9 Streamers, One Stream Each: A Full Registration Funnel for a Game Provider’s LatAm Launch
A game provider under NDA wanted its newest title launched into Chile and Argentina, and did it the way most providers actually reach players: through an operator partner already carrying the title. We built the streamer side of that launch — 9 creators on Twitch and Kick, one sponsored stream each, every click and registration tracked back to a specific person. No repeat exposure, no retargeting, no guesswork about which numbers came from which creator.
Why this ran through an operator, not the provider directly
A game provider doesn’t run its own registration form or process deposits — an operator does. So when this provider wanted to launch a new title in Chile and Argentina, the campaign was structured as a joint effort: the operator that already carried the title supplied the tracked registration and deposit funnel, while every piece of streamer content was built specifically around that one game, not a generic plug for the operator’s brand. The provider gets a title-specific adoption signal it can take back to other operators; the operator gets acquisition it can measure; the streamers get one clearly scoped, one-off sponsorship instead of an ongoing commitment.
That structure is also why every number below is unusually clean. Because each creator ran exactly one stream with a personal tracked link, there’s no ambiguity about which registration or deposit came from which piece of content.
How the launch was built
One sponsored stream per creator, no repeats. Every result in this case comes from a single stream — there was no retargeting budget and no second exposure padding the numbers.
Individually tracked links per streamer. Each creator received a personal registration link, so clicks, registrations and deposits attribute 1:1 back to a specific person rather than a pooled campaign total.
A roster built to be tested, not assumed. Nine creators of varying size and style went live in the same window specifically so performance differences would show up fast, before committing to a larger, ongoing roster.
Tracking left running well past the stream date. Links stayed live and monitored for five weeks after the final stream to capture registrations and deposits that arrived on delay, not just same-day activity.
The funnel: click to deposit
| Stage | Volume | Conversion from prior stage |
|---|---|---|
| Unique clicks | 427 | 100% (of 731 total clicks) |
| Registrations | 140 | 32.8% of unique clicks |
| First-time deposits | 38 | 27.1% of registrations |
Overall, 8.9% of unique clicks became a paying player — roughly every 11th viewer who clicked through eventually made a deposit. Five weeks after the last stream aired, the same links were still converting: 9 more registrations and 2 more first-time deposits arrived with zero additional streaming activity.
All figures are the client’s own campaign data, tracked July 1 – August 11, 2026. Provider name, operator partner and specific game title withheld under NDA.
Performance by streamer
| Streamer | Registrations | First deposits | Cost per registration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roddrinicolas | 35 | 9 | $7 |
| Lucas | 28 | 10 | $29 |
| Luxianis | 24 | 15 | $12 |
| Cassiano5_7 | 19 | 0 | $19 |
| Matilaya | 14 | 0 | $36 |
| Pipewa | 13 | 3 | $33 |
| Santimotolo | 4 | 1 | $375 |
| Donlucasgratis | 2 | 0 | $108 |
| Nawezy | 1 | 0 | $200 |
All 9 launched streamers delivered at least one registration from a single stream. Six of the nine came in under $36 per registration; the remaining three cost significantly more, which is exactly the kind of spread a small test is designed to surface before scaling.
Roddrinicolas converted 58% of unique clicks into registrations — the strongest click-to-registration rate in the launch. Luxianis converted 62.5% of registrations into deposits, the highest player quality in the roster. Lucas delivered strength on both dimensions at once — 51% click-to-registration and 10 deposits. None of these three had the largest audience in the roster; the correlation that mattered was fit between creator style and how directly they engaged with the game on stream, not raw follower count.
The economics
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Total streamer budget | $4,535 |
| Average cost per stream | ~$504 |
| Blended cost per registration | ~$32 |
| Blended cost per first deposit | ~$119 |
The test’s real value isn’t the $4,535 spent — it’s the shortlist it produced. Any future integration for this provider starts from a proven set of creators rather than a fresh guess at who might perform.
What we’d commit to for a new integration, based on this roster
| Metric | Conservative benchmark | What this launch actually delivered |
|---|---|---|
| Registrations per stream | 8-14 | Averaged 15.6, median 14 |
| First deposits per stream | 2-4 | Averaged 4.2; 5 of 9 creators produced deposits |
| Click-to-registration rate | 20-30% | 32.8% on unique clicks |
| Campaign size | Projected registrations | Projected first deposits |
|---|---|---|
| 5 streams | 40 – 70 | 10 – 20 |
| 10 streams | 80 – 140 | 20 – 40 |
| 20 streams | 160 – 280 | 40 – 80 |
These ranges are deliberately conservative against what the actual test delivered, because a nine-stream sample is a strong early signal, not a guarantee that every future stream repeats the top performers’ numbers exactly.
Frequently asked questions
How do game providers use streamer campaigns if they don’t take deposits themselves?
By launching through an operator partner. In this campaign, an operator already carrying the provider’s title supplied the registration and deposit tracking, while the streamer content was built specifically around that title rather than generic operator branding. The provider gets a title-specific launch and adoption signal; the operator gets a tracked acquisition funnel; the streamers get a single, clearly scoped sponsorship rather than an open-ended brand deal.
What results did a single sponsored stream per creator actually produce?
Across 9 streamers on Twitch and Kick in Chile and Argentina, one sponsored stream each produced 731 total clicks (427 unique), 140 registrations and 38 first-time deposits, tracked individually through personal links per creator. That’s a 32.8% click-to-registration rate and a 27.1% registration-to-deposit rate, for a total campaign cost of $4,535.
Do results stop once the stream ends?
No. Five weeks after the final stream in this campaign, the same tracked links were still converting: 9 additional registrations and 2 more first-time deposits arrived with zero new streaming activity, meaning the total functional yield of a single stream extends well past its original air date.
Can you name the game provider or operator in this case?
No. Both the game provider and the operator that ran the registration funnel are covered by an NDA that prevents us from disclosing their names or the specific title launched. Streamer performance figures, budgets and funnel metrics in this case study are accurate and unmodified; only brand-identifying details have been withheld.
How much does a streamer launch like this typically cost per registration?
In this campaign, the blended cost per registration across all 9 streamers was roughly $32, but individual creator performance ranged from $7 to $375 per registration. Six of the nine streamers delivered registrations under $36, which is why identifying the right creators through a small initial test before scaling is the more reliable approach than guessing at a roster upfront.
Related reading
Launching a title into LatAm through an operator partner?
Tell us the title, the operator relationship and the markets you’re targeting. We’ll run the same kind of small, cleanly tracked test before recommending a full roster — not a guess dressed up as a media plan.