YouTube agrees $1 billion deal to buy Twitch - report

UPDATE: Microsoft was among the bidders for the game streaming service

Update: Microsoft was also among the bidders for Twitch, but the game streaming service chose YouTube as a better fit for its ambitions.

A source speaking to The Verge have claimed that Twitch courted a number of potential suitors before it chose YouTube, which it regards as the best company to help realise its goal of becoming, "the definitive platform for watching and streaming live video gaming." Indeed, the source has claimed that Twitch would have rejected a $1 billion offer from any other company.

The two companies have allegedly finalised the deal's value, and are now discussing the particulars, like the degree of independence the Twitch brand will retain.

Original Story: YouTube as agreed a deal to acquire the leading game streaming service Twitch for $1 billion.

According to a report from Variety, which cites several sources familiar with the agreement, the all-cash deal could be made official as soon as today. It would make Twitch a part of Google, which acquired YouTube in 2006 for what now seems like the eminently reasonable sum of $1.65 billion.

However, it is believed that Google is preparing to be challenged by regulatory bodies, largely because of the dominance of YouTube. At the end of last year Twitch had around 45 million users, making it the clear leader in the booming market for game streaming.

In February, Twitch highlighted data that put it ahead of companies like Facebook, Amazon and Hulu in terms of online traffic share in North America.

So far YouTube and Twitch have declined to comment.

More stories

Twitch working on more detailed ban notifications

But streaming platform's VP of trust and safety said "specifics and clarity" will be given later down the line

By Marie Dealessandri

New York AG investigating Twitch, Discord role in Buffalo shooting

Letitia James also looking into 4chan and 8chan, saying the terror attack "again revealed the depths and dangers of these platforms that spread and promote hate without consequence"

By Brendan Sinclair

Latest comments (6)

Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing 8 years ago
What was that about people streaming games and Google's interpretation of fair use again?

Oh well, there is always, or the next service I suppose.
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
William Leu Software Developer, Tietronix Software Inc8 years ago
I remember last year when let's play-ers were in outrage at the new YouTube policies, and some internet shows were speculating that this would cause those content creators to slowly leave to services like Twitch. Well ...
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Nicholas Pantazis Senior Editor, VGChartz Ltd8 years ago
@ Klaus Good point, but those policies were largely backed off of. DMCA notices for gaming stuff is extremely rare on YouTube, which is still the primary place gaming media is viewed. Twitch being owned by them only reinforces the end of those policies.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (6)
Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing 8 years ago
Make no mistake, Google will still aggressively filter your videos and if you do not appeal, they will subject you to their interpretation of fair use. They did not give any library a second pass under revised rules.

Even worse is the fact that if you actually license a song for a video, you have no way of telling Google in advance. The minute you license, is the minute you know that at some point your video will result in more work by filling out appeal forms, sending YouTube proof of purchase, etc.

If Google continues to kneecap everybody using services such as Audionetwork, I can't imagine anything good coming from the Twitch community, which is rather lenient when it comes to using copyrighted music as the background track to their stream.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Aaron Parkes n/a 8 years ago
Well i guess i can expect to be forced to use google plus again now.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Shehzaan Abdulla Translator/QA 7 years ago
Wait. So this is a repost of based on an anonymous source that didn't or couldn't verify for themselves? How is posting this even remotely close to professional? There's literally no substance to this story here other than "A friend of a friend told me that..." is bringing nothing to the table by reposting this bunk. And we know it's bunk because it simply wasn't true in retrospect, meaning was caught with their pants down. Naturally, having posting this nonesense will also be posting a retraction and an apology with equal verve as they did this article, yes?
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.