|
On December 06 2011 23:14 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 23:12 Sandermatt wrote:
I do not believe these numbers. When they had 94'000 concurrent viewrs at max, they surely didn't have 1.7 million Unique viewers. And like Nazgul said before me, adding stream numbers makes little sense, as many have multiple streams open. On the other hand more then one person might watch a stream.
I think the best measurement would be the peak viewership on one stream. That is a clear value that everybody can compare. Actual unique viewers might be higher (maybe a factor of two) but it is an easy to compare number. Eh difference between 94000 and 1.7 million is not weird at all. The total unique viewers is always a lot higher than concurrent viewers, especially for a drawn out tournament that goes on all day. And you second paragraph doesn't make sense since it would punish tournaments that offers more streams. It shouldn't be too hard to count all streams and take out the duplicates.
well, how long did DH run then? If you assume that it was 36 hours in total, then you only get that ration if you assume that the average user tuned in at max 2 hours on average and they are extremely evenly distributed, i.e. if you have 1,7 million people watching a stream that is on for 36 hours, each watching the stream for 2 hours, then you have to distribute them perfectly even if you want to have not more than 94k concurrent viewers at any time. Now if you assume that the distrubution was nowhere near perfectly even, that means the average DH viewer viewed far less than 2 hours on average throughout the entire event.
|
On December 06 2011 23:55 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 23:14 nihlon wrote:On December 06 2011 23:12 Sandermatt wrote:
I do not believe these numbers. When they had 94'000 concurrent viewrs at max, they surely didn't have 1.7 million Unique viewers. And like Nazgul said before me, adding stream numbers makes little sense, as many have multiple streams open. On the other hand more then one person might watch a stream.
I think the best measurement would be the peak viewership on one stream. That is a clear value that everybody can compare. Actual unique viewers might be higher (maybe a factor of two) but it is an easy to compare number. Eh difference between 94000 and 1.7 million is not weird at all. The total unique viewers is always a lot higher than concurrent viewers, especially for a drawn out tournament that goes on all day. And you second paragraph doesn't make sense since it would punish tournaments that offers more streams. It shouldn't be too hard to count all streams and take out the duplicates. well, how long did DH run then? If you assume that it was 36 hours in total, then you only get that ration if you assume that the average user tuned in at max 2 hours on average and they are extremely evenly distributed, i.e. if you have 1,7 million people watching a stream that is on for 36 hours, each watching the stream for 2 hours, then you have to distribute them perfectly even if you want to have not more than 94k concurrent viewers at any time. Now if you assume that the distrubution was nowhere near perfectly even, that means the average DH viewer viewed far less than 2 hours on average throughout the entire event.
Which would make perfect sense since many people just tune in for specific players and just skip the rest.
I mean, it's not unlikely.
|
On December 06 2011 23:55 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 23:14 nihlon wrote:On December 06 2011 23:12 Sandermatt wrote:
I do not believe these numbers. When they had 94'000 concurrent viewrs at max, they surely didn't have 1.7 million Unique viewers. And like Nazgul said before me, adding stream numbers makes little sense, as many have multiple streams open. On the other hand more then one person might watch a stream.
I think the best measurement would be the peak viewership on one stream. That is a clear value that everybody can compare. Actual unique viewers might be higher (maybe a factor of two) but it is an easy to compare number. Eh difference between 94000 and 1.7 million is not weird at all. The total unique viewers is always a lot higher than concurrent viewers, especially for a drawn out tournament that goes on all day. And you second paragraph doesn't make sense since it would punish tournaments that offers more streams. It shouldn't be too hard to count all streams and take out the duplicates. well, how long did DH run then? If you assume that it was 36 hours in total, then you only get that ration if you assume that the average user tuned in at max 2 hours on average and they are extremely evenly distributed, i.e. if you have 1,7 million people watching a stream that is on for 36 hours, each watching the stream for 2 hours, then you have to distribute them perfectly even if you want to have not more than 94k concurrent viewers at any time. Now if you assume that the distrubution was nowhere near perfectly even, that means the average DH viewer viewed far less than 2 hours on average throughout the entire event.
And I'm pretty sure the average viewer does watch less than 2 hours average. That was my point.
On December 06 2011 23:57 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 23:55 JustPassingBy wrote:On December 06 2011 23:14 nihlon wrote:On December 06 2011 23:12 Sandermatt wrote:
I do not believe these numbers. When they had 94'000 concurrent viewrs at max, they surely didn't have 1.7 million Unique viewers. And like Nazgul said before me, adding stream numbers makes little sense, as many have multiple streams open. On the other hand more then one person might watch a stream.
I think the best measurement would be the peak viewership on one stream. That is a clear value that everybody can compare. Actual unique viewers might be higher (maybe a factor of two) but it is an easy to compare number. Eh difference between 94000 and 1.7 million is not weird at all. The total unique viewers is always a lot higher than concurrent viewers, especially for a drawn out tournament that goes on all day. And you second paragraph doesn't make sense since it would punish tournaments that offers more streams. It shouldn't be too hard to count all streams and take out the duplicates. well, how long did DH run then? If you assume that it was 36 hours in total, then you only get that ration if you assume that the average user tuned in at max 2 hours on average and they are extremely evenly distributed, i.e. if you have 1,7 million people watching a stream that is on for 36 hours, each watching the stream for 2 hours, then you have to distribute them perfectly even if you want to have not more than 94k concurrent viewers at any time. Now if you assume that the distrubution was nowhere near perfectly even, that means the average DH viewer viewed far less than 2 hours on average throughout the entire event. Which would make perfect sense since many people just tune in for specific players and just skip the rest. I mean, it's not unlikely.
There is also a lot of people that turn into streams wondering "lets see what this is about" and then turn it off after a while. There are a lot of people that tune in to these events because they are curious what it's about but then don't really stay to watch long.
|
nvm, then. to be honest, I probably only actively watched 2 hours or so, though for the rest the stream was lurking in the background (thumbs up for good casters).
|
On December 06 2011 23:58 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 23:55 JustPassingBy wrote:On December 06 2011 23:14 nihlon wrote:On December 06 2011 23:12 Sandermatt wrote:
I do not believe these numbers. When they had 94'000 concurrent viewrs at max, they surely didn't have 1.7 million Unique viewers. And like Nazgul said before me, adding stream numbers makes little sense, as many have multiple streams open. On the other hand more then one person might watch a stream.
I think the best measurement would be the peak viewership on one stream. That is a clear value that everybody can compare. Actual unique viewers might be higher (maybe a factor of two) but it is an easy to compare number. Eh difference between 94000 and 1.7 million is not weird at all. The total unique viewers is always a lot higher than concurrent viewers, especially for a drawn out tournament that goes on all day. And you second paragraph doesn't make sense since it would punish tournaments that offers more streams. It shouldn't be too hard to count all streams and take out the duplicates. well, how long did DH run then? If you assume that it was 36 hours in total, then you only get that ration if you assume that the average user tuned in at max 2 hours on average and they are extremely evenly distributed, i.e. if you have 1,7 million people watching a stream that is on for 36 hours, each watching the stream for 2 hours, then you have to distribute them perfectly even if you want to have not more than 94k concurrent viewers at any time. Now if you assume that the distrubution was nowhere near perfectly even, that means the average DH viewer viewed far less than 2 hours on average throughout the entire event. And I'm pretty sure the average viewer does watch less than 2 hours average. That was my point.
some might have only watched the final.. who knows.
|
On December 07 2011 00:01 jinixxx123 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 23:58 nihlon wrote:On December 06 2011 23:55 JustPassingBy wrote:On December 06 2011 23:14 nihlon wrote:On December 06 2011 23:12 Sandermatt wrote:
I do not believe these numbers. When they had 94'000 concurrent viewrs at max, they surely didn't have 1.7 million Unique viewers. And like Nazgul said before me, adding stream numbers makes little sense, as many have multiple streams open. On the other hand more then one person might watch a stream.
I think the best measurement would be the peak viewership on one stream. That is a clear value that everybody can compare. Actual unique viewers might be higher (maybe a factor of two) but it is an easy to compare number. Eh difference between 94000 and 1.7 million is not weird at all. The total unique viewers is always a lot higher than concurrent viewers, especially for a drawn out tournament that goes on all day. And you second paragraph doesn't make sense since it would punish tournaments that offers more streams. It shouldn't be too hard to count all streams and take out the duplicates. well, how long did DH run then? If you assume that it was 36 hours in total, then you only get that ration if you assume that the average user tuned in at max 2 hours on average and they are extremely evenly distributed, i.e. if you have 1,7 million people watching a stream that is on for 36 hours, each watching the stream for 2 hours, then you have to distribute them perfectly even if you want to have not more than 94k concurrent viewers at any time. Now if you assume that the distrubution was nowhere near perfectly even, that means the average DH viewer viewed far less than 2 hours on average throughout the entire event. And I'm pretty sure the average viewer does watch less than 2 hours average. That was my point. some might have only watched the final.. who knows.
and some might have even watched only the quake live or SSF4 final and no sc2 match at all.
stupid speculations and retarded maths in this thread.
|
people are messing up views VS viewers, big difference
|
That's a lot of viewers, considering that sooo many people watch it in a barcraft, wich only counts as one viewer... o_Ô
|
grats and keep it up Dreamhack!
|
Remember all the people watching from barcrafts (Watching from the same IP), should add up to a few more atleast!
|
But how many people are in Barcrafts all over the world for one event? Maybe 5000?
|
Wow, only 94,000 peak concurrent viewers.
That is actually really low. I think it has to do with Dreamhack's weird streaming set-up (at least that's why I didn't watch any at all really, I like being able to go to one place to watch something)... MLG/GSL have a much smarter way of doing things.
|
On December 07 2011 00:39 ceaRshaf wrote:
But how many people are in Barcrafts all over the world for one event? Maybe 5000?
5000 times ... let's say an average number of 25 visiters = 125000 viewer  ... hard to estimate though
|
they see us growin'
for some reason they hatin'
|
On December 07 2011 00:41 skipgamer wrote:
Wow, only 94,000 peak concurrent viewers.
That is actually really low. I think it has to do with Dreamhack's weird streaming set-up (at least that's why I didn't watch any at all really, I like being able to go to one place to watch something)... MLG/GSL have a much smarter way of doing things.
they had more than that
|
On December 07 2011 00:45 PlayX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 00:39 ceaRshaf wrote:
But how many people are in Barcrafts all over the world for one event? Maybe 5000? 5000 times ... let's say an average number of 25 visiters = 125000 viewer ... hard to estimate though
He was saying 5000 total people at barcrafts, not 5000 barcrafts... that would be so impossible lol. 5000 sounds reasonable though, so really overall 5k doesn't put a dent in overall viewership.
|
I don't get all this obsession with viewers, i mean less people wanting a piece means more cake for me!
|
The 23 million uniques fake number is actually somewhat close to the total non unique views.
|
esports is getting bid. Hipster Quas will now start watching non-e-sports since they are on the way out.
|
On December 07 2011 01:03 h41fgod wrote:
The 23 million uniques fake number is actually somewhat close to the total non unique views.
Firstly, have anyone used the "23 million" number besides you? If it is only you that is using it then you may want to revise your apparently baseless accusations.
Secondly what is it "somewhat close to"? The 6.8 million total views? I don't get it. Even if it were: what is this proof of?
Furthermore:
I can readily believe that 1.7 million unique IP's were logged during this event, but it could of course come from adding the unique viewers per stream?
It could still be an impressing number, considering the size of SC2, it could still easily be upwards to a million IP's tuning in to watch that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
