I don't personally, but I've read that the appeal is that sometimes you want to play a game, and sometimes you want to watch television, and sometimes you don't want to do either but vaguely want an experience that's halfway between the two (i.e. watching someone else play a game).
I was a pretty heavy Twitch user for a while, even streamed for a couple years myself. The biggest draw for me was the community. Most of the time I couldn't care less what the person was playing, I was there to interact with them and their communities. It was about the only social/entertainment outlet I had at the time.
For the most part, they probably are. It’s just the top ~5% that are actually making decent money from it.
Though, I’ve noticed that already having money and comfort is the starting point for some streamers. Because they have the luxury of being able to do whatever they want without consequence.
10 years ago I was like “why tf would I want to watch someone play a video game when I could just play it myself?”
Now I’m like “why tf would I play this game when I could just watch someone else?”
I guess I’m still interested in what’s going on in gaming in general, but I don’t have any desire to go through all the bullshit of a modern AAA game with a huge repetitive open world, dozens of half assed shallow mechanics (rpg/perk system, loot, crafting etc.), homogenized design, predatory DLC/mtx, and all that. I’d rather play Factorio and watch a streamer play whatever hot new game people are into.
This is another huge aspect of why I watch streamers. I love games, but some just aren’t for me. It’s great to get to experience something I normally wouldn’t with a community hyping it up and what not. Great point.
At this point, I know there are so, so, so, so, SO many good games out there from 1977 onwards that I can just play whenever, that I lost interest in checking out new games. Maybe for the graphics, but unless there's a quantum leap in gaming (like, Matrix-like immersion without the dying), then I'm not interested.
And I don't exaggerate when I say 1977. Have you played Atari 2600's Phoenix? Shit is addictive!
I legitimately never understood the draw of watching sports, on any level, until I watched people playing hard video games and was fascinated by checking out what they could do and got to share in their vicarious enjoyment of their accomplishment when they overcame.
I was like oh, I get it. That's why people watch football. Makes sense now.
I think most viewers can be grouped into 3 main categories (please note these are just very broad generalizations)
Category 1 viewers watch streams because they like the game that is being played, and basically treat it like watching sports. They want to watch skilled people doing skillful and impressive things. Maybe they play the game themselves, but not always. They tend to focus on categories rather than channels, and are quick to unfollow if a streamer starts playing something else, even if it's a similar genre.
Category 2 viewers watch streams because of the personality of the streamer and the vibes of the stream, and tend to have parasocial relationship. I won't say much about this category because I honestly don't understand the whole parasocial thing at all, I just know it's a Thing.
Category 3 viewers watch streams because of the streamer's community. They're focused on not just the personality of the streamer, but also the kind of environment they foster and how they interact with the viewers. I'm in this group, I'm on twitch to meet people and make some genuine connections. I've made some great friends in streams, not just with the actual streamer, but the other chatters as well - we hang out off-stream and play games, watch movies, just chat, etc. This group tends to contain a lot of smaller streamers supporting each other (in a bit of a circle-jerk, I admit)
From what I've seen, categories 1 and 2 gravitate towards larger, well-established channels, while category 3 prefer smaller streamers and will be supportive but disappointed if someone they watch becomes "big".
All of this is just my own observations hanging out on twitch and talking with other viewers and streamers, please take with a grain of salt. Also I have no idea how much of this applies to other streaming platforms like YouTube or Kick.
I think this is a pretty good summary overall. I'd like to supplement some things:
Category 1 viewers also contain people who want to vicariously live through someone else and experience their favourite game again for the first time. They tend to stick around only for a specific game, and will move on after the playthrough is over.
Category 2 also contains viewers who watch the streams as a pure entertainment product, more akin to watching a comedian. They're mostly interested in the banter the streamer provides. Many viewers of Northernlion and Jerma fit this description.
Occasionally I'll watch a playthrough of a game I'm interested in something about (the plot or aesthetic), but don't think I'd enjoy playing.
Mostly, though, I watch like the Drawfee stream where they do improv comedy and draw audience suggestions. I'd almost rather watch a vod of a game I'm curious about, but comedy streams with audience participation benefit from seeing them live.
I think a lot of streamers are basically amateur comedians doing bits with something like a videogame to give them material. mst3k-like.
Others will play a game early or right away and be able to review as you watch. They'll say like the controls feel sloppy or the theme is grating and you'll experience that with them. Not a big deal for most people, but for highly anticipated games people are excited about, it helps give a sense of whether a game is worth playing for them in a slightly different way than a written or recorded review.
Watching people play a dnd game live gives you the energy in the chat while watching, which can make more exciting or interesting the play (do people in chat who know dnd think what's happening was a good idea? is everyone freaking out at a roll? is there a person who explains things in there which helps you understand for your own game?) It also protects you from getting spoiled when something dramatic happens.
There are people who play music or paint or work on a skill on stream, and that comes with a touch of the fun of watching a live performance. There's some extra excitement when you see stuff in real time and they could fuck up or they could do something amazing.
Exactly. There were a couple of small streamers I used to watch on Twitch and joined their Discord servers. It was a blast for a while but my work schedule changed and I was unable to watch/participate as much.
It's definitely better live and being able to participate in some way.
I'm not going to buy a console for just one game. If I really want to play that game, and it's been years, and it still hasn't come out on pc, and I can't get the goddamn emulator to work, well, I'll watch a streamer play it.
The difference that I was thinking of was of recorded videos vs. live streams, where with the former you can watch whenever instead of only when the person is streaming.
I was kind of under the impression that Hamas was a defacto ruling party in Gaza. Given their support (according to some in this thread) that Isreal has given to them previously to maintain Gaza, and their previous political standing in West Bank, as well as all the coverage surrounding the conflict. Perhaps I shouldn't of over generalized by referring to Palestine. Because Gaza seems to be the only Palestinian state actually involved in this war. But then again, I'm also attempting to use the same language to describe the scenario as I see it as many of the media sources and supporters of either side do.
Would you say Hamas isn't attempting to eradicate Israelis when convenient? Obviously they're not as effective as Israel's attempt to eradicate Gazans, but to me it seems like they want Israelis dead even more so than the Israelis want Gazans dead just due to the actions they have taken.
Would you say Hamas isn’t attempting to eradicate Israelis when convenient?
Hamas is a much more pragmatic organization than this. They were like that for a while, but stopped somewhere between 2000 and 2006. They also recently came out and said they'd lay down their arms and become a political party if a two-state solution is enforced. Now whether they mean it aside (I think they should be cautiously believed here) that's not the rhetoric of someone going for an eradication campaign.
A pro Israel side, which includes people that believe all of Palestinian land should also be only theirs as well as people that maybe don't care about the land but care that Hamas is defeated and/or the Israeli hostages are saved
Pro Hamas side: people that believe that Israel should be destroyed and Israelis killed, partly because of the damage that they have done to Palestinians
Pro Palestinian side: Don't want innocent Palestinians being bombed, starved or shot by Israel. Some also want a 2 state solutions implemented.
I don't hear any real Pro Hamas people (since Hamas is very must a terrorist group), other than circumstantial ("Hamas is literally the only option Palestinians have aside the other side that is literally killing them"). Hamas basically wants to destroy Israel, which is what led to the October 7th attacks in which about 1,000 Israelis were killed. They felt that peace with Israel was not helping their goals, as Israel bombing Palestinians would help recruit more Hamas soldier with which to use to help destroy Israel.
The UN and many countries feel that despite Israel having the right to defend its citizens and attempt to infiltrate and destroy terrorists(Hamas), Israel is executing this plan in such a way that is unnecessarily killing thousands of innocent Palestinians(both through weapons but also starvation), about half of which are children.
A lot of the misinformation in regards to this topic are: "If you don't support Israel you're antisemitic", "You're either supporting Israel or you're supporting Hamas", "Palestinians overwhelming support Hamas", "Israelis completely support what their government is doing"
I'm too lazy to source the above so obviously assume I'm lying/wrong (same with anybody else not posting any sources). You should read actual articles from reliable new sources, but hopefully the above gives you some information to understand what those articles are talking about.
people that believe that Israel should be destroyed and Israelis killed, partly because of the damage that they have done to Palestinians
Nobody important seriously believes this. Not even Hamas. Well "Israel should be destroyed" is a popular position, because that's calling for an end to Israeli Apartheid. "Push them into the sea" rhetoric died in the 90s.
“Israelis completely support what their government is doing”
They do though. Specifically 80% of Israelis and 88% of Israeli Jews.
Mate, i have seen enough justification for 7/10 by calling every Israeli a legitimate target.
And Hamas themselves called for the eradication of jews in their founding manifesto. Nowadays, that language isnt used on the new manifesto, but Hamas leaders (who just happened to sit comfortably in Qatar and Iran) have called for repetitions of 7/10, again, considering every israeli a valid target.
Mate, i have seen enough justification for 7/10 by calling every Israeli a legitimate target
That's why I said nobody important.
Nowadays, that language isnt used on the new manifesto,
Uh yes exactly. Hamas radically changed their approach to the conflict in 2006, and then in 2017 updated their charter to reflect that.
Hamas leaders (who just happened to sit comfortably in Qatar and Iran) have called for repetitions of 7/10,
Yes.
again, considering every israeli a valid target.
No. They've actively denied that Hamas fighters were responsible for any civilian casualties, and claimed that any such cases are accidents. Now that's obviously not true, but they definitely didn't consider every Israeli a valid target.
Considering that most of the casualties were civilian, thats like believing the IDF when they say they dont consider every civilian a target.
It is reqlly hard to believe any Hamas leader in that regard, once you see who was killed and how.
Considering that most of the casualties were civilian
66%, even including counting crossfire, the involvement of other less trained forces (including random Gazans who happened to enter through the hole Hamas opened) and Israeli friendly fire (the latter is not insignificant; there were multiple proven cases of Israel choosing to kill Hamas fighters along with hostages instead of letting them return to Gaza). Not denying the atrocities that Hamas actually committed, but given these factors 66% isn't indicative of any deliberate targeting.
It is reqlly hard to believe any Hamas leader in that regard, once you see who was killed and how.
What I'm trying to say is: Hamas's official stance is that Israeli civilians aren't valid targets. If they do consider all Israeli civilians targets (which considering how pragmatic Hamas generally is as an organization would make absolutely no sense) they're definitely not saying it out loud. They said they'll repeat 7/10 against Israel, the political entity, not that they'd keep killing civilians, is what I'm saying.
I mean they kidnapped civilians and refuse to release them. This is an extreme form of violence against innocent people, even if you accept the claim that the killing of civilians was unintentional which I find extremely dubious.
A charitable interpretation is that they have an extremely callous disregard for civilian lives in their campaign. Uncharitably, we could make an argument that their behavior indicates a clear desire to kill Israeli civilians. Either way, their claims here are total nonsense and I think actually make their malice towards Israeli citizens more, not less clear. They know what happened on Oct 7th and lying about it demonstrates that they have no desire to avoid the atrocities committed in the future.
I mean they kidnapped civilians and refuse to release them.
This is a textbook case of don't blame the player, blame the game. Whatever little of Gaza's dignity Hamas will be able to preserve after the war will depend on the hostages. While it sucks for them it'd suck worse if after this is all over Israel starts "resettling" Gaza or continues their starvation campaign.
I don’t think Likud and IDF leaders care too much about the wellbeing of the hostages, and their behavior pretty clearly reflects that.
What they do care about is international pressure, especially from the US. So if Hamas wants to maximize their bargaining power they should be seeking to undermine the public narratives around the necessity of the war. One possible way to do this would be the release of the hostages, which is constantly brought up as a justification for continued attacks on Gaza.
It would also be, you know, ethical but I guess we are past pretending they care about that.
I don’t think Likud and IDF leaders care too much about the wellbeing of the hostages, and their behavior pretty clearly reflects that.
They don't, but the Israeli public does. This will matter if a Gaza remains after the war ends.
So if Hamas wants to maximize their bargaining power they should be seeking to undermine the public narratives around the necessity of the war.
Honestly, nobody who doesn't already support Palestine will change their position because they released the 30 or so hostages that are still alive. It'll just be called a move for clout, which won't be too far from the truth. Also during post-war negotiation what's important won't be clout with the international community; that's more of a long-term thing. What they will need then is negotiating power with Israel. Maybe it'll be different if the international community actually takes an active role in negotiations, but we both know that's not happening.
The pro hamas viewpoint is rare in the West but Netanyahu going for the world record on "most children killed" is also probably not doing favors for the public perception of Israel around the world.
So, according to your numbers, 20-12 percent of israelis don't support what the government is doing? Doesn't sound like israelis completely supports what the government is doing in Palestine. Thats a majority sure, but there's a not insignificant amount of people that don't support what the government is doing in Palestine.
I don't think anyone is trying to imply that all Israelis support what their government is doing, but 80% (including 88% of Israeli Jews, which are the main demographic we're looking at here) is a very damning number. Related: I don't have the total number for this one, but the number of Israeli Jews who believe Israel is using too little or an appropriate amount of firepower is 94%. Again not all of them, but these are pretty damning numbers and dispel the idea that there's real domestic opposition to what's going on in Gaza.
Maybe that's my bias, but that seems to be a very... specific way of sorting sides.
Mind if I rephrase that?
Pro Israeli side, which includes people who care that the hostages be saved. Some also want a 2 state solutions implemented.
Pro Israeli control of Palestinians side: people that believe any Palestinian autonomy will result in a repeat of the Oct. 7th massacre, partly because of the, well, Oct. 7th massacre.
Pro Palestinian side, which includes people who believe Israel should be destroyed and Jews killed, as well as people who maybe don't want want Jews killed but care that Israel is defeated and/or Palestinians are not bombed.
I'd say both phrasings are about equally accurate and objective.
Out of the loop
Oldest