Hacker News Reader

Comment by tantalor | Hacker News Reader

Alright, I understand that. You suggest it's an ethical decision rather than economic; that streamers deserve the support. But why?

I fund a few YouTubers on patreon, because they create content in the traditional sense, e.g., research, writing, filming, editing, etc. That's hard work.

Streamers don't do any of that; they literally sit in their basement and play video games all day. Why do they need support?

Sure, watching a stream is entertaining, but when I think "supporting a content creator", I have to imagine that my support enables their creativity in some way. Does a streamer with more support produce better content than a streamer with less support?

The only thing I can think of is more support might allow a streamer to devote more of their time to streaming.

View on HN

> Streamers don't do any of that; they literally sit in their basement and play video games all day.

You seem to be missing what they do: they are entertainers. They aren't "playing video games" all day; that's just the medium. People come to see the entertainer. The most successful streamers create a unique character that people want to see, often regardless of the specific game being played.

Some people also integrate legitimate review and and critique into some of their shows (not to be confused with the current plague of "reviews" that are actually paid native advertising).

> Sure, watching a stream is entertaining

See, you do understand. Being an entertainer is work. Just like the standup comic, the better streamers/youtubers know they are putting on a show. It may be unscripted, but that may make the job harder requiring a quicker wit.

> The only thing I can think of is more support might allow a streamer to devote more of their time to streaming.

That's the point. If you like someone's work and want more, paying them so they can spend more time creating is a good idea.

(as others have said, some are also a kind of club/community manager where they also maintain other things such as a community game server or website/forum)

Full disclosure: I support one streamer.

I support him because the streams and let's plays that he does are games that I would like to play. But have very little time to actually play due to work, family and life. My support, along with many others allows him to stream full time, and I am able to enjoy the games and his streams during work, so I get to see the game content that I otherwise wouldn't have time to play myself. And for the cost of a game per year. It's a pretty cheap way to enjoy games that I otherwise wouldn't.

>You suggest it's an ethical decision rather than economic; that streamers deserve the support. But why?

I don't suggest any such thing. I think supporting a streamer or not is pretty amoral. It's all about whether or not you feel that you would like to contribute financially to a given streamer whose work you enjoy.

As for why they need support? I don't think many people would say that streamers universally "need" anything. It's about whether or not you personally would like to give money to a person who brings you entertainment. You admit that there are a few YouTubers who you support on Patreon. Many Twitch streamers (most that I've seen) are also YouTubers and produce content there based on their streaming.

At the end of the day, I think your misconception is that you think of "supporting the streamer" as a transaction in payment for content produced and that entertainment is not content (or in some other way not worth supporting in the same way that traditional "content" is).

The question is simple: Is the content entertaining to me? Do I want to show my appreciation for the entertainment? That's all.

Personally, I have not subscribed to any Twitch streamers and I don't intend to. I appreciate what they offer, but I do not feel compelled to subscribe. And I don't think there's any moral quandary there.

Why people use patreon/twitch/... is an interesting question, and I don't think there is a good logical answer or a right/wrong, as with a lot of entertainment-related spending.

Some questions one might ask to challenge your example (but I don't want to imply you are wrong, it's your money you are giving to people you don't have to pay, it's your personal decision what you do with it):

Are your example YouTubers directly spending money on research/editing/filming, or are they also "just" investing time? Why is time spending research more deserving of money than time spend streaming if you enjoy the output of both?

How does money enable their creativity in ways that are not "less time spend making money in other ways = more time for content tantalor enjoys"?

With the creators I support on Patreon, I don't really think or know about how much time they spend on what they are doing (and some of them don't have a day job, so one might argue that they apparently already had enough money and my contribution doesn't enable anything more for me).

> Streamers don't do any of that; they literally sit in their basement and play video games all day. Why do they need support?

The way you chose to phrase this hints at your opinion towards playing a lot of video games.

I personally have subscribed to a tournament host and various (ex-)professional players at times just because I valued the content they produce enough to be okay with giving money to them.

> Does a streamer with more support produce better content than a streamer with less support?

In many cases yes they do, because higher income can make way for dedicated streaming hardware, better gaming hardware, better internet connections and probably other things too.

People find value in watching them play. You don't. So don't pay them. If they get paid, they get paid. A guy living in a cabin in the woods isn't likely to find what you do to be worth a dime either. Doesn't mean there aren't services he'd pay for.

uh, because you value their content?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com