|
On September 07 2010 03:49 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 03:45 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On September 07 2010 03:40 Whalecore wrote:
/signed
Casting sites needs to implement delay-feature if it isn't already possible. Dude have you read the thread? It's not possible without spending a lot of $. Capture screen but don't stream it directly -- save it to a file on local disk. Second computer networked with first opens the file 30 mins later and streams it. I just tested this with my PC and a laptop. It was as easy as I thought. vhscrcap + fmle saves an flv file to a folder that I'm sharing for streaming on my network. Laptop opens the file and has its own vhscrcap + fmle setup and streams VLC playing the file. You set the length of the delay by calculating the time between recording the file on the first PC and opening the file on the second PC.
nice - the only thing I can imagine is, that the streamer will not have as much fun as before and there would be no way the caster can influence what is shown on screen (not so much of a problem, if you consider in SC:BW it was the only way to get english casts of pro games - but the streamer has to be really good to catch all the action)
|
HuK, my respect to you has raised a little, yet again. I'm starting to like you soon!
But to the topic: I find it annoying to watch live events if it is full of casters. There is 99% of times someone who has connection problems. Yeah, imagine couple of seconds wasting game time, not a big deal, but gotta feel horrible from the players perspective. Sometimes it just continues until rest of the streamers lets the lagging streamer know. streamers casting for their community
+10 streamers is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, there is Russian, Spanish, Germany and whatnot streamers casting for their community, its nice, but somewhere there needs to be a line. Especially when people has to take most of the casters in the game.
|
On September 07 2010 04:33 Grettin wrote:
HuK, my respect to you has raised a little, yet again. I'm starting to like you soon!
But to the topic: I find it annoying to watch live events if it is full of casters. There is 99% of times someone who has connection problems. Yeah, imagine couple of seconds wasting game time, not
+10 streamers is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, there is Russian, Spanish, Germany and whatnot a big deal, but gotta feel horrible from the players perspective. Sometimes it just continues until rest of the streamers lets the lagging streamer know.streamers casting for their community, its nice, but somewhere there needs to be a line. Especially when people has to take most of the casters in the game.
I could not agree more. Caster FFA's are dumb and need to stop asap.
|
8751 Posts
On September 07 2010 04:26 grigorin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 03:49 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 07 2010 03:45 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On September 07 2010 03:40 Whalecore wrote:
/signed
Casting sites needs to implement delay-feature if it isn't already possible. Dude have you read the thread? It's not possible without spending a lot of $. Capture screen but don't stream it directly -- save it to a file on local disk. Second computer networked with first opens the file 30 mins later and streams it. I just tested this with my PC and a laptop. It was as easy as I thought. vhscrcap + fmle saves an flv file to a folder that I'm sharing for streaming on my network. Laptop opens the file and has its own vhscrcap + fmle setup and streams VLC playing the file. You set the length of the delay by calculating the time between recording the file on the first PC and opening the file on the second PC. nice - the only thing I can imagine is, that the streamer will not have as much fun as before and there would be no way the caster can influence what is shown on screen (not so much of a problem, if you consider in SC:BW it was the only way to get english casts of pro games - but the streamer has to be really good to catch all the action)
the caster can be on the first computer that is capturing the video and audio. it's really no different to him. after one or two games he needs to take a short break to start the stream on his second computer and that's it
|
Lol did someone just suggest that lag is "part of the game" like the crowd is for soccer? That analogy might be the most hilarious one I've heard in this thread. I can't believe I'm actually hearing this. Wow.
|
On September 07 2010 04:34 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 04:33 Grettin wrote:
HuK, my respect to you has raised a little, yet again. I'm starting to like you soon!
But to the topic: I find it annoying to watch live events if it is full of casters. There is 99% of times someone who has connection problems. Yeah, imagine couple of seconds wasting game time, not
+10 streamers is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, there is Russian, Spanish, Germany and whatnot a big deal, but gotta feel horrible from the players perspective. Sometimes it just continues until rest of the streamers lets the lagging streamer know.streamers casting for their community, its nice, but somewhere there needs to be a line. Especially when people has to take most of the casters in the game. I could not agree more. Caster FFA's are dumb and need to stop asap.
God those lines jumped all around when i posted it. Fixed now, i hope..
And yeah, gotta add one more thing.
Yeah, the community streamers are okay as long as admins and stuff listen the players if they are having a serious problem with a huge amount of casters.
E: Eh, guess its TL who messes up those lines.
|
On September 07 2010 04:24 RoarMan wrote:
So why did people run tournaments before corporate sponsorship? Before mass media so people could watch it?
I'm sorry but I think you're the one who has it wrong. A player will participate in a tournament because
he wants to prove himself. That's what a tournament is, competition. Entertainment is merely a by-product of it. Please try to understand, I mean what's a tournament with a $1 million dollar sponsorship but no players?
There would be no tourney if there wouldnt be viewers. Competition is only a by-product of it.
Eg.
Wolf wanted to cast some games. As a totally new in sc2 scene he decided to create a tournament which he can cast. First wolf cup had 0 price pool. But people like it. So next cup had a price from donation's of cup watchers. So tell me that viewers aren't important.
Also take Husky and HD. HDH1 had a few changes in price money. It was all relevant to the amount of viewers it generated. So more sponsors jump on the bandwagon and even increase there donation to the tournament.
So basically:
More viewers -> better exposure of the sponsor -> bigger price from the sponsor -> players get more money.
So
Viewers >>>> players.
This is eSport.
if players>viewers
its normal ladder game ;P
|
On September 06 2010 22:11 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 21:34 Crosswind wrote:
HuK -
Don't really disagree with any of your points. But, in case nobody's said it in the previous 13 pages of this thread, the real payoff is that it generates real-time interest in an event. eSports is trying to make money. You, Idra, Morrow, all the best players, would really like for professional SC2 to be a legitimate career. Being able to follow it real-time along with thousands of other people helps bring eSports closer tot hat goal.
Not sure if it outweighs all the negatives, but that's the big positive.
-Cross nothing at all can outweigh the potential for cheating alone how can you really try to develop a professional competition where anyone could be cheating at any time and theres absolutely no way to check it?
AGREED!!
|
On September 07 2010 04:24 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 04:15 Frankon wrote:On September 07 2010 04:12 RoarMan wrote:
The point I'm trying hard to iterate is this: The players ultimately will get to decide. They are the ones playing the game. A tournament is for players, people may want to watch it yes, but the players are the ones who are actually engaging it and are the core reason to run a tournament in the first place.
You get it so wrong. Tournament is for viewers. Its a ENTERTAINMENT. Players try to earn money but more importantly entertain the viewers. Core reason to run a sponsored tournament is to get a low cost advertisement for the sponsors. So why did people run tournaments before corporate sponsorship? Before mass media so people could watch it? I'm sorry but I think you're the one who has it wrong. A player will participate in a tournament because he wants to prove himself. That's what a tournament is, competition. Entertainment is merely a by-product of it. Please try to understand, I mean what's a tournament with a $1 million dollar sponsorship but no players? Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 04:16 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On September 07 2010 04:12 RoarMan wrote:
I completely understand the chance of spoilers, the problems of people not submitting replays, I've run a couple tourneys myself.
The point I'm trying hard to iterate is this: The players ultimately will get to decide. They are the ones playing the game. A tournament is for players, people may want to watch it yes, but the players are the ones who are actually engaging it and are the core reason to run a tournament in the first place.
I get it, HuK didn't post replays, he's a lazy fuck or w.e. But if you try to reach a compromise, show respect to the player side, I'm sure you'll get it back. I personally have not had that big of a problem with people sending me replays in free tournaments, the occasional 1 or 2 sets where I had to ask someone but I really didn't think it was a problem. Well without the viewers than these tournaments will not be for $. That's why companies sponsor them. For people to see their company name. I can be the very best Diablo II PvP player in the universe but if no one is watching me prove that than I will be doing it all for free, there would be no prize $. There is a mutual relationship, and unfortunately one where viewers > players. Well in free tournaments you are mainly dealing with lower level players who are DYING to make their name. But with established pros they rarely do it, and even Day9 has commented on this before. Imagine running down 256 people for replays or 512...... I seriously doubt you'd want to cast 256 games live anyways. I get that without viewership or sponsor, no money, but I'm still trying to press the matter that it is still ultimately the players who will decide wether or not they want to participate, money or no money. Obviously money attracts the better players, but again players are expressing the fact that they do not want to play in an environment with lag. I mean with more money on the line doesn't it mean that the players should be catered so they can play at the fullest? So that lag isn't a problem, so that it's an even and fair match? But really all we can do is speculate about what this issue will blow up to, I honestly think that it will come to casting replays if Blizzard doesn't do something. Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 04:23 Opinion wrote:On September 07 2010 04:15 Frankon wrote:On September 07 2010 04:12 RoarMan wrote:
The point I'm trying hard to iterate is this: The players ultimately will get to decide. They are the ones playing the game. A tournament is for players, people may want to watch it yes, but the players are the ones who are actually engaging it and are the core reason to run a tournament in the first place.
You get it so wrong. Tournament is for viewers. Its a ENTERTAINMENT. Players try to earn money but more importantly entertain the viewers. Core reason to run a sponsored tournament is to get a low cost advertisement for the sponsors. Exactly. SC2 wouldn't be nearly as valuable for sponsors if not for it's value as a spectator event. 1st and Ideally you want asses in seats, watching live, in the same room. 2nd you want live cast events. 3rd you have replays... maybe even fourth. I would rather listen to a live game than watch a replay to be honest. I seriously doubt you'd rather listen to a live game then watch it a pre-recorded game, I can say that with confidence. Again money is something to DRAW in the players, players aren't meant to drawn in the money.
You don't have to believe me, i do it often.
Watching live casted games i watch the games.
When casters are playing replays i often find myself tabbing over and reading the forums or lurking reddit while listening to the play by play.
I don't know why exactly but replays just don't keep me as entertained.
Unless I'm watching a replay which is hyped up and i know is going to be a great game before hand, then it's fun but still less fun then seeing it live.
TLDR: I'd rather watch a sporting event live in person, and if not in person live on TV. If it's already over I'm content with just the highlights and the outcome. If it was a spectacular game and i missed it, sure, i'll watch it being cast but only if all alternatives are exhausted.
|
On September 07 2010 04:24 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 04:15 Frankon wrote:On September 07 2010 04:12 RoarMan wrote:
The point I'm trying hard to iterate is this: The players ultimately will get to decide. They are the ones playing the game. A tournament is for players, people may want to watch it yes, but the players are the ones who are actually engaging it and are the core reason to run a tournament in the first place.
You get it so wrong. Tournament is for viewers. Its a ENTERTAINMENT. Players try to earn money but more importantly entertain the viewers. Core reason to run a sponsored tournament is to get a low cost advertisement for the sponsors. So why did people run tournaments before corporate sponsorship? Before mass media so people could watch it? I'm sorry but I think you're the one who has it wrong. A player will participate in a tournament because he wants to prove himself. That's what a tournament is, competition. Entertainment is merely a by-product of it. Please try to understand, I mean what's a tournament with a $1 million dollar sponsorship but no players? Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 04:16 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On September 07 2010 04:12 RoarMan wrote:
I completely understand the chance of spoilers, the problems of people not submitting replays, I've run a couple tourneys myself.
The point I'm trying hard to iterate is this: The players ultimately will get to decide. They are the ones playing the game. A tournament is for players, people may want to watch it yes, but the players are the ones who are actually engaging it and are the core reason to run a tournament in the first place.
I get it, HuK didn't post replays, he's a lazy fuck or w.e. But if you try to reach a compromise, show respect to the player side, I'm sure you'll get it back. I personally have not had that big of a problem with people sending me replays in free tournaments, the occasional 1 or 2 sets where I had to ask someone but I really didn't think it was a problem. Well without the viewers than these tournaments will not be for $. That's why companies sponsor them. For people to see their company name. I can be the very best Diablo II PvP player in the universe but if no one is watching me prove that than I will be doing it all for free, there would be no prize $. There is a mutual relationship, and unfortunately one where viewers > players. Well in free tournaments you are mainly dealing with lower level players who are DYING to make their name. But with established pros they rarely do it, and even Day9 has commented on this before. Imagine running down 256 people for replays or 512...... I seriously doubt you'd want to cast 256 games live anyways. I get that without viewership or sponsor, no money, but I'm still trying to press the matter that it is still ultimately the players who will decide wether or not they want to participate, money or no money. Obviously money attracts the better players, but again players are expressing the fact that they do not want to play in an environment with lag. I mean with more money on the line doesn't it mean that the players should be catered so they can play at the fullest? So that lag isn't a problem, so that it's an even and fair match? But really all we can do is speculate about what this issue will blow up to, I honestly think that it will come to casting replays if Blizzard doesn't do something. Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 04:23 Opinion wrote:On September 07 2010 04:15 Frankon wrote:On September 07 2010 04:12 RoarMan wrote:
The point I'm trying hard to iterate is this: The players ultimately will get to decide. They are the ones playing the game. A tournament is for players, people may want to watch it yes, but the players are the ones who are actually engaging it and are the core reason to run a tournament in the first place.
You get it so wrong. Tournament is for viewers. Its a ENTERTAINMENT. Players try to earn money but more importantly entertain the viewers. Core reason to run a sponsored tournament is to get a low cost advertisement for the sponsors. Exactly. SC2 wouldn't be nearly as valuable for sponsors if not for it's value as a spectator event. 1st and Ideally you want asses in seats, watching live, in the same room. 2nd you want live cast events. 3rd you have replays... maybe even fourth. I would rather listen to a live game than watch a replay to be honest. I seriously doubt you'd rather listen to a live game then watch it a pre-recorded game, I can say that with confidence. Again money is something to DRAW in the players, players aren't meant to drawn in the money.
And what were those prize pools before corporate sponsorship? I guarantee they weren't anywhere near the size they are now, or the potential size they can be with increased popularity. I was playing counter-strike when the first CPL took place way back in 2000 (or whatever year it was). After that event, the sponsors started flooding in and the prize pool for tournaments went up to the point that all these organizations like EG popped up. Why? Because the sponsors saw that people wanted to watch CS matches.
Viewers are what drive this "e-sport". Not the players. For every player that chooses not to participate in a tournament, there will be another 50 waiting to take his place. And in the end, the only thing it's going to cost that player is potential sponsors as his name won't be out there.
And where do you get this concept of people wanting to watch a replay than a live cast? In SC and professional sports, my interest level drops tremendously if I don't watch something live. There have been countless times where I've DVR'd an NFL game or something and then never watched it because I just didn't care after the fact.
I understand both sides of the argument and I think the best possible solution is for there to be 1 or 2 approved casters casting matches. Or you can even assign 5-6 casters to follow certain high profile players through the tourney and then when, say the elite 8, hits, the 1 or 2 approved casters take over.
|
On September 07 2010 04:36 mav451 wrote:
Lol did someone just suggest that lag is "part of the game" like the crowd is for soccer? That analogy might be the most hilarious one I've heard in this thread. I can't believe I'm actually hearing this. Wow.
haha, yeah that's just wrong. Though a better one would be:
'lag is part of the game like the vuvuzelas are for soccer.' 
|
On September 07 2010 04:42 RxN wrote:
And what were those prize pools before corporate sponsorship? I guarantee they weren't anywhere near the size they are now, or the potential size they can be with increased popularity. I was playing counter-strike when the first CPL took place way back in 2000 (or whatever year it was). After that event, the sponsors started flooding in and the prize pool for tournaments went up to the point that all these organizations like EG popped up. Why? Because the sponsors saw that people wanted to watch CS matches.
Viewers are what drive this "e-sport". Not the players. For every player that chooses not to participate in a tournament, there will be another 50 waiting to take his place. And in the end, the only thing it's going to cost that player is potential sponsors as his name won't be out there.
And where do you get this concept of people wanting to watch a replay than a live cast? In SC and professional sports, my interest level drops tremendously if I don't watch something live. There have been countless times where I've DVR'd an NFL game or something and then never watched it because I just didn't care after the fact.
I understand both sides of the argument and I think the best possible solution is for there to be 1 or 2 approved casters casting matches. Or you can even assign 5-6 casters to follow certain high profile players through the tourney and then when, say the elite 8, hits, the 1 or 2 approved casters take over.
Very well said. Especially the bolded part.
|
On September 07 2010 04:42 RxN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 04:24 RoarMan wrote:On September 07 2010 04:15 Frankon wrote:On September 07 2010 04:12 RoarMan wrote:
The point I'm trying hard to iterate is this: The players ultimately will get to decide. They are the ones playing the game. A tournament is for players, people may want to watch it yes, but the players are the ones who are actually engaging it and are the core reason to run a tournament in the first place.
You get it so wrong. Tournament is for viewers. Its a ENTERTAINMENT. Players try to earn money but more importantly entertain the viewers. Core reason to run a sponsored tournament is to get a low cost advertisement for the sponsors. So why did people run tournaments before corporate sponsorship? Before mass media so people could watch it? I'm sorry but I think you're the one who has it wrong. A player will participate in a tournament because he wants to prove himself. That's what a tournament is, competition. Entertainment is merely a by-product of it. Please try to understand, I mean what's a tournament with a $1 million dollar sponsorship but no players? On September 07 2010 04:16 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On September 07 2010 04:12 RoarMan wrote:
I completely understand the chance of spoilers, the problems of people not submitting replays, I've run a couple tourneys myself.
The point I'm trying hard to iterate is this: The players ultimately will get to decide. They are the ones playing the game. A tournament is for players, people may want to watch it yes, but the players are the ones who are actually engaging it and are the core reason to run a tournament in the first place.
I get it, HuK didn't post replays, he's a lazy fuck or w.e. But if you try to reach a compromise, show respect to the player side, I'm sure you'll get it back. I personally have not had that big of a problem with people sending me replays in free tournaments, the occasional 1 or 2 sets where I had to ask someone but I really didn't think it was a problem. Well without the viewers than these tournaments will not be for $. That's why companies sponsor them. For people to see their company name. I can be the very best Diablo II PvP player in the universe but if no one is watching me prove that than I will be doing it all for free, there would be no prize $. There is a mutual relationship, and unfortunately one where viewers > players. Well in free tournaments you are mainly dealing with lower level players who are DYING to make their name. But with established pros they rarely do it, and even Day9 has commented on this before. Imagine running down 256 people for replays or 512...... I seriously doubt you'd want to cast 256 games live anyways. I get that without viewership or sponsor, no money, but I'm still trying to press the matter that it is still ultimately the players who will decide wether or not they want to participate, money or no money. Obviously money attracts the better players, but again players are expressing the fact that they do not want to play in an environment with lag. I mean with more money on the line doesn't it mean that the players should be catered so they can play at the fullest? So that lag isn't a problem, so that it's an even and fair match? But really all we can do is speculate about what this issue will blow up to, I honestly think that it will come to casting replays if Blizzard doesn't do something. On September 07 2010 04:23 Opinion wrote:On September 07 2010 04:15 Frankon wrote:On September 07 2010 04:12 RoarMan wrote:
The point I'm trying hard to iterate is this: The players ultimately will get to decide. They are the ones playing the game. A tournament is for players, people may want to watch it yes, but the players are the ones who are actually engaging it and are the core reason to run a tournament in the first place.
You get it so wrong. Tournament is for viewers. Its a ENTERTAINMENT. Players try to earn money but more importantly entertain the viewers. Core reason to run a sponsored tournament is to get a low cost advertisement for the sponsors. Exactly. SC2 wouldn't be nearly as valuable for sponsors if not for it's value as a spectator event. 1st and Ideally you want asses in seats, watching live, in the same room. 2nd you want live cast events. 3rd you have replays... maybe even fourth. I would rather listen to a live game than watch a replay to be honest. I seriously doubt you'd rather listen to a live game then watch it a pre-recorded game, I can say that with confidence. Again money is something to DRAW in the players, players aren't meant to drawn in the money. And what were those prize pools before corporate sponsorship? I guarantee they weren't anywhere near the size they are now, or the potential size they can be with increased popularity. I was playing counter-strike when the first CPL took place way back in 2000 (or whatever year it was). After that event, the sponsors started flooding in and the prize pool for tournaments went up to the point that all these organizations like EG popped up. Why? Because the sponsors saw that people wanted to watch CS matches. Viewers are what drive this "e-sport". Not the players. For every player that chooses not to participate in a tournament, there will be another 50 waiting to take his place. And in the end, the only thing it's going to cost that player is potential sponsors as his name won't be out there. And where do you get this concept of people wanting to watch a replay than a live cast? In SC and professional sports, my interest level drops tremendously if I don't watch something live. There have been countless times where I've DVR'd an NFL game or something and then never watched it because I just didn't care after the fact. I understand both sides of the argument and I think the best possible solution is for there to be 1 or 2 approved casters casting matches. Or you can even assign 5-6 casters to follow certain high profile players through the tourney and then when, say the elite 8, hits, the 1 or 2 approved casters take over.
I really believe this is a truly selfish way to look at it.
What are you guys saying then? The players are monkeys dancing around for coins?
Viewership is important, it's valuable yes. Money is important, yes.
But aren't the players something to be placed above that? The game itself? I mean c'mon, what's a a million viewers with a million dollar price pool if all we get is lack luster games because the players are in an uncomfortable environment?
|
On September 07 2010 04:47 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 04:42 RxN wrote:On September 07 2010 04:24 RoarMan wrote:On September 07 2010 04:15 Frankon wrote:On September 07 2010 04:12 RoarMan wrote:
The point I'm trying hard to iterate is this: The players ultimately will get to decide. They are the ones playing the game. A tournament is for players, people may want to watch it yes, but the players are the ones who are actually engaging it and are the core reason to run a tournament in the first place.
You get it so wrong. Tournament is for viewers. Its a ENTERTAINMENT. Players try to earn money but more importantly entertain the viewers. Core reason to run a sponsored tournament is to get a low cost advertisement for the sponsors. So why did people run tournaments before corporate sponsorship? Before mass media so people could watch it? I'm sorry but I think you're the one who has it wrong. A player will participate in a tournament because he wants to prove himself. That's what a tournament is, competition. Entertainment is merely a by-product of it. Please try to understand, I mean what's a tournament with a $1 million dollar sponsorship but no players? On September 07 2010 04:16 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On September 07 2010 04:12 RoarMan wrote:
I completely understand the chance of spoilers, the problems of people not submitting replays, I've run a couple tourneys myself.
The point I'm trying hard to iterate is this: The players ultimately will get to decide. They are the ones playing the game. A tournament is for players, people may want to watch it yes, but the players are the ones who are actually engaging it and are the core reason to run a tournament in the first place.
I get it, HuK didn't post replays, he's a lazy fuck or w.e. But if you try to reach a compromise, show respect to the player side, I'm sure you'll get it back. I personally have not had that big of a problem with people sending me replays in free tournaments, the occasional 1 or 2 sets where I had to ask someone but I really didn't think it was a problem. Well without the viewers than these tournaments will not be for $. That's why companies sponsor them. For people to see their company name. I can be the very best Diablo II PvP player in the universe but if no one is watching me prove that than I will be doing it all for free, there would be no prize $. There is a mutual relationship, and unfortunately one where viewers > players. Well in free tournaments you are mainly dealing with lower level players who are DYING to make their name. But with established pros they rarely do it, and even Day9 has commented on this before. Imagine running down 256 people for replays or 512...... I seriously doubt you'd want to cast 256 games live anyways. I get that without viewership or sponsor, no money, but I'm still trying to press the matter that it is still ultimately the players who will decide wether or not they want to participate, money or no money. Obviously money attracts the better players, but again players are expressing the fact that they do not want to play in an environment with lag. I mean with more money on the line doesn't it mean that the players should be catered so they can play at the fullest? So that lag isn't a problem, so that it's an even and fair match? But really all we can do is speculate about what this issue will blow up to, I honestly think that it will come to casting replays if Blizzard doesn't do something. On September 07 2010 04:23 Opinion wrote:On September 07 2010 04:15 Frankon wrote:On September 07 2010 04:12 RoarMan wrote:
The point I'm trying hard to iterate is this: The players ultimately will get to decide. They are the ones playing the game. A tournament is for players, people may want to watch it yes, but the players are the ones who are actually engaging it and are the core reason to run a tournament in the first place.
You get it so wrong. Tournament is for viewers. Its a ENTERTAINMENT. Players try to earn money but more importantly entertain the viewers. Core reason to run a sponsored tournament is to get a low cost advertisement for the sponsors. Exactly. SC2 wouldn't be nearly as valuable for sponsors if not for it's value as a spectator event. 1st and Ideally you want asses in seats, watching live, in the same room. 2nd you want live cast events. 3rd you have replays... maybe even fourth. I would rather listen to a live game than watch a replay to be honest. I seriously doubt you'd rather listen to a live game then watch it a pre-recorded game, I can say that with confidence. Again money is something to DRAW in the players, players aren't meant to drawn in the money. And what were those prize pools before corporate sponsorship? I guarantee they weren't anywhere near the size they are now, or the potential size they can be with increased popularity. I was playing counter-strike when the first CPL took place way back in 2000 (or whatever year it was). After that event, the sponsors started flooding in and the prize pool for tournaments went up to the point that all these organizations like EG popped up. Why? Because the sponsors saw that people wanted to watch CS matches. Viewers are what drive this "e-sport". Not the players. For every player that chooses not to participate in a tournament, there will be another 50 waiting to take his place. And in the end, the only thing it's going to cost that player is potential sponsors as his name won't be out there. And where do you get this concept of people wanting to watch a replay than a live cast? In SC and professional sports, my interest level drops tremendously if I don't watch something live. There have been countless times where I've DVR'd an NFL game or something and then never watched it because I just didn't care after the fact. I understand both sides of the argument and I think the best possible solution is for there to be 1 or 2 approved casters casting matches. Or you can even assign 5-6 casters to follow certain high profile players through the tourney and then when, say the elite 8, hits, the 1 or 2 approved casters take over. I really believe this is a truly selfish way to look at it. What are you guys saying then? The players are monkeys dancing around for coins? Viewership is important, it's valuable yes. Money is important, yes. But aren't the players something to be placed above that? The game itself? I mean c'mon, what's a a million viewers with a million dollar price pool if all we get is lack luster games because the players are in an uncomfortable environment?
Selfish? Please. Get off your high horse. Selfish is expecting sponsors to throw money at you for playing a game in a situation that they get no benefit from, i.e. nobody watching the game you're playing.
Players can be placed above it....in tournaments where there are no sponsors or money on the line.
|
On September 07 2010 04:24 RoarMan wrote:
So why did people run tournaments before corporate sponsorship? Before mass media so people could watch it?
I'm sorry but I think you're the one who has it wrong. A player will participate in a tournament because
he wants to prove himself. That's what a tournament is, competition. Entertainment is merely a by-product of it. Please try to understand, I mean what's a tournament with a $1 million dollar sponsorship but no players?
Please, just stop exaggerating this much.
Yes, people are competitive. Gamers are competitive. People in all walks of life have the urge to prove themselves somehow, thus a lot of us will take that chance when offered if we feel we have something to contribute with. But, your argument ends right there.
If those competitive people have that same chance while competing for a large cash price, obviously they would go for that instead of something which offered nothing but a pat on the back and some efame for a very small select group of people.
Entertainment is what makes those big cash prices possible and it promotes players to become better and better since their results now actually matters in their daily life instead of just being a name on the internet.
It's just a pointless discussion and it's not what should be discussed in this thread. This thread is about making it better for both the players and streamers. Not a discussion about who makes what possible. It's a synergy. They feed and nurture each other. The end.
|
I never really understood the hype with livecasting online tournaments
there's just so much last minute shit that can happen that delays the games and forces the casters to fill in the gaps (kinda like what happened @ MLG Raleigh)
I mean just look at Go4SC2, thank god DeMuslim and Take were drunk and the stream was hilarious otherwise a lot of people would've just lost interest.
Just have both players + 1 admin in the game and have that admin send the replays to the casters
cast it when the series is over or if you REALLY want to have it as close to live as possible just cast the first finished game while the 2nd is being played and have the admin just keep sending games between games.
Prevents lag and cheating. Case closed.
In the end, wtf do you care if it's live or was played 30 minutes ago?
and to whoever said that for each player that quits there'll be 50 to replace him:
You're watching the games for the level of competition. At one point they'd be casting low diamond players. nobody's gonna watch that.
players make the tournament what it is. sponsors come to good players because they see an opportunity to use them to display their brand. they help tournaments because of they see the opportunity in having their brand repeated mindlessly to all viewers.
if you have a bad tournament with bad players, do you really expect to have as many viewers?
|
I was irritated when this first came up on Gosu the other day as I was one of the viewers and the whole thing was handled less then well, what with no one really knowing how to handle it, definitely a break down in communications, and while I'd like to continue to see live games casted I understand the lag problem and will concede to it as long as events such as ESL and GSL etc continue to be casted live, I think casting replays is acceptable for online tournaments.
|
On September 07 2010 04:44 Ghazwan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 04:36 mav451 wrote:
Lol did someone just suggest that lag is "part of the game" like the crowd is for soccer? That analogy might be the most hilarious one I've heard in this thread. I can't believe I'm actually hearing this. Wow. haha, yeah that's just wrong. Though a better one would be: 'lag is part of the game like the vuvuzelas are for soccer.'
Haha this is spot-on.
|
On September 07 2010 04:34 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 04:26 grigorin wrote:On September 07 2010 03:49 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 07 2010 03:45 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On September 07 2010 03:40 Whalecore wrote:
/signed
Casting sites needs to implement delay-feature if it isn't already possible. Dude have you read the thread? It's not possible without spending a lot of $. Capture screen but don't stream it directly -- save it to a file on local disk. Second computer networked with first opens the file 30 mins later and streams it. I just tested this with my PC and a laptop. It was as easy as I thought. vhscrcap + fmle saves an flv file to a folder that I'm sharing for streaming on my network. Laptop opens the file and has its own vhscrcap + fmle setup and streams VLC playing the file. You set the length of the delay by calculating the time between recording the file on the first PC and opening the file on the second PC. nice - the only thing I can imagine is, that the streamer will not have as much fun as before and there would be no way the caster can influence what is shown on screen (not so much of a problem, if you consider in SC:BW it was the only way to get english casts of pro games - but the streamer has to be really good to catch all the action) the caster can be on the first computer that is capturing the video and audio. it's really no different to him. after one or two games he needs to take a short break to start the stream on his second computer and that's it
but does it work with more than one caster? Otherwise it would "only" eliminate the cheating issue.
|
On September 07 2010 04:47 RoarMan wrote:
What are you guys saying then? The players are monkeys dancing around for coins?
Well if they are pro players than yes. They must provide the best amount of coverage to their sponsors.
If i remember correctly on the first day of IEM Morrow was wearing a normal shirt.
But from day two he started to wear a mous sport.
It takes no Sherlock to get that after the life feed he got message from his sponsor.
"Put on the dam shirt"
And so he did.
I leave HuK's hoodie without comment.
Wannabe pro's.
Of the players posting here (from the big 3) only Idra has a mindset of a pro. (Thats why his main concern was about cheating)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
