional revenue to be had there. But I dont think it justifies the prevalent hardline attitude this subforum had towards monetization for years because hey why not make $13, everyone here probably uses ad blocker anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Voxx posted:If I make a product that doesn't sell well enough for the time I put in to be profitable, even if it has merit to stand on its own. Then people make video content (and decent money for effort involved) involving my product, should I be grateful for exposure?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
judge reinhold posted:Well, some time ago an indie dev pointed out that PewDiePie played one of his games and Pewds got more from the ad revenue on that video than the dev did in sales for the game with the dev getting no piece of that ad revenue. Sure, it probably netted him a spike in sales, but is that really a fair exchange? This was before the "adpocalypse" but I think it illustrates Suspicious Dish's point a bit better on where this kind of setup is unfair to where the dev is the little guy in the situation. I mean, this is also probably a borderline case and these are DEFINITELY not the kind of developers YT/Google are concerned about. I mean, for that to happen it would probably be an indie game selling 1000 copies at $5 against a video from THE BIGGEST NAME ON YOUTUBE. It feels like a weird false equivalency that doesn't really have much to add to the debate and just kinda deflects poo poo towards content creators, sorry to be rude, but it really does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
These changes are also hurting more than just videogame nerds, so saying anyone negatively affecting is just lazy/a thief/stupid/mysterious vice x is shallowly-conceived response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Honestly, I just think there isn't enough of a demand for LPers to have them all live off of ad revenue especially when so many of them are of mediocre to terrible quality. YouTube still doesn't actually make a profit for Google. People forget how expensive it actually it is to host all this video content. The pre-adpocalypse situation was an unsustainable bubble.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:20
|
|
