Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IF YOU’RE A gamer, then the news that Amazon bought gaming site Twitch for $970 million last night will have been of significant interest.
For those following the site’s progress, it’s a surprise that it wasn’t Google that bought it, especially since many concluded that the deal was already done.
For everyone else, you may be confused as to why Amazon would pay so much for a site that’s all about watching people play games. So what exactly is Twitch and why would Amazon pay so much for it?
So what exactly is Twitch?
Twitch is a livestreaming gaming site which was founded three years ago by the people behind Justin.tv, another livestreaming site that was recently shut down.
The majority of video content consists of players streaming playthroughs of games while commentating, but there are also live shows and livestreaming esports events.
Multiplayer games like Defence of the Ancients 2 (DotA 2), an online battle arena game, are incredibly popular and sees a number of competitions held around it, the latest one in July having a prize pool worth $11 million.
Some of the most popular games featured on it are non-linear, mainly games like Minecraft – a sandbox game that encourages so much creativity and originality, it deserves its own explainer – and online multiplayer games like League of Legends and Counter-Strike.
Watching someone play a game may not sound captivating, but there’s a significant audience there. Last month, the site had more than 55 million visitors and more than one million users uploaded video content to the site last month.
All content on the site is user-generated (something we’ll touch upon later) and can be viewed later, making it like a specialised version of YouTube.
While livestreaming games like Minecraft is the site’s bread and butter, the site has had a number of breakaway hits in recent times. The most popular example was Twitch Plays Pokémon, which had viewers control the protagonist of Pokémon Red game through chat commands.
1.16 million people participated – 121,000 people being the most playing at the one time – and the game was completed after 16 days (although not before the creator introduced a democracy mode to help progress).
With videos like that, no wonder Amazon paid so much for it!
I’m detecting sarcasm in that statement.
But seriously, do you not think it’s strange that Amazon spent almost a billion dollars on a site that’s about watching people play video games?
If you never heard of it before, then the confusion is understandable, but gaming on video has developed significantly in recent years.
On traditional media, there were few, if any, opportunities for gaming to have a space. Normally, their inclusion was limited to a very general explainer of what videogames are, or discussing controversies surrounding certain games like the Grand Theft Auto series. In short, public perception on it has been narrow.
Online, that stigma doesn’t exist and through sites like Twitch and YouTube, gaming and the people who play them have been given a platform to grow and develop. As a result, many gaming personalities and channels have emerged and have developed significant followings.
The obvious one would be PewDiePie who has 30 million subscribers, but there are many others channels like Sky Does Minecraft (10.3 million) StampyLongHead (3.5 million) Game Grumps (1.7 million) JonTron ( 1.19 million) and Cinemassacre (1.5 million) just to name a few.
If a person or group is entertaining or interesting enough, then it turns a normal gaming feed into something more, and if a game is non-linear, it allows a degree of unpredictability which adds to the fun.
There’s a very good reason why gaming is one of the main categories on YouTube and why Google was reportedly close to buying it.
People aren’t watching livestreams simply because a game is being played, it’s usually because they’re watching someone experienced play, or a group who are able to joke around and enjoy the game.
So why go for Amazon, and not Google?
Since Google already had YouTube, which is a more recognisable brand than Twitch, the fear that the latter would be absorbed and integrated into YouTube was likely a concern. The CEO of Twitch, Emmett Shaer, said in a statement that (emphasis our own):
We chose Amazon because they believe in our community, they share our values and long-term vision, and they want to help us get there faster. We’re keeping most (sic) everything the same: our office, our employees, our brand, and most importantly our independence. But with Amazon’s support we’ll have the resources to bring you an even better Twitch.
Considering how long Google was reportedly in talks with Twitch and how it was going to pay $1 billion as well, it more likely that Twitch opted for the company that will allow it to better stick to its original vision.
And what does Amazon get out of this?
To understand that, you need to realise that for years now, Amazon has been trying to position itself not only as an online shopping destination, but as a major media organisation.
The company already has Prime Instant Video, its rival to Netflix, and what Twitch adds to this is an entry to another lucrative market, the gaming industry, where it’s expected that sales will reach $64 billion globally.
Also, take into consideration that the breakdown of male and female gamers isn’t as lopsided as you think – in a recent study in the US, it found that female gamers made up almost half of all gamers in the country – and Twitch’s reach is broader and more diverse than you would initially expect.
And how does that tie into Amazon’s own products?
Since all the content on the site is user-generated, it means that Amazon has access to hours upon hours of gaming content, which could be used to market games.
Modern games are expensive and while gamers are an audience with disposable income, watching someone they like play a game could easily convince them to buy it themselves, or if they are unsure, gives them a feel for it.
Most game developers already realise this and offer previews or beta versions of their games to the most popular gaming channels as a way of generating interest.
It’s not unreasonable to think that Amazon might want to go down this path eventually, especially since it has an in-house gaming studio and a console in the form of Fire TV.
Ok, so what happens now?
Well, it’s business as usual for Twitch so you could probably watch one of the livestreams happening now. Might we recommend Fish Play Street Fighter, where two goldfish play Street Fighter II? It’s strangely entertaining.
If it passes, then imagine when it gets to the stage where if you’re 40 years of age, you’ll be able to buy cigarettes, but someone aged 39 won’t be allowed to! Will you have to produce your birth cert when purchasing? It’s going to be impossible to enforce. Even New Zealand, where the idea originated, eventually accepted this and scrapped the legislation…
@William Tallon:
@William Tallon: Impossible to enforce? You produce ID to prove your age, similar to what happens today to prove you’re over 18. Pubs and bars in America still require ID to enter the premises, even if you’re middle aged. It’s not as crazy a suggestion as you’re making out
@Jason Memail: Errr… Yes, it is crazy! I doubt if anyone in the future is seriously going to be asking a grown adult in their 30s, 40s, or 50s for evidence of their year of birth when they’re looking to purchase cigarettes. It’s totally unworkable, and I suspect, will end up being totally ignored over time by both members of the public and the retail sector. That, of course, is assuming the government ever actually brings it into force, something which I think is highly unlikely…
Hey kids! Want to pay a small fortune to faceless multinational corporations and the taxman and get nothing in return? Start smoking! Apparently it’s rebellious…
@Ronan Mc: very good
Some of the aul pipe tobaccos had wonderful aromas. Does anyone remember Balkan Sobraine ?
Proper order
No place anymore for the filthy smokes they stink to high heaven.
@Sean Money: Let’s ban drugs too.
@Roy Dowling: well they make you sick and are very smelly. Surely a ban is correct.
My grandmother died, I don’t need another nanny!
Sounds good, but ya would wonder…I don’t smoke or drink, so don’t pay a stupid tax…
People should have the right to smoke, drink,eat fatty food, drink coke etc etc…
But don’t expect me to feel sorry for you when you phone Joe duffy giving out about the health service, while you yourself are clogging it up with self inflicted problems…
Give up smokes and get decent health insurance…52 x 60 euro on pigs would get one he’ll of cover
@hi from heaven: but why inflict the longer waiting list on people who dont smoke. Surely trying to get rid of smoking in its entirety would benefit the health system. I’m pretty sure the tax paid by smokers isn’t comparable to the money it costs to treat long term smoker related diseases
@Roy Dowling: well while we’re at it…….
@Roy Dowling: Why not, prohibition has proved so effective?!! Such shite coming from our governors now it’s so bloody transparent. They take us for fools and we let them, nay re-elect them. It’s on us that they lie so easily, we let them!
@Roy Dowling: It hardly makes sense to suggest banning anything “to benefit the health system”. There’s no provision to ring fence any funds for healthcare and zero guarantee that this is anyone’s priority. It’s an excuse that can only boost gangland profiteering. If alcohol in excess is as dangerous as you imagine, none of those alcoholics will live to claim their pensions. They’re not causing medical staff to protest about working conditions to the point of leaving Ireland. People need treatment and help, not scapegoating.
@Paul Conlon: the tax may or may not cover it, but don’t forget it is usually the lower paid people who smoke and definitely less likely to give them up as an adult..
So alot of money is saved through these people dying younger as they would be a total burden on health care, housing and pensions that would have to be provided by the state..
@hi from heaven:
You won’t be going anywhere near heaven with a comment like that. Poor people are a burden ?
@hi from heaven: do the world a favour and STFU!
I don’t drink or smoke, but I drink loads of coffee. I am forever being told by doctors to cut down, as I have sleep issues. But I don’t want it banned – coffee shops are my life!
What the fk is going on with our governors, is there an election soon?
@Chutes: Are you in a prison that you keep squawking about “our governors”? This article is about the UK for a start. Different jurisdiction.
Criminal gangs/black market operators in the UK must be rubbing their hands at this proposal. Yet another potential revenue stream for them to exploit.
Education around the dangers of smoking should be the focus not implementing a futile ban on the sales of cigarettes. Historically, prohibition has been shown to fail in it’s objectives and I don’t expect this ban will be any different.
@Conrad Stapletwin: Good to hear that someone is moderate and reasonable. Of course gangs are going to profit from prohibition.
While I applaud the sentiment, health and such benefits, I would worry about the trend and what may come next.
No fat/sugar products to be sold to overweight/fat/obese consumers?
If we let governments decide rather than taking personal responsibilities then we’re signing choice making freedoms away.
Not sure where it will stop but am worried about where it starts.
Ever thought that as a parent you have no control over school meals.
While this can be a blessing for some kids, I would not allow it for my children.
Smoking weed included?
@Fintan Stack: Weed doesn’t need to be smoked to be consumed/enjoyed. Vapes have completely removed the need for burning harmful carcinogens when consuming cannabis.
Didn’t realise it was overturned in New Zealand. Probably was a good idea to begin with. It’s like George Orwellian versus the cancer industry .. tobacco lobby is EVIL ENOUH SAID
Again if you ban something, it should be for everyone
@Dominic Leleu: Rationing might be a more balanced response. Even in US States where alcohol was frowned on for various reasons – and not all good reasons either – a normal amount was still available for those who chose to drink etc. Legally.
If only the UK could ban Tories.
Anyone who breaks this law should be burnt at the stake!
have your say