|
On February 01 2011 11:34 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 11:00 Prime`Rib wrote:On February 01 2011 10:57 crms wrote:On February 01 2011 10:50 Prime`Rib wrote:
Right now, i believe that GOMtv tried to establish a good base of Koreans viewers before worrying about foreigners qq about unstable streams. They have their own priorities and pleasing you is not on top of the list. not getting sucked into this thread but this is a retarded statement. If they don't care about pleasing me as a consumer of their product why in the fuck would I support them? derp? Way to read my post and then interpret it with your own retardation. people take things for granted on the internet, GOM doesn't care about us right now, they want to establish a Korean base. Pleasing us is not on the top of their list? hmm.. what did I miss? The only retardation going on in this conversation is your inability to formulate a position that follows any reason and my inability to let you just merrily spew this garbage.
eurf. Calm down. Its likely that GOM will stay the way it is.
This is merely a discussion/
|
On February 01 2011 11:58 MERLIN. wrote:
It would be nice for a single GOM representative to perhaps explain the plan or come in here and adress the situation.
I do believe charging is the way to go, but it's like the movie "The Social Network" (I HOPE EVERYONE SAW THAT BECAUSE ITS AWESOME) anyway, in the movie his CFO wants to smash ads into everyones throats, and Mark says no its a bad idea because then its not cool and once it losses that, people won't move in and being a habit of being at the place. Plus with Koreans actually boycotting (so to speak) SC2 MBC I believe it is and other channels trying their hardest to stay away from it, it's a bad idea to start out going hey... Fuck you, pay now.
I believe it is to soon to charge, watch the movie and you will fully understand what I mean, plus they need to give you DL vods... jesus.
Facebook did not create content. It let the users create content, which added value to the website. Your example would be better suited to a replay submission website wanting to charge for downloading replays. Its not applicable to GOMTV because they create their content.
They don't need to address the "situation" simply because some vocal members of the community think that because they get other things for free on the internet, that it should instantly apply to GSL.
|
hard to belive the amount of cheap people.
i gladly pay for the vods/streams, even 50$ would be cheap.
the people who demand (lol..) free streams and say they should put in ads should watch a vod on gomtv.com where u get like 5commercial before a vod...
thats like 10min ads for every vod, i value my time more than that so i pay for adfree vods.
i dont even want to get started on the piracy idiots.
|
On February 01 2011 14:11 Phaded wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 11:58 MERLIN. wrote:
It would be nice for a single GOM representative to perhaps explain the plan or come in here and adress the situation.
I do believe charging is the way to go, but it's like the movie "The Social Network" (I HOPE EVERYONE SAW THAT BECAUSE ITS AWESOME) anyway, in the movie his CFO wants to smash ads into everyones throats, and Mark says no its a bad idea because then its not cool and once it losses that, people won't move in and being a habit of being at the place. Plus with Koreans actually boycotting (so to speak) SC2 MBC I believe it is and other channels trying their hardest to stay away from it, it's a bad idea to start out going hey... Fuck you, pay now.
I believe it is to soon to charge, watch the movie and you will fully understand what I mean, plus they need to give you DL vods... jesus. Facebook did not create content. It let the users create content, which added value to the website. Your example would be better suited to a replay submission website wanting to charge for downloading replays. Its not applicable to GOMTV because they create their content. They don't need to address the "situation" simply because some vocal members of the community think that because they get other things for free on the internet, that it should instantly apply to GSL.
Both Facebook and GOM need the users. That's what he is trying to compare.
If there is no growth then there is nothing (or at least a small fraction of what it can ever be).
|
I don't think its very expensive for the amount of content we get. Running things like that really isn't cheap they have to get some source of income other than ads. Besides, VODs don't have ads and I rarely stay up till 2-4 am to watch it. I had a few problems with the HQ stream for time to time (recurrent error x000072 or something) but no other complaints.
Honestly, I'm surprised by the quality of the tournament. They do things like introduce new maps independently from Blizzard, seed 4 foreigners into Code A (they could just not care like many bw leagues). I wish they'd post replays, but I understands the problem with that. I like the GSL and want to keep watching it anyways. They pay english casters...they care.
GOMtv needs to be a profitable business for it to work, it's pretty logical. That's the whole point of a fucking business. They can't really pass Korean ads here, so we have to pay minimal fees.
First GSLs were 15 then 10...now 5$ per month? big deal, you can share accounts anyway.
|
On February 01 2011 14:27 ShcShc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 14:11 Phaded wrote:On February 01 2011 11:58 MERLIN. wrote:
It would be nice for a single GOM representative to perhaps explain the plan or come in here and adress the situation.
I do believe charging is the way to go, but it's like the movie "The Social Network" (I HOPE EVERYONE SAW THAT BECAUSE ITS AWESOME) anyway, in the movie his CFO wants to smash ads into everyones throats, and Mark says no its a bad idea because then its not cool and once it losses that, people won't move in and being a habit of being at the place. Plus with Koreans actually boycotting (so to speak) SC2 MBC I believe it is and other channels trying their hardest to stay away from it, it's a bad idea to start out going hey... Fuck you, pay now.
I believe it is to soon to charge, watch the movie and you will fully understand what I mean, plus they need to give you DL vods... jesus. Facebook did not create content. It let the users create content, which added value to the website. Your example would be better suited to a replay submission website wanting to charge for downloading replays. Its not applicable to GOMTV because they create their content. They don't need to address the "situation" simply because some vocal members of the community think that because they get other things for free on the internet, that it should instantly apply to GSL. Both Facebook and GOM need the users. That's what he is trying to compare. If there is no growth then there is nothing (or at least a small fraction of what it can ever be).
You could go compare it to a commercial sauna, they need users too. (actually, that comparison would be better because at least then in both cases the user is paying)
Facebook needs users for different reasons than the GSL.
The amount of users on facebook directly influence how valuable facebook is to those same users. Since there is no point in joining a social network if none/not enough of the people you know are there. The value of the offer facebook makes is an S-curve with y=value, x=#users.
The value the GSL offers compared to #users is very close to a flatline.
Ofc, on the profit side, it's a bit the other way round. GSL has quite some fixed costs, so to the more people they sell, the more it can be spread the higher their margin is on sales.
So yes, there is a point for getting more people, but it only matters if it can be done without reducing revenue per user too much. But to have the same revenue of one user with ads as with payment method, you need to show him around 10k ads a month. Also, getting 10 times the amount of viewers and being able to show them all 1k ads per month (just for the math), you don't have the same profit as of that 1 user paying 10$, since you have to expand your capacity 10fold.
Also, switching the system is a gamble. If it doesn't work, it's hard to switch back due to expectations. (this thread actually proves it. :p)
|
Of all sporting/pay per view events I've seen, SC2 is the most entertaining - I'd gladly pay to watch good games and stay up all night - but I think it would put off newcomers. Advertising, endorsements and special PPV events, yeah - but I feel the GSL is too important to restrict to those viewers who can pay.
|
On February 01 2011 14:29 Steel wrote:
First GSLs were 15 then 10...now 5$ per month?
$20, then $10. The team league is $5 but it's much shorter than a standard GSL
I wouldn't have a problem with the free stream if it wasn't so horrible quality. It's almost impossible to tell what goes on during battles, and the minimap is blurred to hell. It's the kind of quality that might have been acceptable in BW, but sc2 is a game that clearly was meant to be presented at a higher resolution
|
If they lowered the price of 25% I'd pay. I don't believe the current price is justifiable in terms of cost. Hell, if they had an intermediate option for half the price and half the quality I'd take it. I'm not watching for SUPER HD ZOMG QUALITY of a game, I'm watching for the commentary and action.
|
On February 01 2011 16:36 han_han wrote:
If they lowered the price of 25% I'd pay. I don't believe the current price is justifiable in terms of cost. Hell, if they had an intermediate option for half the price and half the quality I'd take it. I'm not watching for SUPER HD ZOMG QUALITY of a game, I'm watching for the commentary and action.
Its $10 bucks man for like, hundreds of hours of content in HQ.
Our generation is so used to stealing or getting things for free that even bargains are too expensive for us.
|
In my opinion, GOM charging for the VODs severely limits the audience. I feel like they could make way more money from making them all free and expanding their audience while getting all of their revenue from advertising. I definitely have not done the market research, but I can say that having to pay ANYTHING to watch SC2 will instantly deter any average fan.
I personally refuse to pay for a ticket so that is at least one customer they have lost, and i consider myself to be directly in their target market. Since team liquid is the mecca of starcraft, it might seem like everyone is willing to fork over money every month just to watch SC2. I know several people however, that are casual fans that will absolutely NEVER pay for it. I think that GOM is totally killing the popularity of SC2 amongst the casual audience.
|
Money/profit comes with numbers. A sport needs numbers of fans to survive... far larger than the number of pro gamers.
You can't generate fans for a new sport by charging them season tickets to a sport they might not even like. They won't pay. You want to generate fans. Don't charge them.... charge the advertisers and sponsors. It is how sports works. Why are so many people in this thread thinking that paying is a good business model. Has anyone who agreed with the pay per view ever run an actual business?
And don't say they have to cover costs in the short term. Long term goals with the backing from blizzard shouldn't be a problem. Even with short term (year or so) of loss.
Next ten years of esports or longer... with potential for actual worldwide audiences..... should be greater than a short term gain.
|
On February 01 2011 17:24 War Horse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 16:36 han_han wrote:
If they lowered the price of 25% I'd pay. I don't believe the current price is justifiable in terms of cost. Hell, if they had an intermediate option for half the price and half the quality I'd take it. I'm not watching for SUPER HD ZOMG QUALITY of a game, I'm watching for the commentary and action. Its $10 bucks man for like, hundreds of hours of content in HQ. Our generation is so used to stealing or getting things for free that even bargains are too expensive for us.
And what about the audiences who doesn't know about GSL?
|
On February 01 2011 21:51 ShcShc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 17:24 War Horse wrote:On February 01 2011 16:36 han_han wrote:
If they lowered the price of 25% I'd pay. I don't believe the current price is justifiable in terms of cost. Hell, if they had an intermediate option for half the price and half the quality I'd take it. I'm not watching for SUPER HD ZOMG QUALITY of a game, I'm watching for the commentary and action. Its $10 bucks man for like, hundreds of hours of content in HQ. Our generation is so used to stealing or getting things for free that even bargains are too expensive for us. And what about the audiences who doesn't know about GSL?
Then they have tons of free content (65 VOD's a season~) to judge it and see if it's worth skippin a meal for. If they're even newer than that then theres loads more free content around here that they can also enjoy. Although it shouldn't be the gateway into SC2 spectating, GSL is definitely not restricting the amount of "new" viewers. Theres plenty of free content for "new" viewers to check it out, just about 2 games a day for an entire month or 13+ (at the minimum) hours of straight content to view. After checking out the free content they're no longer "new" viewers and can rightfully decide whether the GSL is for them or not. If it is, skip a meal, if it's not, then move on.
|
On February 01 2011 03:58 Shockk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 02:19 Heimatloser wrote:
[...]
i dont get it way so many people are willing to pay for content these days.
[...] Because contrary to what most of the internet generation believes, having access to the internet does not equal accessing everything for free. A decade of unregulated downloads, P2P and torrenting created that mindset. And I'm pretty sure you're wrong if you speak of "so many people"; most internet users, even those with a healthy wallet or paypal account are cheapskates with afore mentioned attitude.
If GomTV wouldn't charge, it wouldn't exist in the form we know it today. Maybe there'd be a league just financed by sponsoring, but the quality would be abysmal and the future outlook bleak at best. -------
This is all off-topic, of course. Regarding the OP and the question asked there: I think we should be happy there's quality SC2 content at all. It's not as if GomTV had an unique position in a saturated market; they're basically holding the monopoly on high level SC2 league play with streams, VODs and commentary included. Without GOM, we wouldn't be talking about the possibilty of introducing new people to the scene at all, because there would be no scene to begin with. Free, accessible content as a niche will follow once there's a whole market for this and some competition for GOM, but until then we should respect the pioneer work they're doing for the SC2 scene.
i dare to say that if GOMTV wouldnt charge, it would exist in a better form than we know it today
|
On February 01 2011 18:45 Bobgrimly wrote:
Money/profit comes with numbers. A sport needs numbers of fans to survive... far larger than the number of pro gamers.
You can't generate fans for a new sport by charging them season tickets to a sport they might not even like. They won't pay. You want to generate fans. Don't charge them.... charge the advertisers and sponsors. It is how sports works. Why are so many people in this thread thinking that paying is a good business model. Has anyone who agreed with the pay per view ever run an actual business?
And don't say they have to cover costs in the short term. Long term goals with the backing from blizzard shouldn't be a problem. Even with short term (year or so) of loss.
Next ten years of esports or longer... with potential for actual worldwide audiences..... should be greater than a short term gain.
While that holds for some sports, there are enough out there who can't have it from that.
Over here i can name several sports who almost never get anything televised and entrance to the event is to be paid.
- boxing
- volleybal (even though we have two teams who're top European level)
- any soccer that isn't in the highest league. (second highest sometimes get a small recap at 11pm i believe)
Sure, their audiences are way way lower than the GSL already has. However, what i mentioned above were geographically very specific audiences (small country :p). On Global scale, you're aiming for a totally different type of sponsors and those have standards way higher up.
And as many people have said: you have 60+ vods/season to judge upon wether it's worth your money. (in the case you really never can see the livestream) So that argument really doesn't hold water.
Besides, all you people complaining you can't go check it out to see if it's worth it, none of you ever tries a new brand of any product? :s Never like "damn, always that extremely cheap coffee, i'll try a more expensive brand for once, just to see if it's really worth the difference?
Since the situation is totally equivalent.
|
On February 02 2011 01:11 Shorack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 18:45 Bobgrimly wrote:
Money/profit comes with numbers. A sport needs numbers of fans to survive... far larger than the number of pro gamers.
You can't generate fans for a new sport by charging them season tickets to a sport they might not even like. They won't pay. You want to generate fans. Don't charge them.... charge the advertisers and sponsors. It is how sports works. Why are so many people in this thread thinking that paying is a good business model. Has anyone who agreed with the pay per view ever run an actual business?
And don't say they have to cover costs in the short term. Long term goals with the backing from blizzard shouldn't be a problem. Even with short term (year or so) of loss.
Next ten years of esports or longer... with potential for actual worldwide audiences..... should be greater than a short term gain.
While that holds for some sports, there are enough out there who can't have it from that. Over here i can name several sports who almost never get anything televised and entrance to the event is to be paid. - boxing - volleybal (even though we have two teams who're top European level) - any soccer that isn't in the highest league. (second highest sometimes get a small recap at 11pm i believe) Sure, their audiences are way way lower than the GSL already has. However, what i mentioned above were geographically very specific audiences (small country :p). On Global scale, you're aiming for a totally different type of sponsors and those have standards way higher up. And as many people have said: you have 60+ vods/season to judge upon wether it's worth your money. (in the case you really never can see the livestream) So that argument really doesn't hold water. Besides, all you people complaining you can't go check it out to see if it's worth it, none of you ever tries a new brand of any product? :s Never like "damn, always that extremely cheap coffee, i'll try a more expensive brand for once, just to see if it's really worth the difference? Since the situation is totally equivalent.
well im from germany and i can watch the highest level boxing and football, volleyball in olympics or whatever (i dont care) for free on television.
and the bold line just states that all your points are invalid. so you say gsl has more viewers then all other pay-tv sports? then it probably wont rise anymore. thats just what we want to tell you.
|
On February 01 2011 14:27 ShcShc wrote:
Both Facebook and GOM need the users. That's what he is trying to compare.
To be honest, that isn't saying much. You can generalize to all companies.
If you run a company, you need customers. If you run something that's strictly ad driven, all users are your customers. That's it, really.
You can even extend that to non profit organizations. You need people that benefit from your work =P
|
On February 01 2011 18:45 Bobgrimly wrote:
Money/profit comes with numbers. A sport needs numbers of fans to survive... far larger than the number of pro gamers.
You can't generate fans for a new sport by charging them season tickets to a sport they might not even like. They won't pay. You want to generate fans. Don't charge them.... charge the advertisers and sponsors. It is how sports works. Why are so many people in this thread thinking that paying is a good business model. Has anyone who agreed with the pay per view ever run an actual business?
And don't say they have to cover costs in the short term. Long term goals with the backing from blizzard shouldn't be a problem. Even with short term (year or so) of loss.
Next ten years of esports or longer... with potential for actual worldwide audiences..... should be greater than a short term gain.
There's almost everything wrong with that post.
Charge the advertisers and sponsors? that's how sports work? I'm gonna tell that the man in his ticket booth the next time I go to a football(i.e. soccer) match when he wants to charge me for watching!
Also, u don't think pay per view is a good business model, alright then. Try to generate enough revenue through advertisement on the internet to support quality content like gom does. There is a reason why major news sites are stuggling for survival: internet advertisemt is not what it was 10 years ago and software like adblock - useful as it may be - has not been particularly helpful either. Ever wondered why the TL mascot is asking u to turn it off?
And then this: The support of Blizzard. Blizzard wants to make money with esports. that'S why with their new license policy, all broadcasting rights are reserved for Blizzard. You want to start a league and broadcast it? Well, better pay to Blizzard or they are gonna sue ur ass (think MBC...)
|
On February 01 2011 21:51 ShcShc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 17:24 War Horse wrote:On February 01 2011 16:36 han_han wrote:
If they lowered the price of 25% I'd pay. I don't believe the current price is justifiable in terms of cost. Hell, if they had an intermediate option for half the price and half the quality I'd take it. I'm not watching for SUPER HD ZOMG QUALITY of a game, I'm watching for the commentary and action. Its $10 bucks man for like, hundreds of hours of content in HQ. Our generation is so used to stealing or getting things for free that even bargains are too expensive for us. And what about the audiences who doesn't know about GSL?
Gom is not trying to expand e-sports. They're trying to make a profit, but it's not like they're overcharging some exhorbitant amount of money. It's 10 bucks for a season, which is perfectly reasonable. It's obvious that a fully ad-supported version of GSL is not possible. Gom gives you the choice of $10 with ads or $15 without ads. Obviously, they expect ads will only cover the cost partially. Advertisers aren't exactly lining up at the door to advertise to mouthbreathing Starcraft 2 nerds.
For the audiences who don't know about GSL, there's HuskyStarcraft and HD who have free vods. For someone who is just checking out pro SC2 casually, that's good enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
