/vt/ - Virtual Youtubers

Who are you arguing with irl and why did you decide to mine retorts here? I have yet to see this sentiment here.

>>1181152
I see people saying "she only does it for money" all the time when talking about vtubers.

>>1181225
Then reply to one of them. Right now you're arguing with a ghost you retard.

>implying anyone thinks like that outside of the obnoxious shitheels from /v/
I will never donate to any vtuber under any circumstances, but I don't begrudge them for making money. Like any other endeavors, creating decent content as a vtuber requires money. Vtubing without any money involved (e.g. merely as a hobby) is admirable, but it necessarily means infrequent streams and upper limits on the type of content you can produce.

>>1181006
Because Greed is a sin. No one wants a greedy whore

>>1181006
>Why does it bother you that a vtuber wants to make money?
It... doesn't?

The whole industry/profession would never get anywhere if it wasn't for simps

>>1181006
It's impossible to express this in a way that doesn't acknowledge the reality that relying on a hobby for money changes the way you view that hobby. The problem isn't with whether they want to make money or not, the problem is the effect wanting to make money has on their content. For some people, getting paid to do something dramatically increases the amount of effort they put into it, but for others, getting paid causes them to slowly lose interest in their hobby.

If they consistently put out good content while making money, good for them. The problem with the first group is that if money is all you're in it for, then the moment you have enough money, you just quit. The problem with the second, is having to reconcile that sometimes being paid is the only way you have enough to make ends meet if your hobby is something that takes 40 hours a week, with being forced to make content you don't want to just to live.

>>1181006
Are you referring to the "FOOOOOOOVVVEEEE DUUUUULLLLLLOOOOOORRRRSSSS" incident? There's a difference between earning an SC and trying to abuse your following for every last cent of cash.

>>1181430
How is a streamer supposed to dedicate their time to streaming if they aren't making money? Most spend the same amount of time making content and preparing streams as a part time or even full time job. How would a vtuber pay bills if they aren't making money?

>>1181379
What makes making no money from a hobby more admirable?

>>1181537
No, I'm not talking about beggers. I'm talking about people who make incentives for subscriber only viewers, subathons/donathons

>>1181713
>No, I'm not talking about beggers.
Sometimes people forget without a reminder.

>I'm talking about people who make incentives for subscriber only viewers
That's the opposite of begging. That's a transaction.

>subathons/donathons
VTubers can't actually control hype trains, and it's okay to try to engineering them.

>why do they want money?
>lol he does it for free

first off, the whole point of a business is to make money. if not, it's a hobby. people need money to survive. if they didn't get money out of it, they would stream less, or not at all. shut up if you don't like they make money, no one is forcing you to spend yours.

2nd hololive is a software company. if they get funding from the money their idols bring in, the tech inadvertently gets better. this technology will bring amazing things such as more realistic tracking and bringing you closer to the possibility of living out ur dreams of being in SAO faggot

>>1181908
>the tech inadvertently gets better
Wish they'd hurry up with this part.

>>1181564
christ. its obviously a fckin bait anon. how new are you

>>1182041
The autists actually feel this way though.

>>1181006
i dont care how many billions they earn from this if its entertaining i watch it.

>>1182104
no one should care on what an autist has to say. theyre autists for a reason

>>1181564
>What makes making no money from a hobby more admirable?
The very fact that you are making no money from it and therefore have no bottom line or conflict of interest, of course. Let's look at two examples.
Example 1
>You're in a conversation with someone at a Christmas party
>This person tells you that he works with an NGO that vaccinates the developing world against diseases like Diphtheria
>He's a volunteer who makes his living as an accountant
Example 2
>You're in a conversation with someone at a Christmas party
>This person tells you that he works with an NGO that vaccinates the developing world against diseases like Diphtheria
>He's the CEO of the NGO. He has an annual salary of 1.2 million dollars and has used his work with the NGO to make connections with congressmen and senators to become an influential lobbyist (this is a common occurrence in real life by the way).
Which person is more likely to be sincere about his desire to realize the eradication of Diphtheria--the person who will lose his job and fat paycheck if his organization succeeds in its stated goals, or the one who contributes to the organization's activities despite not being paid anything at all? Let's hear your contrarian answer and its tortured reasoning.

>>1182620
Let me alter Example 1 just a tiny bit.
>He's a volunteer who makes his living as an accountant, and he's doing it for his YouTube channel.

>>1181006
>Why does it bother you that a vtuber wants to make money?
It bothers me? I didn’t know.

>>1182741
Well, now you know. Here's your mandatory pitchfork and torch, and meetings are mandatory.

>>1182671
You don't need to alter my example, unless you're intentionally trying to turn it into a straw man. Someone who is doing it for his Youtube channel is making money from his hobby.

>>1181964
It looks significantly better than it did two years ago.

>>1183010
I'm not the one making a strawman, you are. VTubers are neither CEOs OR volunteers. Go sit on a cactus.

>>1182620
I don't think this example is fitting, because anyone would say the first person deserves to get payment, but he is also spending a much shorter amount of time doing the work than someone who is paid to do it.
I wouldn't expect a volunteer to focus their daily life on doing it. If they did, I'd recommend they find a job in the field.

>>1181006
The issue is people who don't seem to care about the hobby and are only looking for an easy hustle. Reasonable monetization is the key and depends entirely on the vtubers priorities. But it always has to be justified with a better reason than lol money.

For example, Ina doing members only smash streams (as in both the code AND THE STREAM were paid content) was just greedy since people let others watch them smash for free all the time. It was literally LOL GIVE ME MONEY FOR POPULAR CONTENT. No, fuck you. Member content is supposed to be tailored to ardent supporters. Paygating the stuff everyone would like is just kike tier when I can get it for free elsewhere and you're not even a top pro player.

In contrast, hecatia doing sub only streams is justified by the public shitstorm that led to her being fired from hololive. Same with Coco opening memberships on her personal youtube channel despite streaming exclusively on mildom to filter out harassment with extra gatekeeping.

I'd even understand if gura, who seems to hate her popularity, jacked up the price of membership extremely high, turned her chat members only, and then started doing more comfy personal members only streams after finishing her required public ones. By virtue of supply and demand, a streamer only has so much attention. If they set out wanting comfy streams and a manageable chat that served as their character's friend group, monetary gatekeeping is the only way to sensibly achieve it. Even that an be justified by the streamer wanting to cultivate a certain friendly atmosphere for their streams instead of just being a dancing monkey for a stadium filled with thousands of cheering strangers.

But if the rationale appears to be something like "I'm charging for something in demand just because it's in demand and I think I can coerce you into paying," that's the more exploitative way of leveraging supply and demand and people generally take issue with senseless price gouging just for the sake of maximizing profits. It makes people feel unappreciated by a streamer who's clearly just in it to make money and doesn't care about ANY of their fans, even the high rollers, because all they want is to get paid and no amount is ever truly enough.

Ultimately, it's the difference between having goals and limits versus pressuring your viewers to give as much as they possibly can even if it's at their own expense. Humility can be much more lucrative in the long term, because if short term greed destroys your reputation then it's that much harder to convince anyone to come back and still support you.

I don't think anyone of note gives a shit that vtubers make money, or even that they want to make money. It takes time to stream, it takes time to prepare for streams. For many, it's a career. They provide entertainment in exchange for money.

When you watch a stand up comedian, or an improv show, you might pay money to attend. Does that somehow diminish the fact that both you and perhaps the performers had a good time?

>>1183713

>Ina doing members only smash streams (as in both the code AND THE STREAM were paid content)
Okay yeah, that is kinda getting greedy.

>>1183713
>Member content is supposed to be tailored to ardent supporters.
Yes, and who but an ardent supporter would want to watch her playing Smash? Your complaint is unfair to Ina considering that she gives away content that's far more valuable than "it's another episode of e-girl plays a video game badly" for free, without leaving anything out.

>>1183713
>"I'm charging for something in demand just because it's in demand and I think I can coerce you into paying,"
That's literally how a free market works. Supply and demand change prices.

>>1181006
No one begrudge a streamer the need or desire to make money. The issue comes when the implicit question arises - is your ONLY motivation for streaming money? A most extreme hypothetical is a streamer who would earn 100k a year from streaming content to a large audience, but then an oil prince offers her 101k to stream only to him, and only the games or content he wants. The streamer who optimizes for money will say yes to the latter offer. But to do this is to massively devalue your product in the eyes of the rest of your audience.

For part of the product you offer, as a streamer, is a certain level of authenticity in some things which should be taken for granted with regard to the human condition. That to some degree, you are genuinely interested yourself in the activity you are conducting, be it a game, a watchalong or a zatsudan. That part of the reason you do this is because you derive non-monetary value from some aspect of the job itself, which cannot be compensated for by sufficient financial reward. This appearance of genuine interest - a glimmering of the human spirit - is a balm that adds a stamp of assurance to your work. People are reassured, though they may not be able to put it into words, that they will receive a certain level of quality because it arises from a deeper aspect of your character. It does not really matter whether this is "real" - as long as people believe it, the quality of the work is heightened. Up until the moment it is not, of course, whereupon people will lose interest, make burnout, sellout excuse, etc, etc.

However, if you show that this quality does not exist - that you have no genuine passion, that it is just a job which you would rather not do if you were already rich - then your stamp of assurance is lost. You instantlyreframe your relationship to your audience as that of a purchaser and commodity. This is because you have posed an implicit threat to your audience - pay me too little, and I leave. And so the audience will respond accordingly as humans do to threats.

You are no longer a person. You are, to the members of your audience who would spend money, little different than an employee. You are a mere resource that provides entertainment. And the standards people use to evaluate resources they need to purchase are much more draconian and stringent than those they typically apply to streamers whose primary, or at least a very strong secondary motivation appears to be gaining non-monetary compensation from streaming.

If you were rich, and you definitely had the time, would you still stream even if you didn't need to? That's the question at the heart of it. Some streamers have proven themselves sufficiently through indisputable track records. Others are just TBAs.

>>1185071
Nicely put anon.

>>1184594
Right, but the point is to maintain demand. If you limit the supply and charge too much then people will inevitably seek out cheaper competitors if they feel shorthanded and you might find that you permanently priced yourself out of the market.

Unchecked greed can be self destructive in a free market for those interested in long term sustainability. The market survives no matter what happens. The consumers survive. You may not. From a streamer perspective, that's the overwhelming incentive to moderate your pursuit of profit and balance it with good customer relations.

Only an economics 101 brainlet wouldn't understand that markets functioning based on supply and demand have two competing sides, and that consumers aren't just going to stand around and let you make demands of them.

>>1181006

Kizuna Ai was always up front about wanting to make it big and get in commercials and have her own line and stuff. I like that candidness of hers.

I don't care if they make money as long as they don't break the flow of their streams and keep it entertaining. Doing stuff like spending excessive time baiting superchats or playing games they find boring because it's a sponsorship kind of kill the entertainment value of a stream.

>>1181225
And what do you want? A response to give them? It's "yeah, so?".

>>1181225
No, what people actually mean when they say this is that their content is stale and lazy, that they lack passion and only do it for money. Wanting money is not a problem with anyone if the content is entertaining.

>>1181564
Doing it as a hobby implies they have some other source of income, doesn't it? I just stream in the evening or weekends. I know a few who can stream all the time who are NEETs and got a carte blanche cheque of mummy and daddy but thats quite rare. Anyone with a model and isn't "pro" probably has a day job.

I'm sure even a few Holos have day jobs.

>>1181006
Big corporate vtubers like in your pic are greedy if they imply any need of money. That’s also a valid reason for some antis to get angry, like some Nijisanji talents making a tongue slip and getting temporal small flames.
Small companies and indies have a better excuse since people want to keep them alive not make them rich, on top of it IRL accidents can happen and they get desperate. However like in everything situation there are exceptions. One example are extreme cases in indie vtubers, where they never pass one hour per stream, have multiple paid services outside YT, prefer do members only and declare on twitter to be a menhera. They are not toxic, but following a selfish vtuber eventually burns you out.