Behold! The rise of "Stream to win","View to win" or "Watch to Win" P2W was just the beggining.

Interesting

I denounced on this forum when the wikipedia changed the definition of MMORPG and now we all know that even a lobby browser garbage is called an "MMO", likened to a stretched open anus is what they did.  Basically if it has a public server with some character progression and some multiplayer interaction they label it MMO and monetize these abominations.

Many years ago, we denounced the Pay to Win, it started as free to play with "VIP" or "PREMIUM" (caps to amount of money that players could spend to get a capped amount of bonuses) and then they removed the caps of amount of money to buy things in the game and then the WHALING phenom (whales, one big sea animal, equivalent to a rich person buying power [time/effort] directly/indirectly started. 

There are many labels, pay to win became a label, popular and strong label. It made easy for players to MARK THEIR TARGET GAME FOR DEATH as defiled for unsuspecting players who dont like defiled things. Everyone who reads the label "Pay to win" on a few reviews can quickly dismiss the game without guilty conscience: "Nah, I will pass".

Now we have a new phenoms that is going to severely affects gaming.
Its related to gamers streaming, gaming popularity affecting success of games. What makes a good game succeed or fail is composed of many factors, but even fake popularity breeds more popularity (a cancer in any human social environment). What makes the marketing for a game these days is composed of many factors as well. In the beggining everything was just word of mouth, old school socialization. 

Nowadays we have a new low, devolution of mankind: some viral social enginneering that spreads like word of mouth. A new disease. Its the zombie apocalypse. I will explain.

The game I observed this now is Warframe.
They envisioned, partnered (with Twitch), engineered and designed a system to zombify its own players as viewers for ingame rewards. This zombification Im talking about is new. Not a bunch of pale weak no life gamers grinding thousand of hours in progression threadmills or just playing the same ("player skill") "balanced-trademark" team based, lobby games over and over. Its the usage of sucker with hardware/internet connection for the illusion of popularity, meta popularity farming by games.

They "incentive" players to link their gaming accounts and twitch accounts for ingame rewards. This gives streamers viewers (zombies, unlike ro bots, which work the same but cost more, and as unethical/imoral, anti terms of service much). This gives the game viewers, visibility, popularity, for very little investment in marketing for the game (yeah, its just a matter of time and more demonic gaming marketing will come through this legal contractual loopholes). Twitch contracts with the game company, they get some partnership gimmicks, some payment, more viewers. Everyone profits, yey? Nay! Woe unto us, old school, holy gamers.

Warframe went to a game with VERY FEW PEOPLE streaming, average of 500-1000 viewers peak per day for over an year. To dozens of thousands of viewers. All zombies who linked their ingame accounts with twitch, opened a bunch of streamers on browser, muted the sound, and set the quality to minimum to reduce hardware/bandwidth and voilá. Ruining their own experience (aka the cheating anti reward sideeffect mechanism; "he that hate gifts shall live" thousand years old proverb).

CHECK THE DATA OF WARFRAME POPULARITY PROGRESSION:
https://sullygnome.com/game/Warframe/14/summary  <- shows the last 14 days, notice how the number of people watching spiked at october 12th. All due to this "yey, rewards for free, just link accounts, open streams, wait for the fat loots"

Every 1 hour or so, per streamer watched, players get in their ingame mail some rewards. Progression based on this abomination. Twitch is ok with that, Warframe got 88k thousand viewers peak a few days after introducing this system and it is stabilizing with 20-30 thousand viewers peak. How successful this becomes for them and other games, at this point, is merely fiddling with the carrot on a stick. "brains!"

No, not suddenly the new game expansion "Plains of Eidolon" became a paramount of gaming entertainment for viewers. Its just that instead of paying a internet provider all the bot/fake viewership big companies/streamers do, or contracting popular streamers to stream your game, WARFRAME WENT BEYOND.

Designed "watch to win", or "view to win" or "stream to win" if you prefer.

It was hard enough to figure out why garbage is so popular without accounting for all imoral, unethical, borderline criminal secret abuses on marketting strategies. But after seeing what is happening with Warframe right now I cant help but think another gates of hell have been opened once again in gaming, just like pay to win.

Brace for the justifications, downright denial of reality. "Ah, its just some gifts" they will say. No, its not just some gifts, the game is defiled, because these zombified players started boasting on reddit about the ridiculous 800k credits they got for viewing a bunch of streamers in a few hours (background view, muted, minimum quality, and soon there will be non graphical viewing programs, just like non graphical bots farms existed in the first MMORPGs like openkore for Ragnarok Online and the limit will be hardware/internet provider ip ranges), while I got slightly more than 200k three days playing for around 30 hours. It dwindle the satisfaction of gathering the fruits from the tree of my ingame time and effort, because some sellouts are being infected with the latest trend in viral marketing. 

If you allow this to go down in silence, more abominations will come.

Interesting

Too long didnt re-read. 

Eldurian

Neither did I because it's a straight wall of text. You really need to break that up by bolding some major points. Perhaps some numbers and bullet points in there. That way readers can tell with a skim the general points you are talking about and decide whether or not they want to read it.

Your writing has 5-15 seconds to capture the reader's attention.

Wizardry

IDC what definition some wiki or anyone else gives for a definition,i have my own which is based on common sense.
There is a reason in law that a specific phrase or term is further deciphered down and not taken as straight face value.It is the same reason someone might try to get a simple yes or no out of you but many times it needs to be furthered explained and a simple yes/no is not good enough.

 One particular note that i know and is very obvious to anyone that pays attention is the mention of borderline criminal abuse of marketing strategies.I could further explain but takes too long so i'll let people grow and learn with age.

Basically the entire subject can be simply surrounded by the term MARKETING.Every single business,even outside gaming is trying to make THEIR product as efficient and lucrative and appealing to as many people as possible.Just take a look over at Game space scores/reviews and have a laugh at how unethical their practices are.IMO NOBODY should be allowed to review or score a game if they are directly related financially to those same businesses.

Several terms are abused on the internet...FUN is one,opinion is another,the law is another.

MadFrenchie

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Streamers and before that fan sites getting advantages predates "F2P".
And I'm not defending streamers, in my opinion most if not all of them on Twitch and Youtube are immature young adults with attention seeking problems and inflated egos who should find something better to do with their life.

I can't, for the life of me, understand why folks would spend any significant amount of time watching streamers just play games.

Those streaming about alpha gameplay ala Pantheon streams are understandable, since the streamer has exclusive access to a game's development.  And I guess I could see briefly watching a stream to get a feel for gameplay prior to purchase (though YouTube videos seem much better suited to this).  But to spend significant amounts of time watching another player stream them playing the game I can boot up and experience myself?  What?

Cryomatrix

It was an interesting post and I would call it a brilliant marketing strategy, but that is what you get when your God is money. It is unethical and lame but if you don't care, then why not. 

I could never do some BS like that, then again, I was raised differently. The funny thing is, if people will be this shady marketing a game, what about all other aspects of life in which money is tied into it. 

Health care, etc. 

Cryomatrix

Octagon7711

I let ESO Legends run all the time on Twitch now for the gold and  soul stones.  What an idea they came up with.  SWL let you level without playing also.  Your daily rewards are xp for weapons and jewelry amount other things.  Just login once a day and apply.  

Sovrath

MadFrenchie said:

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Streamers and before that fan sites getting advantages predates "F2P".
And I'm not defending streamers, in my opinion most if not all of them on Twitch and Youtube are immature young adults with attention seeking problems and inflated egos who should find something better to do with their life.

I can't, for the life of me, understand why folks would spend any significant amount of time watching streamers just play games.

Those streaming about alpha gameplay ala Pantheon streams are understandable, since the streamer has exclusive access to a game's development.  And I guess I could see briefly watching a stream to get a feel for gameplay prior to purchase (though YouTube videos seem much better suited to this).  But to spend significant amounts of time watching another player stream them playing the game I can boot up and experience myself?  What?

My brother doesn't like video games at all. But he does like watching me and the few friends I have who play games, play.

He says it's fun and relaxing. It just is what it is.

anemo

You obviously haven't been paying attention to what Amazon is planning for their future games.   Since they own twitch they're planning integrations of allowing viewers to change the streamers game.   Things like changing what the rewards will be, activating traps, changing how boss monsters act, and similar.   This is something worth bragging about as far as Amazon Game Studios cared.

ConstantineMerus

MadFrenchie said:

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Streamers and before that fan sites getting advantages predates "F2P".
And I'm not defending streamers, in my opinion most if not all of them on Twitch and Youtube are immature young adults with attention seeking problems and inflated egos who should find something better to do with their life.

I can't, for the life of me, understand why folks would spend any significant amount of time watching streamers just play games.

Those streaming about alpha gameplay ala Pantheon streams are understandable, since the streamer has exclusive access to a game's development.  And I guess I could see briefly watching a stream to get a feel for gameplay prior to purchase (though YouTube videos seem much better suited to this).  But to spend significant amounts of time watching another player stream them playing the game I can boot up and experience myself?  What?

Many of the top streamers play competitive games. People watch to learn to how play better.

Some hop around new releases, people watch to learn about the new games.

Some do interesting playthrough, discussing lore, finding clues, telling the story in a new way. People watch them because they like those stories, and their playthrough is more interesting. 

Some take a challenge, people watch them for the same reason they watch anyone else take on any sort of challenge. 

That's most of the Twitch.

There's also an off off Broadway version which no one cares about, neither should you. It's the Internet, not everyone has to have a sound reason for doing anything. 

Asm0deus

You Have Failed This Community!

MadFrenchie

I don't actively antagonize folks who watch them.  Just don't understand the appeal.

Then again, aside from sports and watching things with the girlfriend, I don't watch TV in general, either.

I prefer actively participating in my entertainment.

Sovrath

MadFrenchie said:

I don't actively antagonize folks who watch them.  Just don't understand the appeal.

Then again, aside from sports and watching things with the girlfriend, I don't watch TV in general, either.

I prefer actively participating in my entertainment.

Maybe that's the thing, it can be "active". I was discussing this with a friend of mine as we've seen others say that "TV" or watching movies isn't active. For us it is. Not only active "internally" but very social as well.

Grunty

These people aren't even watching the streams. The majority of video streaming is being done in the background while they continue to play.  Or they turn on the dozen streams and then go to bed.  They are bitching about doing nothing and waking up and finding out they were awarded a couple hundred fireworks or a dozen Braton primary weapon blueprints. 

People have dozens of unwatched streams open at the same time hoping to get the rare good loot.  Mostly they are getting cosmetic fireworks and weapons people never use beyond Mars.  Most of these people know these are time limited awards.

To get these rewards they are mostly signing up for a free 30 day trial of for pay Twitch Prime. 

I haven't and I will not join any of this because I don't want to link any of my personal accounts, if they even exist.  While one of the awards has value to me (Frost Prime Warframe) it isn't enough to do what they want me to do. 

I don't even shop at stores that require a store ID to get their shelf prices like Tom Thumb, Kroger's, Walgreen's, etc. 

MadFrenchie

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

I don't actively antagonize folks who watch them.  Just don't understand the appeal.

Then again, aside from sports and watching things with the girlfriend, I don't watch TV in general, either.

I prefer actively participating in my entertainment.

Maybe that's the thing, it can be "active". I was discussing this with a friend of mine as we've seen others say that "TV" or watching movies isn't active. For us it is. Not only active "internally" but very social as well.

As Jean mentioned, it's a non-dynamic form of entertainment.  You can enjoy it and ponder the themes internally or with friends, but none of that is going to change the ending to American History X.  You won't change a single second of it, actually.  You have no input in the entertainment piece presented other than selecting which title you choose to watch.

That's what I mean by actively participating.

And Jean, I do enjoy the odd show here and there.  But, again, usually only when I'm enjoying it with the girlfriend.  Otherwise, I'd much rather make my own tale, which is also why I enjoy playing RPGs over any other genre.  Being able to provide my own input into conversations (even if among a few choices) and build my own character is much more enjoyable for me.

Albatroes

Starting off by saying "wiki changed the definition of...." almost always guarantees that you will lose most of the people you're targeting, simply because you dont seem to be aware that pretty much anyone can change anything in it. The only real reason people with any form of intelligence go to wiki is because of the links provided, which usually link to more credible sources.

Sovrath

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

I don't actively antagonize folks who watch them.  Just don't understand the appeal.

Then again, aside from sports and watching things with the girlfriend, I don't watch TV in general, either.

I prefer actively participating in my entertainment.

Maybe that's the thing, it can be "active". I was discussing this with a friend of mine as we've seen others say that "TV" or watching movies isn't active. For us it is. Not only active "internally" but very social as well.

As Jean mentioned, it's a non-dynamic form of entertainment.  You can enjoy it and ponder the themes internally or with friends, but none of that is going to change the ending to American History X.  You won't change a single second of it, actually.  You have no input in the entertainment piece presented other than selecting which title you choose to watch.

That's what I mean by actively participating.

And Jean, I do enjoy the odd show here and there.  But, again, usually only when I'm enjoying it with the girlfriend.  Otherwise, I'd much rather make my own tale, which is also why I enjoy playing RPGs over any other genre.  Being able to provide my own input into conversations (even if among a few choices) and build my own character is much more enjoyable for me.

Well, then there you have it. The people who watch these things don't require an entertainment where they themselves "actively influence the outcome" and do enjoy watching others actively determining the outcome.

MadFrenchie

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

I don't actively antagonize folks who watch them.  Just don't understand the appeal.

Then again, aside from sports and watching things with the girlfriend, I don't watch TV in general, either.

I prefer actively participating in my entertainment.

Maybe that's the thing, it can be "active". I was discussing this with a friend of mine as we've seen others say that "TV" or watching movies isn't active. For us it is. Not only active "internally" but very social as well.

As Jean mentioned, it's a non-dynamic form of entertainment.  You can enjoy it and ponder the themes internally or with friends, but none of that is going to change the ending to American History X.  You won't change a single second of it, actually.  You have no input in the entertainment piece presented other than selecting which title you choose to watch.

That's what I mean by actively participating.

And Jean, I do enjoy the odd show here and there.  But, again, usually only when I'm enjoying it with the girlfriend.  Otherwise, I'd much rather make my own tale, which is also why I enjoy playing RPGs over any other genre.  Being able to provide my own input into conversations (even if among a few choices) and build my own character is much more enjoyable for me.

Well, then there you have it. The people who watch these things don't require an entertainment where they themselves "actively influence the outcome" and do enjoy watching others actively determining the outcome.

That's fine and dandy.  As I mentioned, I don't understand the appeal.  I never attempted to submit others were, in any way, inferior or should alter their tastes to suit my own.  If it was implied, it was accidental.

Sovrath

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

I don't actively antagonize folks who watch them.  Just don't understand the appeal.

Then again, aside from sports and watching things with the girlfriend, I don't watch TV in general, either.

I prefer actively participating in my entertainment.

Maybe that's the thing, it can be "active". I was discussing this with a friend of mine as we've seen others say that "TV" or watching movies isn't active. For us it is. Not only active "internally" but very social as well.

As Jean mentioned, it's a non-dynamic form of entertainment.  You can enjoy it and ponder the themes internally or with friends, but none of that is going to change the ending to American History X.  You won't change a single second of it, actually.  You have no input in the entertainment piece presented other than selecting which title you choose to watch.

That's what I mean by actively participating.

And Jean, I do enjoy the odd show here and there.  But, again, usually only when I'm enjoying it with the girlfriend.  Otherwise, I'd much rather make my own tale, which is also why I enjoy playing RPGs over any other genre.  Being able to provide my own input into conversations (even if among a few choices) and build my own character is much more enjoyable for me.

Well, then there you have it. The people who watch these things don't require an entertainment where they themselves "actively influence the outcome" and do enjoy watching others actively determining the outcome.

That's fine and dandy.  As I mentioned, I don't understand the appeal.  I never attempted to submit others were, in any way, inferior or should alter their tastes to suit my own.  If it was implied, it was accidental.

I'm not saying you were. You said you didn't understand it.

I think what you really mean, if I'm catching your "drift", is that you don't appreciate or enjoy it on "their levels". Or in the "way" they appreciate it. You do understand it you just don't enjoy it as they do.

Just like I would never say "I don't understand people who follow sports and the stats and play fantasy "football". I understand why they do it but I don't really like/appreciate the past time on those levels.

MadFrenchie

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

I don't actively antagonize folks who watch them.  Just don't understand the appeal.

Then again, aside from sports and watching things with the girlfriend, I don't watch TV in general, either.

I prefer actively participating in my entertainment.

Maybe that's the thing, it can be "active". I was discussing this with a friend of mine as we've seen others say that "TV" or watching movies isn't active. For us it is. Not only active "internally" but very social as well.

As Jean mentioned, it's a non-dynamic form of entertainment.  You can enjoy it and ponder the themes internally or with friends, but none of that is going to change the ending to American History X.  You won't change a single second of it, actually.  You have no input in the entertainment piece presented other than selecting which title you choose to watch.

That's what I mean by actively participating.

And Jean, I do enjoy the odd show here and there.  But, again, usually only when I'm enjoying it with the girlfriend.  Otherwise, I'd much rather make my own tale, which is also why I enjoy playing RPGs over any other genre.  Being able to provide my own input into conversations (even if among a few choices) and build my own character is much more enjoyable for me.

Well, then there you have it. The people who watch these things don't require an entertainment where they themselves "actively influence the outcome" and do enjoy watching others actively determining the outcome.

That's fine and dandy.  As I mentioned, I don't understand the appeal.  I never attempted to submit others were, in any way, inferior or should alter their tastes to suit my own.  If it was implied, it was accidental.

I'm not saying you were. You said you didn't understand it.

I think what you really mean, if I'm catching your "drift", is that you don't appreciate or enjoy it on "their levels". Or in the "way" they appreciate it. You do understand it you just don't enjoy it as they do.

Just like I would never say "I don't understand people who follow sports and the stats and play fantasy "football". I understand why they do it but I don't really like/appreciate the past time on those levels.

I really think this is an argument in semantics. 

I understand they find it enjoyable or relaxing.  I don't understand how they find it enjoyable or relaxing, because I don't get that same entertainment out of the activity.

Not sure this really needed a back and forth to hash out.

Sovrath

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

I don't actively antagonize folks who watch them.  Just don't understand the appeal.

Then again, aside from sports and watching things with the girlfriend, I don't watch TV in general, either.

I prefer actively participating in my entertainment.

Maybe that's the thing, it can be "active". I was discussing this with a friend of mine as we've seen others say that "TV" or watching movies isn't active. For us it is. Not only active "internally" but very social as well.

As Jean mentioned, it's a non-dynamic form of entertainment.  You can enjoy it and ponder the themes internally or with friends, but none of that is going to change the ending to American History X.  You won't change a single second of it, actually.  You have no input in the entertainment piece presented other than selecting which title you choose to watch.

That's what I mean by actively participating.

And Jean, I do enjoy the odd show here and there.  But, again, usually only when I'm enjoying it with the girlfriend.  Otherwise, I'd much rather make my own tale, which is also why I enjoy playing RPGs over any other genre.  Being able to provide my own input into conversations (even if among a few choices) and build my own character is much more enjoyable for me.

Well, then there you have it. The people who watch these things don't require an entertainment where they themselves "actively influence the outcome" and do enjoy watching others actively determining the outcome.

That's fine and dandy.  As I mentioned, I don't understand the appeal.  I never attempted to submit others were, in any way, inferior or should alter their tastes to suit my own.  If it was implied, it was accidental.

I'm not saying you were. You said you didn't understand it.

I think what you really mean, if I'm catching your "drift", is that you don't appreciate or enjoy it on "their levels". Or in the "way" they appreciate it. You do understand it you just don't enjoy it as they do.

Just like I would never say "I don't understand people who follow sports and the stats and play fantasy "football". I understand why they do it but I don't really like/appreciate the past time on those levels.

I really think this is an argument in semantics. 

I understand they find it enjoyable or relaxing.  I don't understand how they find it enjoyable or relaxing, because I don't get that same entertainment out of the activity.

Not sure this really needed a back and forth to hash out.

Well, I would agree with you had I know you were just "saying things" to say them.

Usually when people say they don't understand something they "don't understand something".

MadFrenchie

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

I don't actively antagonize folks who watch them.  Just don't understand the appeal.

Then again, aside from sports and watching things with the girlfriend, I don't watch TV in general, either.

I prefer actively participating in my entertainment.

Maybe that's the thing, it can be "active". I was discussing this with a friend of mine as we've seen others say that "TV" or watching movies isn't active. For us it is. Not only active "internally" but very social as well.

As Jean mentioned, it's a non-dynamic form of entertainment.  You can enjoy it and ponder the themes internally or with friends, but none of that is going to change the ending to American History X.  You won't change a single second of it, actually.  You have no input in the entertainment piece presented other than selecting which title you choose to watch.

That's what I mean by actively participating.

And Jean, I do enjoy the odd show here and there.  But, again, usually only when I'm enjoying it with the girlfriend.  Otherwise, I'd much rather make my own tale, which is also why I enjoy playing RPGs over any other genre.  Being able to provide my own input into conversations (even if among a few choices) and build my own character is much more enjoyable for me.

Well, then there you have it. The people who watch these things don't require an entertainment where they themselves "actively influence the outcome" and do enjoy watching others actively determining the outcome.

That's fine and dandy.  As I mentioned, I don't understand the appeal.  I never attempted to submit others were, in any way, inferior or should alter their tastes to suit my own.  If it was implied, it was accidental.

I'm not saying you were. You said you didn't understand it.

I think what you really mean, if I'm catching your "drift", is that you don't appreciate or enjoy it on "their levels". Or in the "way" they appreciate it. You do understand it you just don't enjoy it as they do.

Just like I would never say "I don't understand people who follow sports and the stats and play fantasy "football". I understand why they do it but I don't really like/appreciate the past time on those levels.

I really think this is an argument in semantics. 

I understand they find it enjoyable or relaxing.  I don't understand how they find it enjoyable or relaxing, because I don't get that same entertainment out of the activity.

Not sure this really needed a back and forth to hash out.

Well, I would agree with you had I know you were just "saying things" to say them.

Usually when people say they don't understand something they "don't understand something".

I said I don't understand why.  Not that I didn't understand that some do find it enjoyable.  Again, this seems real nitpicky on your part.


It's relaxing and stuff to them, cool.  I get they find it relaxing.  I'm not sure why they find it relaxing, because I don't personally see it that way.  Again, why does this need a back and forth?

KnightFalz

Firstly, definitions can shift over time in a living languages, whether we personally like or agree with those changes or not.

Secondly, so far as streamers and those that watch them, to each their own.

Cryomatrix

I have trouble watching people on twitch but I do enjoy watching other people play video games as long as I am there in person, I find it relaxing too. 

I actually love the atmosphere of internet cafe's too bad all the ones i've experienced have been in Europe where everyone is smoking. Blah. 

Cryomatrix

p.s. No one ever seems to get into arguments with me where we go back and forth with quotes. It may be that I don't care enough to argue with someone or perhaps I just spew a bunch of nonsense or I never really criticise people on an individual level or point out where I think someone is wrong. 

SBFord

MadFrenchie said:

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Streamers and before that fan sites getting advantages predates "F2P".
And I'm not defending streamers, in my opinion most if not all of them on Twitch and Youtube are immature young adults with attention seeking problems and inflated egos who should find something better to do with their life.

I can't, for the life of me, understand why folks would spend any significant amount of time watching streamers just play games.

Those streaming about alpha gameplay ala Pantheon streams are understandable, since the streamer has exclusive access to a game's development.  And I guess I could see briefly watching a stream to get a feel for gameplay prior to purchase (though YouTube videos seem much better suited to this).  But to spend significant amounts of time watching another player stream them playing the game I can boot up and experience myself?  What?

Because you're not the target demographic. We're talking the pre-teen / teen crowd. The rest of us are geezers.

MadFrenchie

SBFord said:

MadFrenchie said:

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Streamers and before that fan sites getting advantages predates "F2P".
And I'm not defending streamers, in my opinion most if not all of them on Twitch and Youtube are immature young adults with attention seeking problems and inflated egos who should find something better to do with their life.

I can't, for the life of me, understand why folks would spend any significant amount of time watching streamers just play games.

Those streaming about alpha gameplay ala Pantheon streams are understandable, since the streamer has exclusive access to a game's development.  And I guess I could see briefly watching a stream to get a feel for gameplay prior to purchase (though YouTube videos seem much better suited to this).  But to spend significant amounts of time watching another player stream them playing the game I can boot up and experience myself?  What?

Because you're not the target demographic. We're talking the pre-teen / teen crowd. The rest of us are geezers.