by badlibrarian on 2/22/25, 2:37 PM
Vimeo banned video game content in 2008. Users migrated to other sites that were soon worth far more than Vimeo.
Focusing on video game material instead of being neutral and coming up with a reasonable business model that makes sense for all your customers (then communicating it up front) is the problem. There's always going to be a subset of customers that pushes the envelope. This conflicts with short term growth strategies but perhaps there's a little room for ethics to sneak in.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/vimeo-bans-v...
by cmcaleer on 2/22/25, 2:44 PM
I guess it makes sense. I remember once upon a time that Twitch saved every broadcast, in full, forever. That sounds kind of ridiculous these days, but then again YouTube does still does that for everyone’s streams and makes it work. Are there very different economies of scale at work here or are Google just willing to pay the extra money?
by mbasho on 2/22/25, 2:00 PM
I don't understand why not just target abusive accounts. Maybe the speed running community will have to find a new home.
by taraindara on 2/20/25, 12:35 AM
If less than 0.5% of users upload over 100hrs, then either this is an extreme penny pinching move, or some few in that 0.5% upload a massive overage of content.
by pr337h4m on 2/22/25, 1:40 PM
Short-sighted move, super long video data could be quite useful in the near future
by Barrin92 on 2/22/25, 7:15 PM
The thing I don't understand about this, why not simply charge the creator for it? I know we live in the age of rent extracting (as per Varoufakis: feudal) internet platforms but markets do actually work. Creators should be customers of a platform like Twitch and pay for services provided and this ceases to be a problem.
If there's value in the VODs for content creators charge them for storage to at least break even, for VODs that don't get any views creators will have an incentive to delete them if they have to pay, problem solved. There's no need for arbitrary 100 hour limits or only targeting x% of creators, just use good old price signals.
by renewiltord on 2/22/25, 6:02 PM
What I don’t get is how YouTube does this. I have all sorts of videos there for archival with very few views and they just keep them? I couldn’t blame them if they deleted the videos though I’d prefer to have some warning. This is a large amount of space for essentially socially useless junk.
by chris_wot on 2/22/25, 1:56 PM
Isn't this just happening on the highlights section? If so, seems reasonable - am I missing something?
by mrkramer on 2/22/25, 2:39 PM
In one of my thought experiments I was thinking would only audio livestreaming be viable social platform for content creators because audio is like 90% smaller in size and therefore you don't need to spend loads of money to setup and maintain audio livestreaming infrastructure.
Btw, I think there is an easy option to export your Twitch content to YouTube so that's another way of saving all the content.
by cwmoore on 2/22/25, 9:23 PM
100 hours of video games sounds like a lot, but I’m not familiar with the use case.
Is this content searchable in any meaningful way for the client?
by trackofalljades on 2/22/25, 2:27 PM
Archive Team? (shines bat signal)
by mattmaroon on 2/22/25, 2:39 PM
If this is a thing that really matters, it wouldn't be that hard to build a competitor right?
by DeepSeaTortoise on 2/22/25, 1:09 PM
Wonder if there's going to be a bidding war between sponsors on who gets to keep their videos
by AraceliHarker on 2/22/25, 3:17 PM
Isn't it mostly Twitch Partners who save a lot of videos?
by fsflover on 2/22/25, 12:58 PM