Apparently, Content ID matching is still in play even for livestreaming, which was one of the reasons gaming streamers went to Twitch in the first place. Given that some companies are trigger-happy with Content ID (Konami, Nintendo), streaming gaming may be risky.
Here's something i don't understand about sites with a lot of discoverable content:
Why do they almost never allow the user to hide content they're uninterested in? In game stores for example, only Steam allows marking games as "not interested". GOG has wishlisting, but no hiding. As a result i never try to explore GOG because it almost only shows me stuff i don't care about.
Youtube Gaming does the very same thing with their left-hand menu. You can favourite games, but you can't hide games.
Why do sites do that despite it actively hurting them?
--
Wow, they have this big front page, with a nice thing at the bottom talking about cookies. However only once the user clicks on a thing does it tell you:
"Live Streaming is not available in your country due to rights issues."
Youtube introduced live streaming in April 2011 [1], while Twitch launched in June 2011 [2]. Sure, adoption of live streaming on Youtube has been slow, but it has been there. Twitch just came and made it targeted to gaming. I'd say having live streaming available for anything is actually a greater feat, Twitch just made it easier for users to discover and use.
There has been a gaming videos culture on Youtube long before Twitch existed, and Twitch's audience would undeniably be much smaller without it.
Twitch is the same company as Justin.tv, just re-branded to focus only on game videos. You can guess what popular content was being live-streamed since 2007 that encouraged such a change in branding. :)
Ahh...Should have read my own link... They are quite oldschool indeed. Re-branding and restricting the service to games does indeed make sense coming from those days, and Google kind of has an unfair advantage by having so many eyes on it that they can enforce the rules necessary for allowing people to live stream whatever they want.
It's interesting to think about how many different ways video streaming platforms have been shaped into different audiences (private/public, contacts/strangers, content based or not, self[users/mods]/central/third-party moderation). It makes sense for Youtube and Google's reputation that they didn't get into it earlier on, but I still respect Youtube for the culture it has created, even before getting bought by Google. I don't know when it all started, but gameplay video subscriptions are a huge part of their content (I'm sure there are some good sources on this), and with the huge audience, content creators motivated by $$$ really early on.
The urge to share gameplay is something that has existed in everybody long ago. I myself was wishing I had better hardware for recording gameplay back in my early college years and uploaded a video 2006. I had also partaken in some live streaming of gameplay as far back as 2009 on different services.
9 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 29.4 ms ] threadWhy do they almost never allow the user to hide content they're uninterested in? In game stores for example, only Steam allows marking games as "not interested". GOG has wishlisting, but no hiding. As a result i never try to explore GOG because it almost only shows me stuff i don't care about.
Youtube Gaming does the very same thing with their left-hand menu. You can favourite games, but you can't hide games.
Why do sites do that despite it actively hurting them?
--
Wow, they have this big front page, with a nice thing at the bottom talking about cookies. However only once the user clicks on a thing does it tell you:
"Live Streaming is not available in your country due to rights issues."
> Lorem ipsum other castle, arrow to the knee set up us the bomb.
Ouch! :)
Bet they're gonna get alllll the traffic and ad views! /s
Youtube is grasping at greased straws here.
There has been a gaming videos culture on Youtube long before Twitch existed, and Twitch's audience would undeniably be much smaller without it.
[1] http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/04/08/1746247/google-rolli...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitch.tv
It's interesting to think about how many different ways video streaming platforms have been shaped into different audiences (private/public, contacts/strangers, content based or not, self[users/mods]/central/third-party moderation). It makes sense for Youtube and Google's reputation that they didn't get into it earlier on, but I still respect Youtube for the culture it has created, even before getting bought by Google. I don't know when it all started, but gameplay video subscriptions are a huge part of their content (I'm sure there are some good sources on this), and with the huge audience, content creators motivated by $$$ really early on.
The urge to share gameplay is something that has existed in everybody long ago. I myself was wishing I had better hardware for recording gameplay back in my early college years and uploaded a video 2006. I had also partaken in some live streaming of gameplay as far back as 2009 on different services.