At first I was excited about hearing this, but there’s two big caveats to this:
1) Due to some odd wording in the terms of what’s permissible, your stream can’t be lower quality than what you send to other platforms. Because YouTube offers a higher ingestion bandwidth rate (10+ Mbps) than Twitch (6 Mbps), someone appealing to both services that wants to send the maximum bitrate allowed for quality purposes or even with differing resolutions can be hit due to the technicality:
> otherwise degrading, the video quality on Twitch so that it’s worse than on other platforms would make the user’s experience on Twitch less than other services and, therefore, not meet these guidelines.
2) A popular tool for streamers who aren’t bound by exclusivity (anyone not Affiliate/Partner before this came out) used Restream to both stream to multiple platforms as well as integrate a combined chatroom, for example mixing YouTube and Twitch chats, will have to stop doing so. This sucks for viewer interactivity and would be a net negative to smaller streamers:
> You do not use third-party services that combine activity from other platforms or services on your Twitch stream during your Simulcast, such as merging chat or other features, to ensure the Twitch community is included in the entirety of the experience of your livestream.
So, this feels more like a bait and switch to generate positive PR when a lot of the conversation toward Twitch has been negative the past year, and less of an omission of no longer being the top dog of gaming streaming.
Yeah. "You ensure" that Twitch users' "experience" of your stream is "no less" than other platform users' "experience".
They write them like this deliberately -- so they can enforce them however they like, and there's nothing clear-cut so they are largely unaccountable. They're "guidelines" after all -- mere suggestions at things you might like to consider. You know, "guidelines", as in "your account has been closed due to your recent breach/es of the guidelines".
So, if I can't ensure that every person watching on OtherPlatform is having a measurably worse time than every person watching on Twitch, I'm risking my Twitch channel? Unless they came here for a bad time, I guess, so every Twitch viewer must be having the experience that they deem as more than or equal to every OtherPlatform viewer.
I guess if I can't comply with that then maybe I just don't have what it takes to be a god/Twitch streamer.
Isn't this pretty much exactly one of the major things they're accused of in the anti trust suit against them? They would ban you from selling if you sold your product cheaper on your own site where amazon doesn't get a cut. Seems their m.o.
These excerpts read like the ultimatums of a deeply insecure partner. The bizarre demands and their the defensive pretexts...like, you ok Twitch? You shouldn't control what someone does with others. You definitely shouldn't stalk them to see what they're doing without you. That's abusive behavior, Twitch. Placating jealousy doesn't preserve relationships, it destroys them. If you don't want to drive people away, work on yourself, Twitch. I recommend seeing someone. This isn't healthy.
As a developer you make the mistake of thinking that everyone is a developer.
Many streamers are not technically adept. For them it would be easier to use a hypothetical Chat-Combiner-Third-Party-Service, but they are banned from that. They have to install some software on their computer (many cant), that software needs to be configured and nothing stops twich from pulling tricks ro break it.
Basically they make it harder for streamers.
> 1) Due to some odd wording in the terms of what’s permissible, your stream can’t be lower quality than what you send to other platforms. Because YouTube offers a higher ingestion bandwidth rate (10+ Mbps) than Twitch (6 Mbps), someone appealing to both services that wants to send the maximum bitrate allowed for quality purposes or even with differing resolutions can be hit due to the technicality:
I doubt streamers would dual encode their streams anyway. They'd just use the lowest common denominator.
I think Twitch doubts it too, that's part of this strategy. They tell you you are free, contingent on these guidelines being followed (but they're not rules). They then present vague conditions which seem unenforceable and impossible to follow. They can and will enforce them, you just don't know how, why, or when -- so you play it safe: cripple the experience on OtherPlatform, or, as that's too much effort, just don't use OtherPlatform. Problem solved!
It's kind of crazy that Twitch hasn't improved the video quality since... possibly ever? Didn't they have a 6 Mbps limit back in 2013-2015 too? Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure Twitch has, technically, improved at all since then, other than stability.
Even hitbox.tv, back when they tried to enter the fray, had live rewind, for instance.
It probably has to do with the accelerator hardware they use for transcoding the source stream. If they want to support higher bitrates or resolutions, they have to invest in completely new hardware.
That would also mean added complexity in the ingest server architecture, because large partners would probably be the first get access to the new hardware. While keeping smaller streamers on 720p 2Mbps or something to keep down costs.
I take the first to mean that you can't purposefully degrade the quality from what would otherwise be possible, not that you can't use higher bitrate elsewhere.
The second bit simply says "third party service" - nothing stops you from doing the combined chat overlay locally and streaming the result.
Also, twitch is still very much the top dog, but you're right - they're actually having to compete against youtube now.
> The second bit simply says "third party service"
The spirit of the terms seems to be they don't want combined chat, and are relying on the fact that most streamers are not going to develop their own chat combining software.
If people try to get past this on a technicality, expect them to revise the conditions.
If, as a user, I think the video quality on another platform is superior to that on Twitch and knew that there was an alternative platform where I could watch the same thing at higher quality, the experience on Twitch is clearly less than that on the other platform. This breaches the first guideline.
> The second bit simply says "third party service"
And this is the real point: it simply says. It doesn't clearly specify, there is no definition of these terms. These vaguely/innocently worded hints will be enforced opaquely whenever they feel like it, without explanation of what, specifically, you did wrong.
> The second bit simply says "third party service" - nothing stops you from doing the combined chat overlay locally and streaming the result.
I think that is either legalese or poor wording in the text of the actual guideline, The FAQ has this to say about personal use of chat combining software:
> The prohibition on third party tools only applies to content presented to viewers either on or off Twitch.
"tools" and "applies to content presented to viewers" I think gives an idea of how they will actually enforce this versus the "service" wording of the guideline
This is actually a big change and a very good thing. The viewing experience on YouTube is so much better if your Internet is not uber fast. I am not sure how twitch intends to benefit from this. I have watched all twitch and youtube simulcasts always on Youtube.
> The viewing experience on YouTube is so much better if your Internet is not uber fast.
The viewing experience, if you don't include the chat experience, is better regardless of your connection's speed. YouTube seems to have access to better distribution (you'd think Twitch being an Amazon company they'd be more or less on par), the software works better, the ad policy works better.
I can only imagine Amazon is being stingy with Twitch's budget. If they wanted to make the stream reliability much better they absolutely could. I experience the same even with gigabit bandwidth in the central US - can't watch the Twitch version (of some event that is streaming to both) reliably even at 480p, yet the YouTube version is buttery smooth at 1080p.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet: the guidelines explicitly state that the Twitch chat experience must be >= other platforms.
Many streamers use bots to interact with chat for things like raffles, giveaways, custom coin gamification... and these bots usually don't support multiple concurrent platforms.
Because of this stipulation, I've already witnessed multiple streamers say "if you're watching on Youtube and would like to enter, you must go to Twitch and type !X in chat"
Whether intentional or not, this is a sly way make the actual streamers 301 to Twitch.
I think that's also supported by the fact that practically any other platform has to lure streamers with expensive contracts. If Twitch wasn't the go to platform any more, that wouldn't be the case.
The fact that Twitch has allowed simultaneous streaming on other platforms suggests that the platform is no longer able to offer famous streamers the financial incentives they are seeking.
But they will lose them anyways, once streamers are able to simulcast and viewers slowly shift. This is either an admission of defeat or supreme confidence that viewers would prefer Twitch over other platforms as long as streamer is available on Twitch.
> I am not sure how twitch intends to benefit from this.
My best guess is that they are trying to keep more communities on Twitch at the cost of letting some viewers leave. The new rules about not combining chats or other features (sub notifications?) means you have some real network effects that will keep many viewers on twitch and keep the streamer primarily focused on Twitch because there's no low-cost migration path for their community anymore.
Power users will probably use extensions that let them watch a higher quality Youtube stream with Twitch chat enabled, and if most of the community is on Twitch they may want to subscribe on Twitch as well. In the best case scenario Twitch gets all the revenue they would have gotten ($2.50/m from the sub) without any of the cost of delivering the video.
Further, IF they can keep the community and the engagement on Twitch then they might have turned their simulcast weakness into a strength. If viewers organically find the stream on Youtube or Kick or whatever and enjoy it but see that all the chat and alerts are from twitch and want to participate then they might jump over. YouTube's live discoverability is awful right now so its kind of moot but it could be a thing in the future.
> your stream can’t be lower quality than what you send to other platforms
Twitch just passes through the stream you provide without transcoding at the top quality level. They only transcode for resolutions lower than you are providing (and ration those transcoding services).
YouTube always transcodes, even if the resolution/bitrate you are streaming is suitable for viewers, slightly lowering quality.
Therefore unless you are providing a lower resolution or bitrate stream to Twitch yourself, you can never fall foul of this. YouTube will always lower the quality from what you provide.
The "no-combining activity" is a direct shot at Restream.io etc which provide unified chat streams.
but YouTube will ingest 10 mbit stream in contrast to twitch 6, so even after YouTube transcoding the result may still look better than direct 6 mbit relayed by twitch.
This seems like a good change for streamers and viewers, I was honestly surprised at how restrictive they were before. They still are a little, not allowing them to link to the other platforms they're streaming on, etc.
Nice to see the note about Jacksfilms, it's cool that this is getting into mainstream news
What does it mean 'Twitch will let them'? Is this some new feature in their software? Or were streamers actually forbidden to stream on several platforms at once by some contract?
Aye, the rule before this change is in the terms as:
> 11. Simulcasting
> When you are streaming live on the Twitch Services you may not simultaneously live stream or broadcast (“Simulcast”) on any other “Twitch-like Service,” meaning any web-based network, platform, or service that supports live streaming of user generated content, without advance written permission from Twitch. For clarity, you may Simulcast on mobile-first services that support live streaming. This Section does not apply to non-profit or government entities that are live streaming for non-commercial purposes.
Twitch-like being YouTube, Kick, and similars. Mobile first being Tiktok, Instagram, etc - vertical/portrait resolution
As a hyper-niche classical guitar streamer, I’m stoked for this. I previously ended my Affiliate program just to feel comfortable multi-streaming to YouTube: my target audience is so niche it feels important to reach audiences where they’re at. Hope this change helps build more niche genres!
The new CEO of Twitch dan clancy is actually coming across like a really nice guy, he often shows up on random streamers streams and does his own streams etc. He also was a guest for a day of IRL streaming with a streamer called extraemily for example. Recently he was posting that the twitch partner application he sent for his own stream was denied even though he meets the criteria, a long standing grievance of the community he presumably was testing for himself.
My point is just that he really seems to makes an effort to understand live streaming, I'm somewhat cautiously optimistic about the future of Twitch with him on the helm.
Yes, Clancy is the total opposite of the previous CEO. The former one was kinda like a myth who just appeared once a year to Twich-Con, and nobody even knew who he was then because everyone had already forgotten about him again.
Clancy on the other side is so far on a constant quest to explore and live a Streams life and engage with people. Really impressive. But also generally very unusually for someone in that position to appear this active in Public.
Readit News
1) Due to some odd wording in the terms of what’s permissible, your stream can’t be lower quality than what you send to other platforms. Because YouTube offers a higher ingestion bandwidth rate (10+ Mbps) than Twitch (6 Mbps), someone appealing to both services that wants to send the maximum bitrate allowed for quality purposes or even with differing resolutions can be hit due to the technicality:
> otherwise degrading, the video quality on Twitch so that it’s worse than on other platforms would make the user’s experience on Twitch less than other services and, therefore, not meet these guidelines.
2) A popular tool for streamers who aren’t bound by exclusivity (anyone not Affiliate/Partner before this came out) used Restream to both stream to multiple platforms as well as integrate a combined chatroom, for example mixing YouTube and Twitch chats, will have to stop doing so. This sucks for viewer interactivity and would be a net negative to smaller streamers:
> You do not use third-party services that combine activity from other platforms or services on your Twitch stream during your Simulcast, such as merging chat or other features, to ensure the Twitch community is included in the entirety of the experience of your livestream.
So, this feels more like a bait and switch to generate positive PR when a lot of the conversation toward Twitch has been negative the past year, and less of an omission of no longer being the top dog of gaming streaming.
Source: https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/simulcasting-guidelines
They write them like this deliberately -- so they can enforce them however they like, and there's nothing clear-cut so they are largely unaccountable. They're "guidelines" after all -- mere suggestions at things you might like to consider. You know, "guidelines", as in "your account has been closed due to your recent breach/es of the guidelines".
So, if I can't ensure that every person watching on OtherPlatform is having a measurably worse time than every person watching on Twitch, I'm risking my Twitch channel? Unless they came here for a bad time, I guess, so every Twitch viewer must be having the experience that they deem as more than or equal to every OtherPlatform viewer.
I guess if I can't comply with that then maybe I just don't have what it takes to be a god/Twitch streamer.
https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/simulcasting-guidelines?lan...
Deleted Comment
Nothing is stopping the streamer, as a first party, from combining chats.
Many streamers are not technically adept. For them it would be easier to use a hypothetical Chat-Combiner-Third-Party-Service, but they are banned from that. They have to install some software on their computer (many cant), that software needs to be configured and nothing stops twich from pulling tricks ro break it. Basically they make it harder for streamers.
I doubt streamers would dual encode their streams anyway. They'd just use the lowest common denominator.
Even hitbox.tv, back when they tried to enter the fray, had live rewind, for instance.
That would also mean added complexity in the ingest server architecture, because large partners would probably be the first get access to the new hardware. While keeping smaller streamers on 720p 2Mbps or something to keep down costs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitch_(service)#Amazon_subsid...
The second bit simply says "third party service" - nothing stops you from doing the combined chat overlay locally and streaming the result.
Also, twitch is still very much the top dog, but you're right - they're actually having to compete against youtube now.
The spirit of the terms seems to be they don't want combined chat, and are relying on the fact that most streamers are not going to develop their own chat combining software.
If people try to get past this on a technicality, expect them to revise the conditions.
If, as a user, I think the video quality on another platform is superior to that on Twitch and knew that there was an alternative platform where I could watch the same thing at higher quality, the experience on Twitch is clearly less than that on the other platform. This breaches the first guideline.
> The second bit simply says "third party service"
And this is the real point: it simply says. It doesn't clearly specify, there is no definition of these terms. These vaguely/innocently worded hints will be enforced opaquely whenever they feel like it, without explanation of what, specifically, you did wrong.
I think that is either legalese or poor wording in the text of the actual guideline, The FAQ has this to say about personal use of chat combining software:
> The prohibition on third party tools only applies to content presented to viewers either on or off Twitch.
"tools" and "applies to content presented to viewers" I think gives an idea of how they will actually enforce this versus the "service" wording of the guideline
The viewing experience, if you don't include the chat experience, is better regardless of your connection's speed. YouTube seems to have access to better distribution (you'd think Twitch being an Amazon company they'd be more or less on par), the software works better, the ad policy works better.
Many streamers use bots to interact with chat for things like raffles, giveaways, custom coin gamification... and these bots usually don't support multiple concurrent platforms. Because of this stipulation, I've already witnessed multiple streamers say "if you're watching on Youtube and would like to enter, you must go to Twitch and type !X in chat"
Whether intentional or not, this is a sly way make the actual streamers 301 to Twitch.
It might staunch the bleeding. Instead of losing X streamers a month they lose .5X streamers who just simulcast instead of leaving.
It's an admission that they're not the big dog in streaming any more.
while not at their absolute peak of 2021 they certainly still are in relative terms. They've about 70-75% marketshare depending on the source (https://advanced-television.com/2023/09/04/data-twitch-losin....)
I think that's also supported by the fact that practically any other platform has to lure streamers with expensive contracts. If Twitch wasn't the go to platform any more, that wouldn't be the case.
Seems like twitch de facto dominates the gaming "niche".
Might have something to do with their quirky UI and terrible search function.
They stop losing streamers to other platforms because of the previous twitch-only stipulation.
My best guess is that they are trying to keep more communities on Twitch at the cost of letting some viewers leave. The new rules about not combining chats or other features (sub notifications?) means you have some real network effects that will keep many viewers on twitch and keep the streamer primarily focused on Twitch because there's no low-cost migration path for their community anymore.
Power users will probably use extensions that let them watch a higher quality Youtube stream with Twitch chat enabled, and if most of the community is on Twitch they may want to subscribe on Twitch as well. In the best case scenario Twitch gets all the revenue they would have gotten ($2.50/m from the sub) without any of the cost of delivering the video.
Further, IF they can keep the community and the engagement on Twitch then they might have turned their simulcast weakness into a strength. If viewers organically find the stream on Youtube or Kick or whatever and enjoy it but see that all the chat and alerts are from twitch and want to participate then they might jump over. YouTube's live discoverability is awful right now so its kind of moot but it could be a thing in the future.
Twitch just passes through the stream you provide without transcoding at the top quality level. They only transcode for resolutions lower than you are providing (and ration those transcoding services).
YouTube always transcodes, even if the resolution/bitrate you are streaming is suitable for viewers, slightly lowering quality.
Therefore unless you are providing a lower resolution or bitrate stream to Twitch yourself, you can never fall foul of this. YouTube will always lower the quality from what you provide.
The "no-combining activity" is a direct shot at Restream.io etc which provide unified chat streams.
Nice to see the note about Jacksfilms, it's cool that this is getting into mainstream news
> 11. Simulcasting
> When you are streaming live on the Twitch Services you may not simultaneously live stream or broadcast (“Simulcast”) on any other “Twitch-like Service,” meaning any web-based network, platform, or service that supports live streaming of user generated content, without advance written permission from Twitch. For clarity, you may Simulcast on mobile-first services that support live streaming. This Section does not apply to non-profit or government entities that are live streaming for non-commercial purposes.
Twitch-like being YouTube, Kick, and similars. Mobile first being Tiktok, Instagram, etc - vertical/portrait resolution
https://www.twitch.tv/p/en/legal/terms-of-service/#11-simulc...
I imagine this will be changing soon so for posterity https://archive.ph/Y3Vti#11-simulcasting
My point is just that he really seems to makes an effort to understand live streaming, I'm somewhat cautiously optimistic about the future of Twitch with him on the helm.
Clancy on the other side is so far on a constant quest to explore and live a Streams life and engage with people. Really impressive. But also generally very unusually for someone in that position to appear this active in Public.