[Waterluvian]

This sells me further on the model, actually.

I would be 100% for paying a monthly fee on Twitch that gets sliced up proportionally to how much I watch each channel. While it seems to work for them, and clearly lots of people pay to be part of a club and get noticed by their streamer, there’s no way I’m paying $7.50CAD per channel. So I end up paying nothing at all.

[okennedy]

TFA's point is that the model is horrible for creators: a revenue sharing model is only viable as long as the number of creators being shared is comparatively small. $5, $10, $20 from a few hundred or thousand viewers is a decent haul when compared to a few fractional pennies per view.

It makes sense that creators focus their efforts on cultivating personal relationships with a small, but loyal base. You're not their target demographic.

[ghaff]

People say they will pay for news. The translation is that will be dragged kicking and screaming into paying $100 per year for all they can eat news rather than the thousands it would actually cost.

[Waterluvian]

Exactly. People are willing to pay for news if it’s sensibly priced. It’s not a charity. If it really costs thousands, then the model is broken and they should all be out of a job.

But let’s be honest, it doesn’t cost thousands.

[ghaff]

Journalists have never been especially highly paid though. Software should be cheaper too. Let's stop paying software developers 6 figures.

[dmonitor]

this exists: https://www.twitch.tv/turbo

[Waterluvian]

Do the streamers get 50% of that $12 like they would a subscription?

[andrewf]

"We built Turbo with this question in mind, and streamers continue to earn revenue from ads that Turbo subscribers miss. For streamers – revenue you receive from Turbo subscribers who watch your channel is reflected in your “Ads” revenue estimate in your payout analytics." Source: https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/twitch-turbo-guide?language...

Disclosure: I work here, but I'm not close enough to the Turbo folks to do anything but quote public materials.

[AraceliHarker]

Twitch is only barely viable because it does not pay a penny to the copyright holders of the games streamed on Twitch, and if those rights are handled properly, it would be a completely unsustainable business. There is a notion that streamers can promote their games by streaming them, but there is no basis for this at all. I have seen many times where streamers flock to a game that has become popular, and when the popularity of that game wanes, they move on to other games en masse. In other words, the presence of streamers only hurts the game's bottom line. Funding streamers is as silly as advertising on 4ch, so to speak.

[Waterluvian]

If I subscribe to a user they get 50% of my subscription. So if I wanted to use this to support streamers and not Amazon, I’d expect 50% of it to go to streamers.

How many minutes of ads do I “skip” that they get paid for when I spend $12 on Turbo? I have a feeling the answer is going to be disgusting, and that no, Twitch Turbo is a terrible idea if you want to support streamers.

[toxicFork]

This sounds a lot like the Brave browser model. I am unsure how well the company is doing, and how well the users who opted in to receive BATs are doing, though.

[Waterluvian]

I feel like the missing piece is transparency. Otherwise it’s like tipping: a lingering skepticism that funny financials are happening in the background.