A multi-guest call room built on an existing WebRTC SDK is genuinely achievable. Simultaneously broadcasting that call live to YouTube and other platforms is real, separate streaming-protocol work.
VIBE SCORE 67/100
The parts this build actually needs, each rated on its own — the average is the Vibe Score above.
| Landing page | 99 |
| Live video / WebRTC | 35 |
Two real costs, not just "free": the AI agent's own usage, and hosting once it's running. Both are estimated from this app's own effort rating and component list — see the assumptions on the method page.
| AI agent — with a subscription (Claude Pro/Max, Cursor, etc.) | $0 marginal |
| AI agent — pay-per-use API, no subscription | $43–$86 one-time |
| Hosting, once it's running | $15–$30/mo |
| Domain name, if you want your own | ~$12/yr |
StreamYard costs $25/mo, but hosting alone could run $15–$30/mo — that can eat the whole subscription saving before the agent cost even comes into it.
Borderline. A multi-guest call room built on an existing WebRTC SDK is genuinely achievable. Simultaneously broadcasting that call live to YouTube and other platforms is real, separate streaming-protocol work.
StreamYard costs $25/mo (about $300/yr) as of 2026-08. That's what a working rebuild would save you.
Simultaneously broadcasting the composited call to YouTube, Twitch, and others via RTMP is real streaming-protocol infrastructure, not an extension of the call itself Server-side compositing of multiple video feeds into one stream (rather than each viewer's browser doing it) is genuinely harder real-time video engineering Reliable, low-latency delivery to a live audience at scale is a different problem than a private call between guests