I think I would feel that I had failed as a parent if a child of mine aspired to be a YouTube celebrity. I don't have children so don't worry too much about that.
Fortnite players to become millionaires
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
You don't like the art style, its fine each to their own.
But if the gameplay sucked it wouldn't be as popular as it is now.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,477
- Location
- London
Being a 'youtube celebrity' shouldn't be the end goal, gain the following then launch your own brands/partnerships. I wouldn't have a problem with my kids aiming to be entrepreneurs.
Regardless, if they were able to comfortably sustain themselves and their family through being a 'youtube celebrity' why would you feel like you failed as a parent? Heck even families on youtube are making bank just vlogging about their day to day life. They make money from that and get to do things most families will never have the chance to all because they upload to youtube. Not to mention that their kids will also get a head start on the internet celebrity path through it too.
How is that different to a child 30 years ago wanting to be a TV celebrity?
Nothing wrong with a kid wanting to be a youtube celebrity, as long as you ensure your kid has a clear understanding of the reality and likelihood of that outcome coming to pass and has a logical career alternative then there is no issue..
Almost ALL youtube celebrities started very small and eventually worked their way up and quit their jobs when they reached a specific viewer count.
Almost ALL youtube celebrities started very small and eventually worked their way up and quit their jobs when they reached a specific viewer count.
If you look at that Bella Delphine girl from the other thread (as a good example of a YT "celebrity") - very different.
Also @explicit4u is Bella Delphine an entrepreneur for selling her bathwater and various other nonsense?
I guess you're far more liberal than I am.
e: but modern day "celebrity" includes stuff like Love Island contestants which are also what I'd consider to be utter nonsense.
I find it sad that we're encouraging people to build careers around things which are vacuous. Perhaps that's the best way I can explain it. Utterly vacuous.
Belle Delphine is an exception, she is a modern prostitute.
I'm not aware of the other thread.
The point I was trying to make was that 30 years ago it was very much a goal to get on TV. Aspirational and very limited opportunity for sure, but still a popular goal.
Fast forward 30 years, and we have lots of different ways to engage with an audience, and TV is but one of them.
So what's the difference between someone 30 years ago and today wanting to try and achieve the same outcome - to broadcast to as much of the public as possible. They don't appear to have changed, but perhaps our own attitudes haven't changed and moved with the times. What kids today want to work in TV? They all want to be on YouTube.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,477
- Location
- London
I can't claim to know much about Belle but a quick google says they are only 19 and known for viral 'stunts'. Belle doesn't seem to take what they're doing too seriously but is making a decent amount of money from it so good for them. The stunts probably brought a bit too much bad publicity to make it big but for 19 Belle is doing very well for themselves.
I'd say cosplayers like Jessica Nigri (NSFW to google image... kinda worth it though
) do a better job of turning the gaming/nerdy/sexy 'fun' into a decent career with some longevity.Quake Champions wise, yes, both Hell and Garpy won some money, but nothing even remotely close to 100k though.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,644
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I started this thread in 2015
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...essful-ocuk-e-sports-players-on-here.18688727
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...essful-ocuk-e-sports-players-on-here.18688727
For one the difference in the barriers for entry - the lack of any kind of selectivity - makes the environment different to TV 30 years ago.
Well you know what happens when barriers for entry become non-existent.
There might be some good YT creators but there's also a vast, vast amount of inane dross.
If a child saw that a person could be successful as a YT celeb reading nursery rhymes whilst dressed as a bacon sandwich, and comes to the realisation that anything can be monetised on YT... is that a good thing, necessarily?
I'd rather they became an engineer and built bridges
For one the difference in the barriers for entry - the lack of any kind of selectivity - makes the environment different to TV 30 years ago.
Well you know what happens when barriers for entry become non-existent.
There might be some good YT creators but there's also a vast, vast amount of inane dross.
If a child saw that a person could be successful as a YT celeb reading nursery rhymes whilst dressed as a bacon sandwich, and comes to the realisation that anything can be monetised on YT... is that a good thing, necessarily?
I'd rather they became an engineer and built bridges
So the end aspirational goal is the same, but the journey is different.
Engineer comment is irrelevant. We'd all rather the next generation cured cancer and cold fusion.
I'm not at all convinced they are entirely the same.
YT has lots of niches than can be monetised in ways that mainstream TV entertainers of 30 years ago could not even dream of. 30 years ago entertainers had to be showmen.
YT by contrast teaches people that if they can find that one niche, they can make money by burning teddy bears dressed up like Hitler. Or whatever. Or waving their smartphone shakily in the air and claiming we never landed on the moon.
Yes, kids, you too can aspire to be a YT "celeb" making money by talking pap.
I will concede that standards in modern TV have dropped off a cliff, to the point where Jeremy Kyle is/was a thing. And Love Island.
So maybe YT is just a different branch of the same dumbing-down that's happening all over.
You're too close to see the evidence.
People are performing to an audience in return for income, from both viewers and sponsors. This is the outcome, and it is the same.
The journey to get there, as you have tried to point out, is different. In the context of the outcome - a successful career, there is no difference.
Your understanding of the career has not kept pace with the actual career that people are undertaking to achieve the same outcome. 30 years ago it was BBC reporter and presenter. Now it is YouTube or other media. Don't dismiss the latter. It has made millionaires of many people, just as normal broadcast TV did 30 years ago.
I never denied that it could be successful financially. If you view them as the same because they can be successful financially then I refer you to my earlier posts.
There is simply not the same prestige or barrier for entry when comparing a BBC reporter/presenter with a random YT channel/celebrity. Even if the latter makes a ton more money, which I suspect some may do.
And in many cases I'd rather have the BBC reporter/presenter. Who I know will probably be doing something useful most of the time. Vs having a YT channel telling people we never went to the moon or 9/11 was an inside job.
So yes.. if "making money" is the ambition, they are compatible and sometimes the YT career is even more profitable. If money is all there is to this equation.
In most other respects, including barrier for entry, and usefulness to society, they are completely different.
e: Funnily enough money doesn't seem to be a good indicator of anything these days. I know that people will donate literally hundreds/thousands of $ on Twitch streams to support people doing play-throughs of their favourite games.
It's a strange world that I often find myself at odds with.
Talking Quake 3 OSP days (maybe a bit of early Live) I haven't been following the Quake Champions competitive scene - I can't remember exact names now but I remember one guy that hung out with that lot one year won 2x 10K and 1x 50K tournies and picked up a bunch of like 700 euro wins on ESL or whatever as well and some of the others were picking up like £500 here, £1000-2000 there.
It isn't gash, you just don't like it. They're very different things.
The reason most people seem to dislike it is and think it "looks bad" is because it had a cartoony aesthetic, and the building aspect confuses them, because they're only used to these sort of games being purely shooters.
The game is primarily based around the building mechanic, with shooting as a secondary factor, a lots of people who are used to traditional shooters struggle to understand this, and think the game is bad because they die so quickly due to not understanding how the building part works.
But there's a good reason it's as big as it is, and it has the potential to be a game with the absolute highest skill ceiling and gap ever made.
Not liking is completely fine though, each to their own and all that, but it objectively isn't "gash."
The kid that's being talked about in the OP is looking like he's gonna be winning literal millions of dollars. The winner is taking home some absolutely stupid amount of money, he has the skill and ability to put himself into a situation where he could make millions now. The sensible thing for any parent is to foster and accommodate that potential right as it's happening. He can continue his education when he's older and financially set for life. A lot of people competing are looking at taking home at least 6 figures even if they don't win.
Have to say I absolutely do not get the appeal of games like Fortnite and PUBG, etc. and I was never a purely shooter player myself - I preferred stuff like Enemy Territory or even C&C Renegade (though too many issues with that game ultimately), etc. where building was a component of it.