| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Criticism is allowed. Undue flaming is not. Take a second to think your post through before you submit. Bans will be handed out. Should go without saying, but don't link restreams here either. | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
On February 25 2012 14:59 dAPhREAk wrote: violating the warning at top AND player bashing.... how many days ban will you get? im guessing two weeks.... read the url... lol it's a joke | ||
|
Spaceneil8
United States317 Posts
On February 25 2012 18:18 VoO wrote: SC2 is not at the point where you can set up PPV-only content. This concept is hurting the whole scene. If you want to make profit and advertisement is not enough, you should consider to generate extra content, e.g. interviews/talks/show-matches which are only availble to paying viewers. To pay for the most basic aspect, the gameplay, is just bad ethics and puts MLG in the league of EA's ME3. If you look at MLG's plans for 2012, they are trying to have an unprecedented amount of live events. 7 Arenas, and 4 Championship events is basically unheard of. DH/ROG has invitationals which are set up like Arenas and the main events which are set up like championship event and they are free but DH/ROG isn't going to do more than the two main events, and the 2 invitationals because they lose money if it's not part of their massive festival. MLG is just trying to have more events, and if that means PPV, so be it. MLG is probably going to have double the amount of events compared to any other league right now. | ||
|
SovSov
United States755 Posts
i think its only right that they make the numbers of purchasers public since it was a "community experiment". | ||
|
frozenrb
Poland389 Posts
| ||
|
Troopi
Denmark383 Posts
MLG pay 20$ or you can gtfo. For 3 days? LOL never | ||
|
VoO
Germany278 Posts
On February 25 2012 18:25 SeaSwift wrote: That makes no sense at all. It is somehow morally wrong for MLG to switch to PPV now? I see this kind of post a lot: you want free content and aren't willing to pay up for it (or maybe you are, and are bitter about it), and try to legitimise your complaint by claiming it's wrong for a) the "scene" and b) morality. Chances are, that's not the real reason you are complaining. You are complaining because for all this time, it was easy to just watch high quality SC2 content for free, and now you are having to dip into your wallet. Apart from the fact that the game isn't so far developed to do PPV, I personally - and this is a general attitude - think that the most basic information should be accessible for everyone - by that I don't mean textual information. As several people already stated, there would no harm in a 360p stream with advertisement. By creating PPV only content for something so essential for the scene (considering the top player density), they create two sorts of people - the ones who pay and the ones who won't. The ones who won't pay can be devided into people who can't and people who are not willing. I can't pay, I know many people who can't and therefore are excluded. Unfortunately, this is a much larger complex which is currently unfolding - the exploitation of a community. What is the difference between League of Legends and StarCraft 2? In LoL almost everything is created by the developers, Riot pushes the game to new heights by investing billions of money. In SC2 almost everything is created by the community. StarCraft always prospered proportional to the effort of the community - of people investing their time voluntarily. With the growth we currently experience in SC2 eSports it is not suprising that companies try to make profit, but the concept they are currently applying to generate money is not a healthy but an unhealthy one. They try to maximize their profit by minimizing the effort to create new content hoping for more quantity and therefore blocking innovation and further growth of quality. Take for example the static player/caster pool, we don't have many newcomers since only brands are created and exploited, these people are not interested in the game itself but in the money with their intentions hidden behind a thinly veil of excuses. They provide something (e.g. player flights) which they exploit as arguments to justify the retention of information and which is a mean to get positive effects in the public eye but actually hinders the development of the sport at a fundamental level, which will eventually lead to a slower increase or even decrease. | ||
|
Youtakenocandle
543 Posts
| ||
|
zaii
Guam2611 Posts
On February 25 2012 18:45 SovSov wrote: any MLG release of the numbers? i think its only right that they make the numbers of purchasers public since it was a "community experiment". Have to wait till the event ends, after day 3. | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On February 25 2012 19:00 VoO wrote: Apart from the fact that the game isn't so far developed to do PPV, I personally - and this is a general attitude - think that the most basic information should be accessible for everyone - by that I don't mean textual information. As several people already stated, there would no harm in a 360p stream with advertisement. By creating PPV only content for something so essential for the scene (considering the top player density), they create two sorts of people - the ones who pay and the ones who won't. The ones who won't pay can be devided into people who can't and people who are not willing. I can't pay, I know many people who can't and therefore are excluded. Your argument neatly divides into two parts, so I'll reply to it as such. This half is based on the assumption that you have the right to watch Starcraft, as if it is one of your basic privileges. You say "basic information should be accessible for everyone". What? Because you can go to the cinema and watch a low quality version of the film at the back of the cinema? Or because you can get a low quality console game for free? Or a low quality meal for free? That makes absolutely no sense. You then say that you can't pay, and others can't. That isn't the end of the world. If you can't afford $20 for this weekend, there are a lot of other luxuries you can't afford - why should watching Starcraft be different? You then turn this into some kind of socio-economic argument: the division between people who can afford and those who can't. Sorry buddy, that's life, not a problem with the model for watching Starcraft. Once again, Starcraft is a luxury, and there's plenty of free streams on at the moment. You can't demand for free Starcraft with some of the best players in the world and expect to be free every time. For the record, every non-Arena MLG this year will have a free low quality stream. On February 25 2012 19:00 VoO wrote: Unfortunately, this is a much larger complex which is currently unfolding - the exploitation of a community. What is the difference between League of Legends and StarCraft 2? In LoL almost everything is created by the developers, Riot pushes the game to new heights by investing billions of money. In SC2 almost everything is created by the community. StarCraft always prospered proportional to the effort of the community - of people investing their time voluntarily. With the growth we currently experience in SC2 eSports it is not suprising that companies try to make profit, but the concept they are currently applying to generate money is not a healthy but an unhealthy one. They try to maximize their profit by minimizing the effort to create new content hoping for more quantity and therefore blocking innovation and further growth of quality. Take for example the static player/caster pool, we don't have many newcomers since only brands are created and exploited, these people are not interested in the game itself but in the money with their intentions hidden behind a thinly veil of excuses. They provide something (e.g. player flights) which they exploit as arguments to justify the retention of information and which is a mean to get positive effects in the public eye but actually hinders the development of the sport at a fundamental level, which will eventually lead to a slower increase or even decrease. This is the second half of your argument: that eSports will die/whatever because of the PPV model. As to your first example here, LoL makes people pay for skins for characters and has some of the most horrendous balance in an "eSport". For every example of LoL investing into eSports, there's another of their lack of care for a solid, sustaining game. They buff characters massively to encourage play, then nerf them down again. And I'm sorry, but if getting people to pay for skins and status symbols in-game isn't "exploiting" compared to what Blizzard have done, you once again have an issue with how the world works, not with Starcraft. For your second paragraph here, what are you trying to say? You come out with "minimizing the effort to create new content". Bullshit. Utter bullshit. MLG has put so much effort into this Arena it's not even funny. Flying all the players out, accommodating them, re-organising the flights to take them back to Korea etc. Static player pool? Static caster pool? Jesus. These guys are here because they are the best, because they qualified one way or another. MLG has been completely transparent about how the player pool was organised. They have Tastosis etc because they are the best casters around. Not only that, but on some of the other streams they DO have new/less mainstream casters. They have Catz on giving analysis. You seem completely out of touch with reality at this point. Oh, and your last 2 sentences just read like conspiracy theories. Sorry, but a "thinly veil of excuses"? "They exploit as arguments to justify the retention of information"? Okay. That's cool. | ||
|
idonthinksobro
3138 Posts
it is bad for the players/teams. For teams in general it is a bad thing and i have to say that i like team egs decision to not support the ways mlg trys to force it. If you haven't already read that thread in sc2 general. it is bad for the viewers 20$ is just something i don't want to pay. I could, but it is not worth it, all i would get is 1 game at a time and 3 streams i don't really care about. They said on their site it is about 20h gameplay, seems like a really bad ratio if you look at the pricing of NASL and GSL. it is bad for mlg Sponsors should think about it twice now if they want to support Mlg, its a difference if 30000 people see your ads or 3000. And because of the unreasonable pricing i kinda made a note in my brain "do not support mlg anymore they are on the bad side now". it is bad for esports Sc2 is very new the fanbase is still growing, if there will be more tourneys that go for a PPV system then Sc2 will be killed before it really gets huge. The only reason i can see right now why it is a 20$ stream would be so they can lure people into buying the next pass after they make a huge price reduction to whatever lets say 5$ for a weekend and 20$ for 6 months and everyone will say "oh see mlg listened to their viewers and they noticed 20$ is way too much". | ||
|
esaul17
Canada547 Posts
They have every right to charge whatever they want for their product. And the consumers have every right to find what they charge unreasonable or whatever. But to act like MLG owes you anything because they have free events in the past is just silly. PS: Ready to see MC take this tournament? | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On February 25 2012 19:36 esaul17 wrote: PS: Ready to see MC take this tournament? Oh yes. So ready. It's time for the Master of Ceremonies to dance once more. | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
On February 25 2012 18:52 Troopi wrote: Dreamhack HD free, Assembly HD free, IEM/Homestory Cup normal quality (which is good) free. MLG pay 20$ or you can gtfo. For 3 days? LOL never If you look in the MLG feedback thread comments like this can be seen: Overall it was really great, absolutely worth the bucks and I will support it in the future. Not perfect though, there is still room for improvement. For 20$ there should be no comments like this. Sorry. I expected it to be top notch. | ||
|
FilthyLucre
Germany108 Posts
| ||
|
Venomsflame
United States613 Posts
On February 25 2012 19:41 ceaRshaf wrote: If you look in the MLG feedback thread comments like this can be seen: For 20$ there should be no comments like this. Sorry. I expected it to be top notch. What? There should be no comments like "absolutely worth the bucks and I will support in the future?" Like...seriously what? When someone is completely satisfied with the purchase and vows to support buying more of their purchase in the future, that's BAD? Comments like this convinced me to pay the twenty bucks in round 2. Saying these comments show some sort of failure because there is "room for improvement" is a little silly. | ||
|
Vari
United States532 Posts
On February 25 2012 18:18 VoO wrote: SC2 is not at the point where you can set up PPV-only content. This concept is hurting the whole scene. If you want to make profit and advertisement is not enough, you should consider to generate extra content, e.g. interviews/talks/show-matches which are only availble to paying viewers. To pay for the most basic aspect, the gameplay, is just bad ethics and puts MLG in the league of EA's ME3. so you make a baseless declaration and then say it's unethical to act against what you've said. really interesting argument. why exactly can't you set up ppv only content? where is that in the rules? | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
On February 25 2012 19:54 Venomsflame wrote: What? There should be no comments like "absolutely worth the bucks and I will support in the future?" Like...seriously what? When someone is completely satisfied with the purchase and vows to support buying more of their purchase in the future, that's BAD? Comments like this convinced me to pay the twenty bucks in round 2. Saying these comments show some sort of failure because there is "room for improvement" is a little silly. Act like you don't get it. If I would buy the MLG pass I would act like I like it and don't regret it, because humans don't like to confirm that they made a mistake. The fact that there are still complains and that they hope they will get better in the future is bad and shows that the product is not final. For 20$ it better be polished. | ||
|
Vari
United States532 Posts
On February 25 2012 19:41 ceaRshaf wrote: If you look in the MLG feedback thread comments like this can be seen: For 20$ there should be no comments like this. Sorry. I expected it to be top notch. dude there's always room for improvement with everything, forever. he said "worth the bucks". | ||
|
Vari
United States532 Posts
On February 25 2012 19:58 ceaRshaf wrote: Act like you don't get it. If I would buy the MLG pass I would act like I like it and don't regret it, because humans don't like to confirm that they made a mistake. The fact that there are still complains and that they hope they will get better in the future is bad and shows that the product is not final. For 20$ it better be polished. room for improvement is not the same as bad. that person IS NOT COMPLAINING! I play badly. mma has room for improvement because he doesn't win every day. | ||
|
seiferoth10
3362 Posts
On February 25 2012 19:58 ceaRshaf wrote: Act like you don't get it. If I would buy the MLG pass I would act like I like it and don't regret it, because humans don't like to confirm that they made a mistake. The fact that there are still complains and that they hope they will get better in the future is bad and shows that the product is not final. For 20$ it better be polished. So you honestly believe that because it was ppv there should be absolutely no room for improvement at all, meaning the event is perfect in every aspect of the word? Those are some realistic expectations. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs JyJ
Soulkey vs hero
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Shinee
Shine vs EffOrt
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
KCM Race Survival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
