Twitch.TV and Parasocial Interaction: Understanding Twitch’s Social Features Within a Parasocial Framework Maren Zeinstra June 26th, 2017 Supervisor: Dhr. Dr. Markus Stauff Second reader: Dhr. Dr. Toni Pape Television and Cross-Media Culture University of Amsterdam Table of contents Chapter 1. Introduction page 3 Chapter 2. Commentators page 10 Chapter 3. Streamers page 20 Chapter 4. Viewers page 30 Chapter 5. Conclusions page 39 Bibliography page 41 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction Twitchis an online platform founded in 2011 (https://twitch.tv) where users live-stream themselves while playing a video game, displaying gameplay andincluding webcam and microphoneto communicate with their viewers (image 1.1). According to Twitch, the community consists of more than 2 million live-streamers and close to 10 million visitors per day (About Twitch).Besides individual users, organizations broadcast their eSports tournaments where gamers and teams compete for prizes (Edge 34-5). Twitch additionally offers features for social contact between users by following, subscribing, adding friends and sending personal messages. Additionally, all channelshave a chat room right next to the live-stream where userscan communicate in real time (image 1.1). Twitch users can select streams from the list of channels they “follow” at the left side of the screen, or they can browse through all live channels, of both individual streamers and organized tournaments, filtered per game, community or popularity (image 1.2). Besides the heterogeneous gaming content, Twitch introduced a “Creative” section in October 2015, where users stream themselves while cooking, painting, designing, making music, et cetera. (Moorier)(image 1.2). Other than live-streaming content, users can watch previous broadcasts on demand. When doing sousers see a “chat replay”, showing the chat room as it was during the live broadcast, thereby effacing possibilities to participate in real time chat rooms. Image 1.1 Screenshot, 20 June 2017, <http://twitch.tv/grimmmz>. Image 1.2 Screenshot, 20 June 2017, <http://twitch.tv>. Twitch is an especially interesting part of our current media environment, as it integrates multiple media forms into one hybrid platform. Just like traditional broadcasting on television, Twitch broadcasting is based on one-to-many communication, but combined with features that allow for 3 many-to-many communication, similar to those found on social media platforms. These social features are what distinguishes the platform from otherbroadcast media, as is also argued by Sjöblom and Hamari who state Twitch might be considered “yet another form of broadcast entertainment akin to online videos, but for many users it is a more manifold and holistic communication channel than mere video media content, particularly due to the high levels of interaction” (Sjöblom and Hamari 1). Many television broadcasters now also include interactive, online features, allowing for social television where users engage more actively with television content, but Twitch has successfully integrated direct real time communication in live broadcast settings (Wohn and Na). Twitch additionally shows similarities to YouTube, as both platforms allow individuals to film and broadcast themselves towards an audience that can comment on it. The difference with YouTube lies partially in the addressing of a niche by Twitch, focusing on the specific subculture of gamers who beforehand could only communicate within games or on text- based fora. YouTube has recently experienced a growth of game-related videos too, but Twitch is specifically designed for this subculture and its content. Additionally, while live-streaming is optional on YouTube, it is the norm on Twitch which increases immediacy.This emphasis on liveness connects back to television, as liveness is often considered the main mode of television too (White 75-6). A third media form appears as Twitch integrates video games into its platform, making them the content to be consumed. While video games are often considered an individual experience, Twitch uses exactly this solitary content to connect users in a social way (Scully- Blaker et al. 2026). Twitch is thus a unique and hybrid part of our current media environment,showing a combination of live broadcast television, video games and social media platforms. Live, linear broadcasting is combined with the social features of social media and individual interactivity of video games.This combination of different media forms brings with it certain tensions as it affords a great variety of usages and allows for a strange combination of social and non-social behaviours. Twitch has not stopped developing and is constantly integrating new interfaces, applications, browsing options and social features (https://blog.twitch.tv/tagged/new-features). Although it is impossible for researchers to keep up with the continuous developments, these new features are all interesting as they display what elements Twitch considersto need improvement or enhancement. Here, it also becomes visible how Twitch emphasizes its own social features and attempts to enhance the social, communal experience of its users. Its continuous growth over the past six years prove the platform and its community are here to stay, showing Twitch should be taken seriously and is deserving of academic attention. Analyzing Twitch can help understand how there are multiple ways for being social online, even within one hybrid platform, and thereby is an interesting case- study for understanding our entire current media environment. 1.2 Discourse on Twitch Over the past years, Twitch became object of research in a variety of academic fields. A majority of research emerges from computational, technological and mathematical fields. In 2014, Karine Pires and Gwendal Simon proposed implementing new streaming technologies in order to improve user experiences and Albert Haque designed algorithms to detect spam and trolls. These types of researches are focused on technology, designing specific codes or approaching the technical infrastructure of the platform. A second major trend of research focuses on motivations for using Twitch. These are especially interesting as there seems to be no clear consensus on the main motivation, and contradictions appear in the ways researchers approach the platform. Researches in this field are often based on uses and gratifications theories, assuming users are active agents who choose their media content according to their current needs. In 2016 Sjöblom and Hamari employ this theory to explore the motivations of Twitch users in their article “Why Do People Watch Others Play Video Games?”, where they relate escapism, acquiring knowledge, aesthetic pleasure, personal confidence and social motivationsto Twitch usage (6-8). Interestingly, they conclude subscription behaviour is positively correlated to only social motivations (Sjöblom and Hamari 8). This connects to their previous argument Twitch is distinctive especially due to its social features and possibilities for establishing social connections (1). Their results might answer a question raised in “Behind the Game: Exploring the Twitch Streaming Platform” by Deng et al. in 4 2015. They explore how users are distributed across different streams, arguing no stream contains unique content as “the same games are streamed by many different people”, which raises questions on how viewers differentiate and choose between channels (Deng et al. 1). Sjöblom and Hamari’s results suggest that during these selection processes, users pick streamers that are socially attractive to them. Hamilton, Garretson and Kerne also emphasize the social aspects of Twitch in 2014 in “Streaming on Twitch: Fostering Participatory Communities of Play within Live Mixed Media” where they “describe processes through which stream communities form”(1315). They argue social interaction with likeminded individuals and the creation of “participatory online communities” is the main motivation for Twitch users (1319). They continue to argue “streams that draw more than 1.000 viewers” are too massive to gratify those social needs, as conversation breaks down and “meaningful social engagement” is lost (1318, 1320). The chat room becomes “an illegible waterfall of text” in these massive settings due to the great amount of messages, making meaningful interaction impossible (Hamilton, Garretson and Kerne 1321). These abovementioned researchers share an emphasis on Twitch’s social features. However, a second trend of researches shows a different approach. Katyoue et al. investigate Twitch usage in 2012, in “Watch me Playing, I am a Professional: a First Study on Video Game Live Streaming”, showing those massive streams account for 95% of the views (1183). Seemingly, viewers are drawn to these huge streams and do not necessarily switch to smaller streams, despite the alleged loss of meaningful individual interaction. Similarly, Deng et al. suggest viewer distribution on Twitch is extremely skewed, as many streams have no views, while popular streamers and professional events “dominate the views”, forming “predictable flash crowds” (6). This sustains the argument that massive streams form a majority of Twitch usage and are not as problematic for Twitch users as Hamilton, Garretson and Kerne make it seem. Additionally, Georgen, Duncan and Cook approach Twitch in a framework of “participatory spectatorship”, rather than the participatory community as described by Hamilton, Garretson and Kerne (581). Georgen, Duncan