(Photo by PixieMe on Shutterstock)

SHANGHAI, China — Gaming videos on YouTube command billions of views annually, with fans flocking to watch their favorite personalities battle through difficult levels, explore vast digital worlds, and react to new releases. For years, game developers have debated whether this massive free exposure helps or hurts their bottom line. A new study finally provides some concrete answers—and they’re not what many industry insiders expected.

Research published in Marketing Science reveals that YouTube videos about video games create opposite effects: they typically decrease game purchases but increase gameplay among existing owners.

Nan Li, Avery Haviv, and Mitchell J. Lovett analyzed data from more than 95,000 Steam users across 1,236 games, tracking both purchases and gameplay minutes in relation to YouTube videos. Their findings help explain why game companies have such different policies about influencer content.

When an influencer posts a video about a game, sales typically drop by about 0.6% while gameplay rises by roughly 0.6%. This pattern helps explain why some companies embrace YouTube coverage while others restrict it.

The debate plays out clearly between major companies. Microsoft’s Minecraft freely allows creators to share footage and has become YouTube’s most-watched game with 100 billion views. Meanwhile, Nintendo has historically restricted content use, requiring revenue-sharing with creators who monetize videos featuring their games.

The study found that different game types show varied responses to YouTube coverage. Story-driven games, sports titles, and indie games typically see bigger sales drops when featured in videos. This makes sense—why buy a story-focused game when you can watch someone else experience the narrative? On the flip side, simulation and multiplayer games often get a sales boost from YouTube exposure, possibly because these games benefit from demonstration and instruction.

To establish true cause-and-effect relationships rather than mere correlation, the researchers took advantage of a natural experiment called the “Adpocalypse.” In 2017, major advertisers pulled out of YouTube after discovering their ads were appearing alongside questionable content. YouTube’s resulting policy changes forced creators to delay posting videos, creating an ideal situation to measure the direct impact of gaming videos.

The researchers calculated that a popular game like Cuphead, which sold 47 copies in their sample on a particular day, may have lost around 224 copies in sales across the entire Steam population due to YouTube videos. This translates to about $3,136 in lost revenue for the game’s developers after accounting for Steam’s share of sales revenue. However, those same videos significantly boosted playtime among existing owners.

One surprising discovery concerned engagement metrics. Videos with higher likes and comments—typically considered successful content—actually had stronger negative effects on game purchases. This suggests a mismatch between what benefits YouTubers (engagement) and what helps game companies sell copies.

For game developers, the study offers clear guidance: “Managers can use these results to align the influencer effects they face with their revenue models, such as using in-game purchases or a subscription model when facing complements on usage.” Companies relying on upfront purchases might want to limit content sharing or negotiate revenue-sharing deals. Those making money from in-game purchases or subscriptions should welcome influencer coverage.

This pattern might extend beyond games to other entertainment products. It’s possible that streaming services like Netflix could experience similar effects, where online discussions might discourage new subscriptions but motivate existing subscribers to watch more shows.

These findings also provide a fresh perspective on ongoing discussions around intellectual property and content-sharing rights. Though not explicitly discussed by the authors, the results imply influencer content can simultaneously help and hurt different aspects of a game’s commercial value.

With the gaming industry shifting toward free-to-play titles and subscription services, the positive effects on usage may ultimately outweigh the negative effects on initial purchases. This trend could explain why most publishers now actively court influencers despite the potential sales impact.

“It’s clear that one-size-fits-all marketing no longer works in gaming,” says lead author Nan Li, a professor at Tongji University. “For games that make money from in-game purchases, influencer exposure is free advertising. But for single-purchase games, developers must think twice about their strategies.”