EPTYou the man, Kennigit!
Starcraft is big enough for TV to ignore. - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Rylaji
Sweden580 Posts
You the man, Kennigit! | ||
|
Westy
England808 Posts
On April 12 2011 20:46 gk_ender wrote: But then your simply watching for the results. What im saying isnt simply ok, manchester is up....how do i put this. Where is the excitement in reading that mvp, what is exciting is that hes wining. And manchester wining is exciting when im a casual fan whether or not i understand that theyre doing worse. I can see a goal, he scored it. But when you say ok well hes up one game, who cares ab the game? Why are you watching the game if your excitement comes from simply viewing a stat screen. you want to, while the game is happening, feel the rising motion, say omg were gunna win, holy shit can he pull it off. Come backs like marine king primes against mvp become pointless if you cant see whats happening and why. Its the difference between cool hes coming back he won a game, and holy shit hes ahead, he should win this. What i am saying is when your a casual person, you can see shots on a goal, actual goals, crosses, free kicks and penalties, everyone gets that, i have to score a goal to win here i go. But how to win in sc2 is simple yes, but shots on goal are like drops, penalties are like misplaced units, and you can not tell whats working and what isnt unless you understand. The games you see now barley show off where this game is going, there will be a point when literally there will be to much for a caster to explain all at once, and if he does he kills the game for the hardcore because he wont be noticing something. its a complexity issue that just simply spirals out of control and what ends up happening is you cant please me and gf who doesnt watch sc2 with the same program Your forgetting one simple thing... You have been watching and playing football ever since you were born. You take someone who has never heard of or seen football, put them in front of a screen and they wont have a CLUE what is happening. The only thing they will be able to grasp is "Oh when one team kicks the ball into the net the team get happy". I wish people would stop making illogical comparisons. | ||
|
Grummler
Germany743 Posts
| ||
|
MaGariShun
Austria305 Posts
Remind you that I dont think everybody should pirate SC2 and Blizzard does not deserve any money, but IMO it's the main reason why it's not that popular Do you really KNOW a lot of people irl who would watch SC2 on TV? I sure don't. | ||
|
deSmalle
Belgium20 Posts
 ).2. SC2 is still in it's baby shoes (and with that the entire esports community - exception of SKorea I guess). Digital television is on the rise (prolly well established in a lot of countries), which I look at as a step to internet TV (read baby shoes). 1 + 2 = SC2 shouldnt be on the telly, cause it wouldnt have enough viewers, and imo it should (and could) rise alongside the (inevitable?) step to Inet TV. Comparing SC2 to any other sport is like comparing Football to swimming. They're both sports, they're both competitive in their own manner, but the comparison ends there. I also read something by a French dude ( cant remember the name, but he seemed wise ) who said the number of viewers are not comparable, as the internet is worldwide, whereas television is local.That statement alone should (imho) have ended the discussion then and there. my 2 cents... Edit: forgot to add: there's some sports I dont get either, cause I either dont have any interest in them, or I just cant access any matches easily from where I live. BUT, if I were able to follow matches easily, or if my interest would be high enough, it wouldnt really take too long to be able to understand what's going on I reckon... Sure there's a lot of different units and counters in SC2, but how many different plays does American Football have (<- one of those sports I dont have access to :p) | ||
|
haflo
140 Posts
On April 12 2011 20:54 MaGariShun wrote: The playerbase of SC2 is just too small. In all honesty, I think the game being unpirateable (in multiplayer) is a huge factor: You can't really play starcraft unless you pay the 30€ it still costs after a year. You also cant just borrow the game from a friend like you can with console games or all the older, successfull multiplayer games. You have no LAN. If I go to a LAN with some friends, you can easily play a couple of rounds of WC3, CS, Quake etc. without having anyone owning the game. With starcraft 2 however, I'm having a hard time getting anyone into it, with the additional difficulty that you cant have internet everywhere (e.g. if you get some room in the local youth center). Unfortunately, all effort Blizzard invests to get their well deserved money, is playing against SC2 as an Esport. Like it is now, SC2 is just really hard to get into. Remind you that I dont think everybody should pirate SC2 and Blizzard does not deserve any money, but IMO it's the main reason why it's not that popular Do you really KNOW a lot of people irl who would watch SC2 on TV? I sure don't. Okay please dont tell me pirating is good for esport. the fact that some people expect games to cost nothing and explain its okay to Esteal is one thing i hope our children will be cured from , there will be no future for pc gaming otherwise. as in consule , you can take your acount and let someone play it . no problem . he like it and want to play with you ... pay for a copy . if everyone who played Quake3 would pay for the hard work the developer put into that game i promise you that instead of java game , it would have a real sequal with better engine much faster. *programmer rant off* post like that are the only reason why i agree with blizzard insistance of not using lan. mandatory online server is the only real way to slow down piracy , and as long as stupid people think its okay to pirate there can be no lan version . | ||
|
gk_ender
United States717 Posts
On April 12 2011 20:52 Westy wrote: Your forgetting one simple thing... You have been watching and playing football ever since you were born. You take someone who has never heard of or seen football, put them in front of a screen and they wont have a CLUE what is happening. The only thing they will be able to grasp is "Oh when one team kicks the ball into the net the team get happy". I wish people would stop making illogical comparisons. no your forgetting. A GOAL IS SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND. if in soccer whenever someone struck for goal it went in, scores would be in the double didgets. People can understand what it means to strike at goal, and get happy. As a united states citizen durring the world cup i listen to a bunch of idiots who know nothing about the sport, but man do they get happy everytime the ball gets near the other half of the field. THERE ARE NO MISSED GOALS IN SC2. Most of the game happens in such subtlety that things as blatant as ball hitting top post and being flung out of goal are missed by most people | ||
|
Omgzpwnd
Poland59 Posts
i also think that people these days watch alot less tv(at least around 20yrs old) | ||
|
vx70GTOJudgexv
United States3161 Posts
On April 12 2011 20:13 sandyph wrote: Goals should be counted as game won, in a sense its the same as SC2 where you can say, wow MVP is up 3-0 and is creaming MKP No, because there is no limit on the amount of goals that can be scored other than the physical limit of time. StarCraft matches end after a certain # of games won. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
There is absolutelly no reason for someone to watch starcraft instead of something else if they are not interested in the game itself. Drama? Background of players? You can find all that in basically any sport you want to, production needs to happen to attract SC players, but not viewers, to the streams. Understanding the subtle way pro-gaming works would take months for a non-gamers. How many people do you actually know that are not into gaming at all and would watch SC by themselfs? Noone will suddenly start watching SC instead of Football for no reason. | ||
|
deSmalle
Belgium20 Posts
On April 12 2011 21:09 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote: No, because there is no limit on the amount of goals that can be scored other than the physical limit of time. StarCraft matches end after a certain # of games won. then compare it to tennis: 1v1: game - set - match. Tho still, I think: + Show Spoiler + Comparing SC2 to any other sport is like comparing Football to swimming. They're both sports, they're both competitive in their own manner, but the comparison ends there. | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
On April 12 2011 20:30 Angra wrote: I don't live in Europe and have never watched European television and I still know that you are way off in assuming that European broadcasting of sports doesn't revolve around advertising. It may not have commercials every 15 minutes but it still has loads of advertisements plastered everywhere. Also the comparison of an actual sport compared to SC2 in terms of popularity and viewer numbers is worlds apart, so it would be extremely unprofitable to show SC2 on television without commercials for 45 minutes at a time and would just not happen, not even in Europe. If you tried a major US network ad strategy nobody would watch Starcraft on television. Average hour long show you see maybe 37-38 minutes of content and the rest is commercial. AMC has a 45 minute rule for movies on their channel. Europe is complex how they do commercials and different rules apply for the type of broadcast you have. Like religious shows cannot be interrupted and sports like tour de france can be split screened since there is no break. Actually you are wrong that it wouldn't be profitable because the production cost for running a tournament is surely far lower than a show like 2 1/2 men on weekly basis. John Cryer by himself gets paid $450,000 per episode. That's several seasons of prize pool even for gsl. | ||
|
MaGariShun
Austria305 Posts
On April 12 2011 21:04 haflo wrote: Okay please dont tell me pirating is good for esport. the fact that some people expect games to cost nothing and explain its okay to Esteal is one thing i hope our children will be cured from , there will be no future for pc gaming otherwise. as in consule , you can take your acount and let someone play it . no problem . he like it and want to play with you ... pay for a copy . if everyone who played Quake3 would pay for the hard work the developer put into that game i promise you that instead of java game , it would have a real sequal with better engine much faster. *programmer rant off* post like that are the only reason why i agree with blizzard insistance of not using lan. mandatory online server is the only real way to slow down piracy , and as long as stupid people think its okay to pirate there can be no lan version . We can argue about the morality of piracy all day long, but it does not change the fact, that there is a 30€ hurdle for everyone to overcome to get into stacraft 2. For a student, that (or even the 60€ it cost at release - which is btw when i bought it) is a lot of money. You dont just throw that out for something you might probably like. I agree, it would be bad if everyone could just play it online for free, but you should be able to show it and share it with your friends at least. Look at the numbers for DOTA successors: LoL and HoN. For HoN, It's like 50.000 online at best times (more like 20.000 normally), while LoL claims to have a playerbase of 11 Million (dont know the online numbers, but i'm sure its a lot bigger than hon). I dont claim to have found the right model to balance acessibility and profit (I'd be rich if I had), but it is a problem SC2 has. My whole point was about how inaccessible starcraft is for a player who just wants to try it out and not that piracy is a good thing (which IMO, to a certain degree it is). | ||
|
gk_ender
United States717 Posts
On April 12 2011 21:26 MaGariShun wrote: We can argue about the morality of piracy all day long, but it does not change the fact, that there is a 30€ hurdle for everyone to overcome to get into stacraft 2. For a student, that (or even the 60€ it cost at release - which is btw when i bought it) is a lot of money. You dont just throw that out for something you might probably like. I agree, it would be bad if everyone could just play it online for free, but you should be able to show it and share it with your friends at least. Look at the numbers for DOTA successors: LoL and HoN. For HoN, It's like 50.000 online at best times (more like 20.000 normally), while LoL claims to have a playerbase of 11 Million (dont know the online numbers, but i'm sure its a lot bigger than hon). I dont claim to have found the right model to balance acessibility and profit (I'd be rich if I had), but it is a problem SC2 has. My whole point was about how inaccessible starcraft is for a player who just wants to try it out and not that piracy is a good thing (which IMO, to a certain degree it is). it has a 7 day free pass... | ||
|
Pyo
United States738 Posts
On April 12 2011 14:04 Pyo wrote: To be completely honest, as a 18-30 year-old American male, to me traditional TV really feels like a dying technology. I hardly ever watch anything on television. Although I pay for basic cable, I never watch it. Everything I do is on or from the internet. I am somewhat curious what the break down of TL.net is in this regard. Poll: How much (traditional, non-internet) television do you watch per week? 0-1 hrs/week (61) 1-7 hrs/week (15) 21+ hrs/week (3) 7-14 hrs/week (1) 14-21 hrs/week (1) 81 total votes Your vote: How much (traditional, non-internet) television do you watch per week? (Vote): 0-1 hrs/week If this poll is even close to representative of the SC2 fan base, then I think the problem with shooting for SC2 to be brought to television is abundantly clear. SC2 fans (and probably gamers in general) don't really watch television. So claims that SC2 is big enough to make it on TV based on stream viewers is a gross misstatement. | ||
|
Monsty
Canada230 Posts
Anyways, I have to completely agree with Kennigit. There is too many conflicting factors about Starcraft on television to even remotely succeed properly without killing what it stands for I find. A lot of people saying he's wrong and the business model can work needs to remember that investing into Starcraft 2 isn't as simple as advertising Hand eg-err American football and is a collosal risk. Here's to hoping for TV to evolve into something more accessible than what it is today. And more importantly, the success of E-Sports. | ||
|
hazelynut
United States2195 Posts
| ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
On April 12 2011 20:30 Angra wrote: I don't live in Europe and have never watched European television and I still know that you are way off in assuming that European broadcasting of sports doesn't revolve around advertising. It may not have commercials every 15 minutes but it still has loads of advertisements plastered everywhere. Also the comparison of an actual sport compared to SC2 in terms of popularity and viewer numbers is worlds apart, so it would be extremely unprofitable to show SC2 on television without commercials for 45 minutes at a time and would just not happen, not even in Europe. No he's right (at least for Germany^^). Football: ~12min prematch analysis (lineup, history, interviews, ...). Short commercial (~3min). 1st half (45min+X). 15min break (some analysis, some commericals, I'd say ~10mins commercials). 2nd half (45min+X). Commercial. Postmatch analysis. During the games there are no ads anywhere (ok sometimes they show, "Next program"). The actual game is completely uninterrupted. Tennis though seems to be more in line with SC2 (Best of X, unknown length for each set, ...) and it's like (in a Bo3): Prematch analysis, commercial, set 1, commercial, set 2, commercial, set 3, commercial, postmatch analysis. And some sets can take a loooong time while others are over really fast. (5min rush vs 45min macro game). So I dont really see that Kennigit's point is valid for all markets (it seems to be true for the American market) and since the sixjag guy wrote about American channels so I think that's ok to assume he only means America. I'm also not entirely sure about the "casual" vs "hardcore" viewer argument. I think it is easy enough to understand. "Build units kill your opponents base". It's similiar to snooker "Hit ball, other ball hits moar balls and has to get them into the nets". Or curling "Throw the disc and have it try to land near the circle". Or poker "Have the better hand". All those games have been shown on television and if you have no prior knowledge you're still able to understand them very fast. Of course it's different to all those ballsports (football, handball, basketball, icehockey) since we're taught the rules in school. And they're very similiar. The delicacies of the sport come over time and with good commentators. "Guards, saves" or something like "probabilities, value of hands, bluff, allin, harass, scouting, positioning, macro". Overall though I think TV is dying. So I dont see a reason why we should have SC2 or any esports on that platform. It will be a very slow death, but it probably will happen. Especially when more countries get stuff like Hulu & co. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10593 Posts
TV will "fuse" with the Internet/PC. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
and lets be serious, korea is a very special case where starcraft took over a whole generation. it works cause evrybody knows starcraft. i cant even get my friends to watch any sc2 matches cause they dont care,dont understand and just arent interested. and i dont blame them. even my brother who played wc3 and liked bw vods isnt interested in watching sc2 much and i constantly have to explain him why this is exciting (" mmhh they just both turtled, then aclicked in one fight and now its over? boring... wc3 or that old game were more fun"). how you gonna get random people in there? also its 2011 and evrybody somewhat involved in sc2 has internet access. so why gnot use that easy medium that has much less risk ,free schedules, less pressure and perfectly hits the interested audience? also i saw some stuff about IEM on eurosport. and dayyumm it was bad. ignoring that it was in german and the people speaking def had no expirience with such stuff and sounded awful i dont get who would watch that. was chillin in bed with gf watching tv and this comes up. im like "wooo sc2 ! look! thats what i play :D:D". 5minutes later i turned it off cause it was incredibly boring and looked so stupid even to me that knows all the backround,game,iem etc. that was my first expirience with sc2 on tv. and while i like their effort i just cant see it work. On April 12 2011 21:40 Pyo wrote: If this poll is even close to representative of the SC2 fan base, then I think the problem with shooting for SC2 to be brought to television is abundantly clear. SC2 fans (and probably gamers in general) don't really watch television. So claims that SC2 is big enough to make it on TV based on stream viewers is a gross misstatement. also this. the only TV i watch nowadays is when i go to sleep and watch some random crap for 20 minutes or when i watch something with gf . other then that internet gives me evrything the tv can offer and much more. | ||
| ||
