EPT[GSL] About GSL Streams and VODs - Page 36
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
Nightbiscuit
Sweden179 Posts
| ||
|
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
On September 02 2010 02:59 djWHEAT wrote: Are the GOM VOD's as atrocious as the live stream or are they generally higher quality? Does it use the same technology? They are about the same quality in awfulness in my experience, and the stream is staggered, so watching as a community is difficult. | ||
|
shrinkmaster
Germany947 Posts
How long is a season? As far as i understand there will be a new GSL tourney every month, correct? Does that mean that i need to pay those ridiculous prices per month???? Or does this deal include the TG-intel Starcraft 2 league games, which will be held after the open tournaments? If this is correct, won't the first season be drastically shorter than following season because of qualification tournaments? I would be soo glad if someone could tell me what exactly i can watch for how long if i should pay this. | ||
|
Jochan
Poland1730 Posts
On September 02 2010 02:38 theqat wrote: Has anyone found out how long a season is yet? $240 per year for live streams and $360 per year for VODs is totally unreasonable but $20 per year and $50 per year is a lot different. That is the real question, most important thing is definition of season ticket vs cup season. We have at least 3 more gsl tournaments this year, if the vod is 30$ for all of them, then 10$ for 63 games, which is atleast 126 rounds (considering bo3 all the way), casted in English by Tasteless+Arthosis seems very resonable. For that amount of money i can live with glitches, long loading time etc. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On September 02 2010 02:59 djWHEAT wrote: Are the GOM VOD's as atrocious as the live stream or are they generally higher quality? Does it use the same technology? VODs for Intel Classic were quality wise the same as the high quality stream minus the lag. the only bad thing about it was the loading times and the fact that they cut out too much, probably to save space since longer VODs meant more bandwitdh. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
| ||
|
Dysius
Australia2 Posts
Disgusting | ||
|
JohnStorm
Canada74 Posts
| ||
|
djWHEAT
United States925 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:00 hypercube wrote: Asking $25-$50/month for home entertainment is not a workable business model. Maybe if you have a great product that everyone knows is great. And I don't just mean great in the sense that it's professional and well produced. I mean great as in OMG I GOTTA SEE THIS!11. There's just so many substitutes both in entertainment in general and esports in particular that's cheaper and also high quality. Must be painful for guys like you who work very hard and would presumably like to see some returns at some point but it's just a very tough climate. Especially esports where most of your potential customers have little disposable income. You can try to change attitudes but unless you have a plan to get rid of most forms of free entertainment you're stuck. That's why I think the correct model is to ask people who can afford to pay to pay (for some premium service but mostly to support the scene) and let others get the product free, especially since the marginal cost for additional viewers is close to 0. I completely agree that you shouldn't overpay for a service that doesn't deliver. However, I also look at alot of these things differently now than I did many years ago. For example, I used to go, "OMG why would I pay 0.99$ for an iPhone app?" - Then I realized that I pay $1.99 for energy drinks which I enjoy for 30 minutes and then that's it. So I just stopped buying energy drinks and started buying iPhone apps and I get a ton of enjoyment out of it. Also, I routinely purchase console games for $60... And then I spent 6 hours playing them. So when I see a potential product that could offer me more entertainment than the latest console title, I tend to be ok with that. | ||
|
nafta
Bulgaria18893 Posts
| ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1603 Posts
The money vs the time entertained is well spent. The only issue I have is past reputation and poor quality of live streams. Rereading this if it is only 20 dollars it is probably well worth it to obtain the stream if there aren't issues like before. | ||
|
Lyter
United Kingdom2145 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:08 djWHEAT wrote: I completely agree that you shouldn't overpay for a service that doesn't deliver. However, I also look at alot of these things differently now than I did many years ago. For example, I used to go, "OMG why would I pay 0.99$ for an iPhone app?" - Then I realized that I pay $1.99 for energy drinks which I enjoy for 30 minutes and then that's it. So I just stopped buying energy drinks and started buying iPhone apps and I get a ton of enjoyment out of it. Also, I routinely purchase console games for $60... And then I spent 6 hours playing them. So when I see a potential product that could offer me more entertainment than the latest console title, I tend to be ok with that. Thats why I don't buy console tites anymore, they aren't worth the price tag on the front anymore  | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
The problem is that it's on the internet. People expect handouts for everything on the internet. | ||
|
Alphaes
United States651 Posts
hey guys I am not supposed to say this officially but this is my opinion. the price does seem unfair and the quality may not be worth it. but hosting a server in US and provinding english commentary/subtitles cannot be done free. Now that I've reread that statement, I wondering how much they are investing on setting us these US servers. Would this result in better quality videos? I imagine it'll make accessing the VODs easier, but will they be able to support a steady livestream as well? Not that familiar with the technology, but would tunneling all the streamed data from the korean servers to their dedicated servers (not sure how much time delay will be introduced), then to viewers, be better than just the viewers directly accessing the stream from Korean servers? | ||
|
Frankon
3054 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:02 djWHEAT wrote: Well since I have opened my mouth. I will gladly pay the cost for the entire season and "review" it on Weapon of Choice  if it sucks, well then I wasted money and you didn't have to.Wheat... come to europe and watch the season from here and review it ;D Some people in europe are lucky and can watch it. But a vast majority has a lagfest and 4h+ vod buffering | ||
|
Chrispy
Canada5878 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:10 Alphaes wrote: Now that I've reread that statement, I wondering how much they are investing on setting us these US servers. Would this result in better quality videos? I imagine it'll make accessing the VODs easier, but will they be able to support a steady livestream as well? Not that familiar with the technology, but would tunneling all the streamed data from the korean servers to their dedicated servers (not sure how much time delay will be introduced), then to viewers, be better than just the viewers directly accessing the stream from Korean servers? It won't make the video quality any better--they have to send it from Korea to the US server before it can go out to paying customers. But hopefully the connection from that US server to Korea is steady enough to get it to people in the US without stuttering/buffering. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
Cool I won't be buying the HQ stream then. Just let it be known GOM that I wouldve bought the HQ stream if I had access to the LQ for free provided the quality of the LQ stream was consistent. I am not buying a stream I have no assurance that works. | ||
|
maellestrom
United States194 Posts
| ||
| ||
