7 ms·

I'm very surprised that MS has quit this quickly. I didn't expect them to win in the short-term against Twitch and I doubt they did either. This suggests that M

I'm very surprised that MS has quit this quickly. I didn't expect them to win in the short-term against Twitch and I doubt they did either. This suggests that Mixer didn't just do poorly (which could have been assumed) but it must have been a deep catastrophe that showed no signs of turning around. I think the problem with video, and the monopolies it continues to create, is the massive expense of data transfer. I'm guessing Mixer had hundreds/thousands of streamers active at any given time. I assume this was a massive cost and the revenue to support it (even ignoring their deals with streamers like Ninja/Shroud) just wasn't there. It makes me doubt the profitability of Twitch, although you can be sure they are breathing a sigh of relief today.

the_duke 6y ago
They tried to integrate with XBox. They pumped millions and millions into exclusivity deals with streamers like Ninja and Shroud, only saw small growth and then completely stalled. Even during the recent lockdowns they remained almost flat, while others had big viewership spikes. At some point you just have to call it quits. The new competition besides Twitch is FB Gaming and YouTube, which can leverage existing platforms with a huge userbase. An isolated platform that offers no value over Twitch has no chance in this environment.
- ihumanable 6y ago
  I think your analysis is dead on, the only thing I'm surprised by is that Facebook has some sort of FB Gaming streaming platform. I don't really use Facebook, but I watch a fair number of twitch streamers and let's plays and whatnot on YouTube and I've never once heard anyone mention FB Gaming.
  - o-__-o 6y ago
    1 Facebook owns Oculus 2 Remember FarmVille or Plants vs Zombies?
    - blackearl 6y ago
      Regardless of who owns Oculus, most streamers are on Twitch. I don't see how Farmville is relevant. Mobile games and Twitch streams don't see to be anything alike.
      - elif 6y ago
        No most streamers have given up already because without a network effect it can take a decade to turn a profit. Letting streamers utilize their existing social network is a potential game change for early channel growth.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - slightwinder 6y ago
        > I don't see how Farmville is relevant. Mobile games and Twitch streams don't see to be anything alike. Exactly. FB Gaming seems to be very focused on Mobile Games and other typical Facebook-Games (makes sense), not so much on Console and PC-Games. Considering the culture of users it also makes sense. Facebook is more for casual games, who play something on the side, but don't give much for the whole culture, dedication and stuff. Twitch is more embracing the whole core-gamer-culture and youth, making it quite hard to be accessable for everyone else.
  - thundermuffin 6y ago
    A year or two ago FB partnered with a Counter-Strike tournament organizer (ESL) for exclusive streaming rights, and that was probably the most high profile partnership I've ever seen associated with it. It definitely did not go well for them, though; the community were not fans and they promptly went back to Twitch after their year was up. They had to have paid a pretty penny to get that deal inked!
  - binthere 6y ago
    Thing is, Facebook is just forcing views by showing a live stream on people's feed. This alone makes it grow exponentially. It also solves the biggest problem Twitch has at the moment: not being able to promote lesser known streamers. I've see plenty of unknown people streaming on Facebook with 100+ viewers. This is actually good for streamers.
- Drew_ 6y ago
  I think ultimately their buyout of Ninja, Shroud and others flopped hard. These guys drew huge numbers for Twitch and we're not even performing half as well on Mixer and this is not to mention that these guys we're at liberty to stream unpopular games as they pleased on Mixer because of their huge upfront payout.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > An isolated platform that offers no value over Twitch They had value in being able to stream to your friends with .2 seconds of latency instead of 4 seconds of latency. But Discord has moved in on that territory.
  - kohtatsu 6y ago
    That's actually pretty great.
- filoleg 6y ago
  Don't forget, the original founder (who was still running Mixer even post-acquisition) quit Microsoft last year as well.
- fomine3 6y ago
  I'm curious how FB Gaming (I heard it first now) could plays better than Mixer. I've heard Mixer is great about latency.
m0xte 6y ago
Quitting is Microsoft’s number one skill in the last decade.
Matt3o12_ 6y ago
> massive expense of data transfer Does anyone here know how video platforms like Twitch managed to get started considering how expensive cloud data transfer pricing is? The steam bandwidth is considerably higher then video bandwidth (twitch uses a bitrate at around 8000k while YouTube has 3414k for comparable 1080p60fps videos). They also cannot take advantage of edge delivery expect for very large streamers because viewers expect a latency of 3secs or lower to their favorite stream. I am really curious if anyone here knows how they managed to get started? They probably couldn't take advantage of super low bandwidth prices until recently because they were too small but had very expensive requirements (a lot of streamers only streaming to a very limited amount of people with high quality while also having a few very very large streamers stream to a huge amount of viewers and all of that in real time). > It makes me doubt the profitability of Twitch, although you can be sure they are breathing a sigh of relief today. I think twitch is highly profitable these days. Streamers have a considerable amount of subscribers, who pay a monthly fee of $5 (or sometimes even more) and stay for long durations. Twitch takes a 30-50% cut (lower depending on how big the streamer is and if twitch likes the streamer). Even streamers who average less then 1,000 concurrent viewers sometimes have between 100-500 subs. And they have also created bits, which is a virtual currency viewers can use to tip their favorite streamers and twitch takes a similar cut (and they only let you but it in bulk beforehand to make it less transparent on how much you actually spent on them, similar to many mobile games in-app purchase model). And they play ads before streams (and during streams if they streamer decides to play them for a small cut), they also heavily advertise amazon prime (twitch streams constantly say hey you can use amazon prime to subscribe to me for free), they have premium users and probably even more monetization techniques.
- timClicks 6y ago
  FWIW when Twitch started as justin.tv it was much, much poorer quality than 8000k.
  - deadmutex 6y ago
    Small nit: quality and bitrate aren't directly comparable. E.g. codec and decoders choice can make a huge difference. E.g. A lower bitrate av1 stream can be higher visual quality than higher bitrate x264 stream. Where this matters is that sometimes consumers will automatically assume bitrate=quality (especially in audio), and then claim one audio service has better quality than other just because they use a higher bitrate.
irjustin 6y ago
This is interesting given it's the same strategy that MSFT played w/ Windows Phone: 1. See a market that's doing really well that you didn't enter until 5+ years too late and the market is quite established. 2. Play catch up by paying a bunch of 'producers', streams/development houses, to come on board yet still doing the same thing everyone else does with zero base. 3. Exit said market because the money being pumped in is 100x or 1000x worse than the returns. MSFT's other strategy, buy and then operate usually pans out better for them.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  They did pull this off successfully with Xbox.
  - underwater 6y ago
    Also Surface devices, Azure, Office.
- pratnala 6y ago
  Mixer was an acquisition 4 years ago. And back then, streaming wasn't this much of a rage like it is today
  - WorldMaker 6y ago
    Mixer was also a comparable "second place" to Twitch at the time of purchase. Microsoft didn't anticipated YouTube Gaming and Facebook Gaming and couldn't compete with YouTube and Facebook for network effects, hence Mixer dropping to a far behind fourth place.

the_duke 6y ago

They tried to integrate with XBox. They pumped millions and millions into exclusivity deals with streamers like Ninja and Shroud, only saw small growth and then completely stalled. Even during the recent lockdowns they remained almost flat, while others had big viewership spikes. At some point you just have to call it quits. The new competition besides Twitch is FB Gaming and YouTube, which can leverage existing platforms with a huge userbase. An isolated platform that offers no value over Twitch has no chance in this environment.

ihumanable 6y ago
I think your analysis is dead on, the only thing I'm surprised by is that Facebook has some sort of FB Gaming streaming platform. I don't really use Facebook, but I watch a fair number of twitch streamers and let's plays and whatnot on YouTube and I've never once heard anyone mention FB Gaming.
- o-__-o 6y ago
  1 Facebook owns Oculus 2 Remember FarmVille or Plants vs Zombies?
  - blackearl 6y ago
    Regardless of who owns Oculus, most streamers are on Twitch. I don't see how Farmville is relevant. Mobile games and Twitch streams don't see to be anything alike.
    - elif 6y ago
      No most streamers have given up already because without a network effect it can take a decade to turn a profit. Letting streamers utilize their existing social network is a potential game change for early channel growth.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - slightwinder 6y ago
      > I don't see how Farmville is relevant. Mobile games and Twitch streams don't see to be anything alike. Exactly. FB Gaming seems to be very focused on Mobile Games and other typical Facebook-Games (makes sense), not so much on Console and PC-Games. Considering the culture of users it also makes sense. Facebook is more for casual games, who play something on the side, but don't give much for the whole culture, dedication and stuff. Twitch is more embracing the whole core-gamer-culture and youth, making it quite hard to be accessable for everyone else.
- thundermuffin 6y ago
  A year or two ago FB partnered with a Counter-Strike tournament organizer (ESL) for exclusive streaming rights, and that was probably the most high profile partnership I've ever seen associated with it. It definitely did not go well for them, though; the community were not fans and they promptly went back to Twitch after their year was up. They had to have paid a pretty penny to get that deal inked!
- binthere 6y ago
  Thing is, Facebook is just forcing views by showing a live stream on people's feed. This alone makes it grow exponentially. It also solves the biggest problem Twitch has at the moment: not being able to promote lesser known streamers. I've see plenty of unknown people streaming on Facebook with 100+ viewers. This is actually good for streamers.
Drew_ 6y ago
I think ultimately their buyout of Ninja, Shroud and others flopped hard. These guys drew huge numbers for Twitch and we're not even performing half as well on Mixer and this is not to mention that these guys we're at liberty to stream unpopular games as they pleased on Mixer because of their huge upfront payout.
Dylan16807 6y ago
> An isolated platform that offers no value over Twitch They had value in being able to stream to your friends with .2 seconds of latency instead of 4 seconds of latency. But Discord has moved in on that territory.
- kohtatsu 6y ago
  That's actually pretty great.
filoleg 6y ago
Don't forget, the original founder (who was still running Mixer even post-acquisition) quit Microsoft last year as well.
fomine3 6y ago
I'm curious how FB Gaming (I heard it first now) could plays better than Mixer. I've heard Mixer is great about latency.

m0xte 6y ago

Quitting is Microsoft’s number one skill in the last decade.

Matt3o12_ 6y ago

> massive expense of data transfer Does anyone here know how video platforms like Twitch managed to get started considering how expensive cloud data transfer pricing is? The steam bandwidth is considerably higher then video bandwidth (twitch uses a bitrate at around 8000k while YouTube has 3414k for comparable 1080p60fps videos). They also cannot take advantage of edge delivery expect for very large streamers because viewers expect a latency of 3secs or lower to their favorite stream. I am really curious if anyone here knows how they managed to get started? They probably couldn't take advantage of super low bandwidth prices until recently because they were too small but had very expensive requirements (a lot of streamers only streaming to a very limited amount of people with high quality while also having a few very very large streamers stream to a huge amount of viewers and all of that in real time). > It makes me doubt the profitability of Twitch, although you can be sure they are breathing a sigh of relief today. I think twitch is highly profitable these days. Streamers have a considerable amount of subscribers, who pay a monthly fee of $5 (or sometimes even more) and stay for long durations. Twitch takes a 30-50% cut (lower depending on how big the streamer is and if twitch likes the streamer). Even streamers who average less then 1,000 concurrent viewers sometimes have between 100-500 subs. And they have also created bits, which is a virtual currency viewers can use to tip their favorite streamers and twitch takes a similar cut (and they only let you but it in bulk beforehand to make it less transparent on how much you actually spent on them, similar to many mobile games in-app purchase model). And they play ads before streams (and during streams if they streamer decides to play them for a small cut), they also heavily advertise amazon prime (twitch streams constantly say hey you can use amazon prime to subscribe to me for free), they have premium users and probably even more monetization techniques.

timClicks 6y ago
FWIW when Twitch started as justin.tv it was much, much poorer quality than 8000k.
- deadmutex 6y ago
  Small nit: quality and bitrate aren't directly comparable. E.g. codec and decoders choice can make a huge difference. E.g. A lower bitrate av1 stream can be higher visual quality than higher bitrate x264 stream. Where this matters is that sometimes consumers will automatically assume bitrate=quality (especially in audio), and then claim one audio service has better quality than other just because they use a higher bitrate.

irjustin 6y ago

This is interesting given it's the same strategy that MSFT played w/ Windows Phone: 1. See a market that's doing really well that you didn't enter until 5+ years too late and the market is quite established. 2. Play catch up by paying a bunch of 'producers', streams/development houses, to come on board yet still doing the same thing everyone else does with zero base. 3. Exit said market because the money being pumped in is 100x or 1000x worse than the returns. MSFT's other strategy, buy and then operate usually pans out better for them.

chrisco255 6y ago
They did pull this off successfully with Xbox.
- underwater 6y ago
  Also Surface devices, Azure, Office.
pratnala 6y ago
Mixer was an acquisition 4 years ago. And back then, streaming wasn't this much of a rage like it is today
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  Mixer was also a comparable "second place" to Twitch at the time of purchase. Microsoft didn't anticipated YouTube Gaming and Facebook Gaming and couldn't compete with YouTube and Facebook for network effects, hence Mixer dropping to a far behind fourth place.