How Ninja become gaming's first crossover star
espn.com
espn.com
And then later:
"Until my family is taken care of. Say this ends tomorrow, we don't have enough for the rest of our lives. I tell Jess, 'Honey, we're not going to have that much quality time this year, or even next year. But if we do this right and I continue to grind for a couple more years, we can set ourselves up, and our family and our family's family, for the rest of our lives.'"
Even though he makes so much money I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes. He doesn’t seem to have a good, relaxed life. One vacation in 8 years while making 500k+ a month? Why...?
It's way better than most startups.
you're also ruling things like health issues, etc.
As to WHY he has to stream so much I believe its two-fold, if he takes his foot off the gas he's afraid he'll lose his audience as has happened to many other streamers. Two, you form the habits to play 10 hours of video games a day it becomes a sort of addiction where the happiness your derive in life partly belongs to those 10 hours.
Having said that, now I fucking well WANT to play Fortnite every day
Of course, he has a bit more flexibility, but so does an employee who yields the company a million each month, and takes home half of that.
Apologies if I'm coming off as offensive or patronising, but I really truly cannot see what there could possibly be to complain about that isn't entirely within their control to change.
I think there's a bigger picture that you might not be stepping back far enough to look at.
But yes, they obviously can just not stream for a single day, but it costs him. According to the article, not streaming a day looses him 15,000 subs (assuming the default cut of 50% of 5$) thats 37k lost, per day, and it adds up.
Ninja seems to be aware that his stream wont live forever, that his fame is on a timer, like anyone on the internet. So he's trying to save up as much money as he can, to support his family after his fame dies down.
Lets be generous and assume $200k spent per year for rent/mortage, food and all that fun stuff. A day streaming means he has 2 months less buffer, before his money would run out. 4 Months, if you're spending 100k a year.
Choosing between 1 day of work, and 4 months of work, seems pretty easy to me, even if that single day sucks.
I recently gave Fortnite a try and ended up turning chat off due to relentless abuse by someone that sounded like they were pretty young. It made me a bit sad - I met some of my best friends growing up online in irc channels playing CS, WoW, etc - not sure if I would be able to do so today.
Also Polygon article where Ninja talks about why he doesn't stream with female gamers (for whatever reason espn didn't link...) -
https://www.polygon.com/2018/8/11/17675738/ninja-twitch-fema...
But sure, lets instead imagine a male-only social club that directly promotes the business and career interests of it's members. That would get shut down real fast.
If anytime someone in an office had a private meeting with the blinds down with a female employee led to accusations of infidelity would you continue having said meetings with the blinds down?
Here's an easier experiment: play out a scenario to the extreme:
When the #2 spot is held by a female gamer, his refusal to play with female players is exactly what you claim it's not. By refusing to play she will never get the chance to compete for the "top" spot. Then sequentially every other player that is not "a her" will get a chance to "win."
Last point, he's not just playing games he's building a massive brand/business (at this stage) that rationalizes the exclusion of women. The secondary and tertiary effects will be damaging for younger generations - as they will see this as the norm.
He's not refusing to compete with women. He's refusing to do two-person co-operative streams with them to reduce the amount of rumors and garbage that terrible people on the internet will create about him.
> When the #2 spot is held by a female gamer, his refusal to play with female players is exactly what you claim it's not. By refusing to play she will never get the chance to compete for the "top" spot. Then sequentially every other player that is not "a her" will get a chance to "win."
None of this makes any sense, you don't know what you're talking about. Have you ever played Fortnite or watched a stream? Did you even read his own justifications for his choices? I suspect not as you created a throwaway account so you could get angry about something and spout nonsense without repercussions.
To be clear, the gaming community in general is shitty to women, this is known. And it would be great if Ninja supported _everyone_ who wants to stream with him. But you can't just force another individual to have your viewpoints and do what _you_ want. You can criticize him for it all you want, that's your freedom to do so, just as he is free to choose who he plays video games with.
Ad Hominem - doesn't do anything here.
If one has a problem with harassment, then rationally one attacks the problem (harassment)...not the victim (women). Then there's Ninja...
>You can criticize him for it all you want, that's your freedom to do so "freedom" is an interesting word choice, given the whole problem we're discussing
Are you a gamer? Can you explain how gaming with girls works or doesn't work the point of excluding them? I've watched some streams, not a ton. Not my cup of tea - but some kids I know are obsessed.
More importantly does Ninja "streaming" with a random player, give that player massive exposure & potential opportunity?
>None of this makes any sense...
Just clarifying: using absolute conditions is a common way to wash out the noise/distortion to get to the crux of the issue - it's meant to over simplify. It's helpful in highlighting the implications of the action in question. So to make sense of this - i think - swap "compete" with "stream" with "opportunity." And the implications remain the same.
>Did you even read his own justifications for his choices? I suspect not as you created a throwaway account so you could get angry about something and spout nonsense without repercussions.
Yep, a lot. Read quite a few articles trying to sift out the hyperbole, learn about his history and backstory. Btw, attacking me is possible sign you are confused or defending something you don't know how to defend. I'm not upset with you, unless you did something that was offensive - then I might be offended.
It doesn't help prove how Ninja's actions are helpful to a "community." Taking such a position - when in power - has ramifications (direct and indirect). I'm actually more concerned about the indirect - which is highlighted by responses like yours.
PS I haven't been on HN in a while (ie lost my login)...karma still works just fine though. Sooo...I'm ok if you're ok.
In this situation, the harassment is directed at Ninja and his wife, thus he and his wife are the victim, not women. Also it is not feasible for one person to "attack" the problem, which is that there are a lot of shitty people on the internet. I'm sure if he could "attack" it he would.
> Are you a gamer? Can you explain how gaming with girls works or doesn't work the point of excluding them?
I am to a degree, nothing competitive, but I at least understand how the game and streaming works. What he's made very clear is when he streams one-on-one with women, there's an increase in rumor youtube videos, hate mail, harassment, and attacks against him, his wife, and others who may be involved. He doesn't want that, thus he doesn't stream with them.
> More importantly does Ninja "streaming" with a random player, give that player massive exposure & potential opportunity?
Yes it does. But note that streaming with Ninja is not the exclusive way to gain subscriptions and viewers on the platform. And yeah it sucks that he doesn't stream with women but that's still his choice to make.
> It doesn't help prove how Ninja's actions are helpful to a "community."
I'm not trying to prove that it's helpful to the community. The community is mostly garbage anyway, have you ever seen the chat in a stream? I'm just saying he made a personal choice that, by what we've observed so far, is his to make.
> I'm actually more concerned about the indirect - which is highlighted by responses like yours.
Please say your point explicitly. _What_ is highlighted by my response?
It comes down to this: We're talking about a guy who plays video games while other people watch. And people want to mandate _who_ he plays with. What right do they have to demand that?
Edit: I do want to say, if it turns out there is a law which prohibits what he's doing, then I find that interesting and would no longer defend his right to do so. Perhaps if his twitch channel is defined as a company and his co-streamers are legally his "employees", then I could see there being a case. Interested to hear from anyone who is educated in these legal matters.
You are defending and rationalizing a passive form of sexism as normal: It's just a game... Other people made him do it... He's protecting himself/his wife... It's just the streaming part... etc
Ninja has earned his influence, fame, and profit. He is a business/brand that monetizes a massive (growing) following of idolizing young boys/men who now think gender segregation and exclusion is noble.
The ninja situation makes me sad when I think about my mother. It makes me angry when I think about my daughter.
I didn't defend it as being normal, I said he's free to make that choice (unless it's illegal?). I wouldn't have made that choice in his position but I don't really have a say in the matter.
This is called rationalizing...
Jumping off the cliff there
So what do you do? Force him to do something he doesn't want? As far as I'm aware, his choice isn't illegal and he's free to choose it and face the social repercussions. It's clear he'd rather take the heat from people complaining about that choice than to deal with the internet trolls and the rumors they start.
It’s totally fair that Ninja wants to limit his family’s exposure to that toxic environment.
It’s no secret that women are subjected to excessive abuse in gaming communities (especially streaming to children/young teens.) But they stream by choice and expose themselves to that by choice. Ninja can choose to not expose himself to that, and that’s not “completely unacceptable.”
FWIW one of the main reasons my (woman) SO plays overwatch is that the abuse controls tend to yield tangible results.
As for geography, I'm from Brazil. It's been my experience that people from 3rd world countries tend to have a thicker skin when it comes to online interactions compared to a number of people from 1st world countries, so that would explain what the poster above said.
Not a terribly meaningful phrase on the whole.... china’s doing well these days, but you’re only going to feel that if you happen to be in the middle or upper class, for example.
The Cold War ended 20 years ago though, and since then the term started to mean “poor/backwards” countries.
Now in the case if Brazil, you’re post-industrialized country with the worlds 9th largest economy.
You simply don’t fit any definition of the “third world”.
I can understand some part of this. Shit talking is not automatically abusive. But if you’re playing, and someone says “bitch you suck stop playing” repeatedly, I really can’t blame you for not playing anymore. This is not as cultural as it is psychological IMHO: if you’re distracted from the game you won’t enjoy it.
This image explains part of the problem when it comes to matchmaking, but it applies to other aspects of the game. https://i.imgur.com/0OA7fIt.png Companies like Valve understand that the best way for them to exist is to be a neutral platform that has some very basic rules, but then groups of people come together and create their own servers with more appropriate rules for that group. Some servers will have harsh moderation, some will have nearly none, others will be somewhere in between. Individuals can then find the servers they like best and everyone is happy.
Companies like Blizzard don't understand this and so they push for the view that they think will make the most people happy (at the expense of others), which is to prevent people from acting in ways that they deem are abusive. I disagree with what they think is abusive and so I'll just stop playing their game since they don't want me there.
> It shouldn't be the developer's place either.
Of course it should! It's up to the developer to create the atmosphere they envision for their game, whether that's a "wild wild west" or a heavily moderated environment. I think it's perfectly acceptable that Blizzard doesn't let you do the shit-talking you want, just like I think it's perfectly acceptable that you don't want to play the game because of it.
It's interesting that you use Valve as your example, though, because I've played a lot of Dota 2 (and DotA: Allstars before that), and that's by far the most toxic gaming community I have ever encountered, which is the biggest reason I don't still play it—otherwise, the game itself is fantastic. For someone like me who likes the gameplay but couldn't care less about the social aspect, even minor shit-talking can be draining when it happens every. single. game. So it goes the other way, too: clearly Valve doesn't care as much about players like me, so I will stop playing the game.
The Overwatch developers ranged from preventing people from saying "gg ez" at the end of a match to saying that they would scour people's social media accounts and ban them from the game if they deemed it the right move. Just way too many instances where they signaled that they were very ban happy and that they deemed all sorts of things that I think are normal as abuse or harassment.
>Do you feel that it was over-controlled?
Yes.
>Did you take offense by beeing controlled at all?
Yes. I don't like an environment where I can get banned if someone doesn't like my trash talk. It goes further than that though because these kinds of signals from developers shape the way the community behaves and expects other people to behave and IMO this particular direction is one I'm always unhappy with. Contrast this to the way Valve handles their communities which is very hands off. I prefer that a lot more to the way Blizzard generally does it.
> Have you been reprimanded due to those controls?
No.
People don't ask people who've just had a heart attack to take food poisoning seriously. But food poisoning still deserves the attention of people who can afford to care.
I, like all reasonable people, welcome women who want to play in these waters. The argument can be made that women deserve extra sensitivity, because they are more emotionally fragile and less able to handle shit talking, but that strikes me as incredibly sexist so I don't hold that belief.
It’s the easy route of course, but we’ve all stood by and watched something shitty happen a few times in our lives.
I mean, have you ever watched the chat of girl/women streamers? It’s some of the most volatile stuff on the entire internet, and those people are who the boys/men also have to deal with.
This may be easy and turning the blind eye, but I don’t think individual streamers can really change anything by going Rosa Parks. It’s the platforms problem, and when it remains as unmoderated as it is, I think decision to ignore parts of its repulsiveness is perfectly understandable. I wouldn’t count on Amazon to foster a healthy culture anytime soon though, and even then you could argue that what is really needed is better parenting.