EPTDon't take their speedtest for granted considering how terrible the software they're using to do it is.
[GSL] About GSL Streams and VODs - Page 38
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
aers
United States1210 Posts
Don't take their speedtest for granted considering how terrible the software they're using to do it is. | ||
|
Percutio
United States1672 Posts
 This really badly needs a free stream of some sort. I could understand 20 bucks for the stream if it was full HD and there was a free stream, but with the reputation of GOMtv streams I'm surprised it isn't 10 for a high quality stream, 15 for the VODs, and 20 for a combo. I'm really surprised how they expect people to shell out 20 bucks (For a rough looking stream at best) when they can't even tell if the stream is stable. | ||
|
poNji
Netherlands90 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:25 Jochan wrote: Ok i pulled some quotes from http://www.gomtv.net/2010gslopens1, maybe some native english speaker can clarify that. From this I understand that: this set of Ro64 which is coming is one season, so 20$+30$ is only for this set which we have in upcoming few weeks. From Premium zone Now what is "set game"? I understand that we have Ro64 so that is 32+16+8+4+2+1final game, that is 47 games. So now is it 47*3seasons = 141, OR 47 games Ro3 47*3 141 ? I'm guessing that because all games are Bo3 = 3 games (max) each matchup, so 47x3 is one season. Quarterfinals/Semifinals/Finals might even be Bo5 and Bo7 (iirc they are). | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:28 Hikari wrote: All the sc2 tournaments we have had so far all offer a free stream. We have been watching BW for a while now, for free. They can go ahead and make money by taking in sponsors and inserting a fair amount of advertisements. i dont think many people would mind paying a reasonable price. But the problem is they're charging professional sports prices without delivering comparable content. | ||
|
Alphaes
United States651 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:25 Jochan wrote: From Premium zone Now what is "set game"? I understand that we have Ro64 so that is 32+16+8+4+2+1final game, that is 47 games. So now is it 47*3seasons = 141, OR 47 games Ro3 47*3 141 ? Probably the games within each set, as it was mentioned that a season was basically a tournament/month. Confusing, but makes sense from a marketing point of view to make the numbers seem higher than they really are. | ||
|
Trumpet
United States1935 Posts
I could see charging $5-10 for vods. It'd be a pain, but it'd be acceptable. No way in hell am I paying that much for stream. | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
| ||
|
djWHEAT
United States925 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:16 Shikyo wrote: Not everyone wastes so much on awful games though. I'm not sure why you're saying it's acceptable either, that's precisely why Activision is so corrupt. With 30 dollars you get like one month of like 10 different tv channels with different programs 24/7. What they're offering for the amount is completely laughable. You might enjoy eating chocolate, maybe you want to buy a chocolate bar. Is it reasonable to pay 50$ for it, and do you also call others whiners and QQers if they don't want to buy something so completely overpriced even if they'd enjoy eating it? You're right not everyone wastes money on (awful? I dunno about that) games - but I'm just saying that as a gamer and what I spend my gaming dollars on... this equates to a better deal than me buying that $60 game that I'll only get 8 hours out of. When it comes to gaming, I look at it like this: $ SPENT vs TIME PLAYED If I spent 8 hours playing a $60 game, then I basically spent $7.50 an hour to play. Let's say that GOMtv does manage to show 150 games and I buy the LIVE package only (this of course assuming the streaming technology works and I'm getting what I paid for) for $20. That equates to $0.13 per game I watch. That's not a bad deal. Now realistically will I get up for every single game or be able to watch them? Probably not, so let's throw the VOD cost on there too...so now $50 total. So to enjoy every single game whether it's LIVE or VOD, I would be paying a cost of $0.33 per game. NOW AGAIN this all depends on whether or not the service is actually worth the money... but if I make the assumption that it's viewable... that doesn't seem too bad at all. And if the Chocolate bar let me eat off it for a month... Maybe $50 isn't so bad for that bar? I guess it's not much different than paying for something in installments vs. one lump sum. | ||
|
leakingpear
United Kingdom302 Posts
I imagine this is meant as a token gesture of appeasement to someone on the board of directors who liked the idea of trying to open a global market by an accountant who doesn't see a financial future in catering to the small external market. That said it's such an absurdly stupid gesture that I can't imagine it'll satisfy anyone at all. | ||
Chill
Calgary25963 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:08 djWHEAT wrote: I completely agree that you shouldn't overpay for a service that doesn't deliver. However, I also look at alot of these things differently now than I did many years ago. For example, I used to go, "OMG why would I pay 0.99$ 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. I can see your point but you have to be able to see others' perspective too. For some people the cost is too high, but for me, the cost is irrelevant. It could be $5, $20, or $200 and I would care the same amount. I don't like that GOM think they can force the foreign market to pay money to support their game, so I wouldn't pay anything for it. If there was more effort explaining why I should pay, what I will get, even some basic form of effort on their part it could change my opinion. If it was set up as a volunteer / upgrade system I would most definitely try the free stream and then consider and upgrade. As is I won't be watching if they continue with this pay model. | ||
|
djWHEAT
United States925 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:22 Kerotan wrote: See doesn't this bother you? I as a viewer of WOC, I will watch with interest, but what if it does suck? I wouldn't care about the lost money, I would care what does this meant for professional televised Esport in the future, the money is immaterial to the clear dream of Esport everywhere, loved like anything else in a sporting sense, and every time things like this fail, that pushes the apex of this dream further and further away. It doesn't bother me because I'm here to provide a service to the community. One of two things will happen: A> It will suck. And I will get to tell people how bad it sucks and then we discuss how to make it better (even if it falls on deaf ears). OR B> It will be great. And maybe an endorsement from someone in the community who does alot with streaming would help change the minds of others that the technology might not be as bad as they say. It will always be up to each individual person to determine whether or not they can AFFORD it. I can only help people determine whether or not it would be worth their money. So yes while it could have an adversely negative effect on things, I don't mind shelling out the money if it means I can help eSports in that way. | ||
|
Skvid
Lithuania751 Posts
The problem here is poor money managment at their end, the pricepool is huge but that doesn't justify the price viewers have to pay for 1 season. The koreans get this for free with the commentary and likely better streams, free of charge. Why do we have to pay then? Why not split the pricing between the regions? 170k usd is a huge pricepool, and a bit of overkill for the 1st season if you ask me. I don't really care if its 20k, 50k or 150k. And i don't see how the pricepool can influence things like sponsorship and other things that makes this event profitable for GOMTV. This has been said numerous times in this thread but putting such a price to view the stream (correct me if im mistaken but think this is the most expensive premium membership in e-sports history) without giving free low quality streams is just... baffling to me. They spent a fortune on things like hiring korean popstars to perform at the event etc etc. And afaik attending at the live event irl will be free. Events need stuff like that yea, but if i had to choose between hiring popstars or providing free livestreams the choice would be obvious. --- So in the end, with all of these points i made combined it doesnt make much sense to pay the price of the game itself to watch a single season on stream which has questionable quality and bad technical history. IN ADDITION the money they will get from these premium memberships will be marginal at the most. I have no doubt that if they made the pricepool lets say... 140k instead of 170k (or whatever is the actual pricepool) they would have made a much better decision for both business an audience sides. So, please explain to me again why do you think this is an OK thing to do on their side... or don't - you can save this for your show because i think that Chill posted in this thread as well, and he wasn't happy about the pricing as well. It will be interesting to hear what you two have to say to each other ;3 But yea... given the whole situation this is the bad case to go all "You wanted esports to flourish and now that you have a chance you don't embrace the opportunity, but whine instead" | ||
|
gospelwut
United States52 Posts
I had high hopes for this to be a huge catalyst for SC2 eSports. Sadly, I don't think this event will galvanize the hardcore and average players/watchers as much as i Had hoped. | ||
|
Cheebah
210 Posts
But there's a bandwidth test available on the GomTV site - Bandwidth check I ran a test and ran a couple of Speedtest.net tests (I'm in Europe) Speedtest.net results to the closest server: ![[image loading]](http://www.speedtest.net/result/936739423.png) Speedtest.net results to Korea: ![[image loading]](http://www.speedtest.net/result/936734016.png) GomTV.net test result: Your current PC Internet Speed : 217Kbps It will be difficult for you to watch LIVE at this speed. You're saying you're making us pay to dump the new server's cost, I'm confused o_0 | ||
|
Kishkumen
United States650 Posts
And as a response to Wheat's posts: Why should I pay to support GOM's poor business model? I recognize that running the tournament and the stream cost money, but if they really sank all of their sponsor money into the prize pool, why should I have to foot the bill? It's like if a store spend a ton of money on new cash registers and had to charge $20 for a loaf of bread. Why do I have to support their bad business model? IEM and MLG have proved that at some point in structuring your tournament that you can get away with a free LQ stream. The only thing I see preventing GOM from doing the same is that they completely botched their business model and are now asking the foreign fans to foot the bill. I think most of us are just frustrated that they didn't consider things like demand or demographics and made some really poor decisions from a viewership standpoint. If a $20 fee was the only way this could be made viable, I'd understand it, but it seems as though there were plenty of other viable options and that GOM just made poor decisions. I think this is where many of us are having problems with it. We're not saying that this tournament doesn't cost money to produce, but we are saying that the structuring of where GOM put its money seems kind of ludicrous. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25963 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:38 djWHEAT wrote: It doesn't bother me because I'm here to provide a service to the community. One of two things will happen: A> It will suck. And I will get to tell people how bad it sucks and then we discuss how to make it better (even if it falls on deaf ears). OR B> It will be great. And maybe an endorsement from someone in the community who does alot with streaming would help change the minds of others that the technology might not be as bad as they say. It will always be up to each individual person to determine whether or not they can AFFORD it. I can only help people determine whether or not it would be worth their money. So yes while it could have an adversely negative effect on things, I don't mind shelling out the money if it means I can help eSports in that way. I can appreciate your willingness to help eSports, but you seem to write about it like it's our duty to support it and there is no responsibility on the broadcaster's side. I will support it if I feel it's appreciated or will have a positive effect. Right now, looking at this thread, you can see it's having an effect - a strongly negative one on GOM's reputation for the majority of the potential viewership. | ||
|
ZerOsAndOnEs
United States64 Posts
| ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:36 leakingpear wrote: Well this has to be the funniest blunders of all time, it's pretty hilarious when you can immediately discount an entire enterprise based on one business decision. I can't wait to see what they fill the gaps between games and matches with when they're providing a premium, non-advertising based service. I imagine this is meant as a token gesture of appeasement to someone on the board of directors who liked the idea of trying to open a global market by an accountant who doesn't see a financial future in catering to the small external market. That said it's such an absurdly stupid gesture that I can't imagine it'll satisfy anyone at all. well said. Makes you quiet sad too doesnt it that the biggest SC2 venture everyone had such high hopes for has already tripped and fell face first. For anyone who followed MMA this is very reminiscent of all the organizations who tried to get together big names by offering 7 digit salaries and then failed horribly simple because they were not capable of running a proper budget. | ||
|
Frankon
3054 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:42 ZerOsAndOnEs wrote: Do the VODS come in Blu-Ray? :D Nope in GOM-Vision Sry couldn't resist | ||
|
djWHEAT
United States925 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:38 Chill wrote: I can see your point but you have to be able to see others' perspective too. For some people the cost is too high, but for me, the cost is irrelevant. It could be $5, $20, or $200 and I would care the same amount. I don't like that GOM think they can force the foreign market to pay money to support their game, so I wouldn't pay anything for it. If there was more effort explaining why I should pay, what I will get, even some basic form of effort on their part it could change my opinion. If it was set up as a volunteer / upgrade system I would most definitely try the free stream and then consider and upgrade. As is I won't be watching if they continue with this pay model. OMG YOU ARE SO FIRED!?! Why couldn't this news have come out prior to Sunday??? This would be an awesome Weapon of Choice discussion topic I mean I get that everyone's spending is different, and that people are upset for different reasons. It's not much different from Microsoft raising XBOX LIVE another $10/year starting in November. I don't feel like I get $50/year worth in the first place. But others may think that playing Halo with 12 year old kids is worth that and don't give a damn. I wish, like a few of the other posters who have pointed out, that GOM would offer a bit more explanation as for the change. If they told you that they were charging for this premium service so that they could fully upgrade their infrastructure to ensure they are delivering a good product... would you go for it? Or are you simply just not happy with the fact that you get no way to "review" the product without paying money... And for that matter... is it worth it to someone to say, buy a 1 day pass to determine if it's worth a damn? Or is that already BS? I spend money on some pretty stupid shit, so on one hand that doesn't seem a big deal to me... but I'm trying to put myself in other's shoes, and that 1 day pass could be like 3 days of ramen. I'm more curious than anything... | ||
| ||
if it sucks, well then I wasted money and you didn't have to.
