|
On February 28 2012 02:55 ceaRshaf wrote:
I can't wait to hear some numbers from MLG. I think this is a fail event tbh.
According to this poll you had ~25% of people pay to watch. MLG was expecting (according to adam on SotG) about a 10-15% pay rate. So as long as these is even slightly representative of the broader population, MLG did what they wanted to do.
|
I paid for it. Feel like I'm the black sheep of the community...
|
On February 28 2012 03:00 AeonStrife wrote:
I paid for it. Feel like I'm the black sheep of the community...
You're not. Cheer up
|
I didn't pay, however I did watch the first hour of free games on friday and a few restreamed games on saturday.
From what I saw it was it seemed like a very good quality event. I would consider paying in future if the price was lower and I had the spare money/time to watch it. Considering the (imo) hefty pricetag and the scheduling I didn't think the event was worth $20.
One thing I will add is that those of us who did watch parts of the event for free didn't get anywhere near the same viewing experience. You have to find restreams or deal with the extremely buggy incognito/adblock method, potentially deal with missing the games you want because you can't get onto a particular stream, or deal with some russian talking over the game. You can disagree with piracy if you want, but it will always exist, and the content providers have to offer a service that is good enough to make me want to spend the money. In this case, I don't feel MLG achieved this. Let me explain why:
Firstly, the price was rather high, but I'm sure you already know this. If the event was priced at $5 I feel I could easily justity buying it. At $10 i'd have to think about it, but maybe. At $20 it's not worthwhile for me. Obviously this is personal opinion, and MLG will go for whatever pricing they feel will net the most profit. If you can afford to throw $20 away every time you want something then I'm happy for you, that must be nice, but if spending $20 means you have to miss out on something else you have to stop and carefully evaluate which thing you want more. In this case it would mean spending $20 for something that A) I can only watch a small amount of (more on this below) and B) That I can watch at almost the same quality from restreams.
Secondly, scheduling. This is a personal opinion, but I don't feel like having all the games crammed in to one weekend with four simultaneous streams is the way to go. I know this is how MLG operates, one massive weekend with tons of games, but consider how many games were played over the weekend, and now consider how many you actually watched. You missed a lot of games that usually you would have loved to see, personally for me that's not a good selling point, it's actually a downside. I would love to watch every single zerg game, but I can't because sometimes there are 3 going on at once.
Now consider that this is an international event, you have players from around the whole world, yet it is scheduled late into the night in the US making it impossible for a lot of people to watch unless they happen to stay up until 4 or 5am. I'm not going to stay up all night, so that takes away from the value of the event.
Also consider that in order to watch the whole event I have to dedicate my whole weekend to the event, which is kindof hard to do if you have other commitments and somewhat anti-social. If the event was a couple of hours per day over each weekend for a month I would find it much easier to set that time aside, and I would be much more likely to pay for an event that I can actually watch.
I understand the scheduling issues. MLG spent a lot of money on flights/hotels etc for players, so they have to get the event done in one go, but that just doesn't work for me. I can't (and don't want to) spend my WHOLE weekend neglecting the rest of the world, and I can't justify buying something that I can only watch a small percentage of.
One other thing that people need to realise is that just because a few people watched it for free, that doesn't mean that MLG lost money. These people are in no way "killing esports". I watched parts for free, but I never had any intention of paying for it. MLG didn't lose anything because I tuned into a restream for a couple of hours on saturday, because they never earnt my money in the first place.
|
On February 28 2012 03:00 Lunares wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 02:55 ceaRshaf wrote:
I can't wait to hear some numbers from MLG. I think this is a fail event tbh. According to this poll you had ~25% of people pay to watch. MLG was expecting (according to adam on SotG) about a 10-15% pay rate. So as long as these is even slightly representative of the broader population, MLG did what they wanted to do.
Its totally not representative:
- if you didnt watch you probably don't click this thread
- there is another poll with 18% barcraft, so a big amount of the paying viewers shared the pass
|
On February 28 2012 03:05 00Visor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 03:00 Lunares wrote:On February 28 2012 02:55 ceaRshaf wrote:
I can't wait to hear some numbers from MLG. I think this is a fail event tbh. According to this poll you had ~25% of people pay to watch. MLG was expecting (according to adam on SotG) about a 10-15% pay rate. So as long as these is even slightly representative of the broader population, MLG did what they wanted to do. Its totally not representative: - if you didnt watch you probably don't click this thread - there is another poll with 18% barcraft, so a big amount of the paying viewers shared the pass
And even so, 25% out of what? The rumors have it somewhere around 30k viewers. That's 7.5k people paying 20$ (or 15$) so they gathered at most 150.000 $. That barely can cover the event.
|
I don't know where the best place is to voice my concern, but this thread seems reasonable.
Anyone other than me that found the entire tournament with complete lack of energy? Without a crowd it just seemed so boring, and even Tastosis's attempts to sound exciting felt rather contrived. Not that I blame them, it's their job to try and they had absolutely no help from the production (compared to GSL where they set the mood with appropriate music) or a live audience to work with.
If this is their concept for their PPV events I surely won't pay for it in the future.
|
On February 28 2012 03:05 00Visor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 03:00 Lunares wrote:On February 28 2012 02:55 ceaRshaf wrote:
I can't wait to hear some numbers from MLG. I think this is a fail event tbh. According to this poll you had ~25% of people pay to watch. MLG was expecting (according to adam on SotG) about a 10-15% pay rate. So as long as these is even slightly representative of the broader population, MLG did what they wanted to do. Its totally not representative: - if you didnt watch you probably don't click this thread - there is another poll with 18% barcraft, so a big amount of the paying viewers shared the pass
Why is it the case that "if you didnt watch you probably don't click this thread"? There were plenty of angry people denouncing MLG before the event, don't you think they'd want to cast their vote to make the poll look bad?
|
On February 28 2012 03:09 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 03:05 00Visor wrote:On February 28 2012 03:00 Lunares wrote:On February 28 2012 02:55 ceaRshaf wrote:
I can't wait to hear some numbers from MLG. I think this is a fail event tbh. According to this poll you had ~25% of people pay to watch. MLG was expecting (according to adam on SotG) about a 10-15% pay rate. So as long as these is even slightly representative of the broader population, MLG did what they wanted to do. Its totally not representative: - if you didnt watch you probably don't click this thread - there is another poll with 18% barcraft, so a big amount of the paying viewers shared the pass And even so, 25% out of what? The rumors have it somewhere around 30k viewers. That's 7.5k people paying 20$ (or 15$) so they gathered at most 150.000 $. That barely can cover the event.
Sundance told us it was a success and as a result, two arenas will be held in the spring. I think that means it was a success.
|
On February 28 2012 03:09 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 03:05 00Visor wrote:On February 28 2012 03:00 Lunares wrote:On February 28 2012 02:55 ceaRshaf wrote:
I can't wait to hear some numbers from MLG. I think this is a fail event tbh. According to this poll you had ~25% of people pay to watch. MLG was expecting (according to adam on SotG) about a 10-15% pay rate. So as long as these is even slightly representative of the broader population, MLG did what they wanted to do. Its totally not representative: - if you didnt watch you probably don't click this thread - there is another poll with 18% barcraft, so a big amount of the paying viewers shared the pass And even so, 25% out of what? The rumors have it somewhere around 30k viewers. That's 7.5k people paying 20$ (or 15$) so they gathered at most 150.000 $. That barely can cover the event.
Your numbers are wrong. You included people who didn't watch the stream at all or people who watched restreams which aren't views
|
I payed for it and I can say it was worth it. Sundance said it was an success and they did experience a bit of "too many people connected to the service" syndrome for a short a while during the broadcast so they definitely got more viewers than they first projected, which also means they made profit from it. expect more events like these to show up.
|
I paid $20. And then Friday had massive login screen issues, and the grand finals on sunday were extremely laggy to unbearable to watch at times.
|
didnt pay, watched for like an hour if that
Did actually look for a restream then saw posts and watched for about an hour- two last night with at first grubby casting? for free on the actuall MLG and I didnt even do any workaround, it just played on cam a1 was it?
Main cam woudlnt work but the side cams did... lol
to be fair even if I couldnt weatch for free I wouldnt watch simply because of the time of it... if they did one in Europe for a one off I may fo tried finding the money but the was no way I was going to stay up all night watching it!
|
Payed and watched an loved the event but I have a big BUT in this....
I did think it was to expensive but since I had planned to go to the cinema anyway I just skipped that and got myself the stream isntead 
However... I always watch SC2 on my TV and well its not fun when I pay 20$ for the PPV and then Twtich.tv dosent have the capacity for when the Most ppl were watching cause most of the time I could watch on 720p on all 4 streams at once but when it hit Peek hours for some reason the image started to laggbehind and I only got the sounds sent to me without any lagg. Unfortunatly it didnt help to lower to 480p during these laggspikes either.
So... to summ things up I hope MLG chooses to lower the next events cost to about 10$ for gold members and 15 for normal veiwers or even lower cause I deffenitly think its to early to take out these prices when the streaming capacity is just not good enough, it was good most of the time but the finals yd had some real issues wich was wery annoying.
(And so ppl dont start blaming my internet connection or some cind of computer trubbles there is about 0.5% chance that my side was the issue 100/100mb connection and a computer this is far above average... read something about routing issues and that might be true since I have never been able to watch 1080p streams from Twtich but forexample youtube works fine etc... End of rant!)
|
On February 27 2012 17:57 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 16:19 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 27 2012 15:48 DoomBacon wrote:On February 27 2012 15:42 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 27 2012 15:26 StarBrift wrote:On February 27 2012 15:09 mvtaylor wrote:On February 27 2012 15:07 StarBrift wrote:On February 27 2012 15:02 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 27 2012 14:57 jmbthirteen wrote:On February 27 2012 14:53 Ghost.573 wrote:
[quote]
Which is exactly what i said a few pages back. Thats the deal though. If the company sees that it can make money this way than it will try. They may know that not every tournament can do it, but that is perfect for businesses. If they can monopolize or get close to it than they will make the majority of the money from the game. Its good for business but bad for SC2. I realize its stretching, but it is a logical path that this could go if the tools are there.
If every company is dumb enough to make all their stuff PPV then only the strong deserve to survive. As many others have pointed out, UFC seems to be thriving just great off of PPV. If you can make money doing it, than do it. If MLG made a good profit, they will do it again and it is a slippery slope then. Yes they may lose their viewers, and if so they will go back to the old model. However, if they don't lose too many then it will be PPV always. Basically if they profit enough of of this arena, I don't think they would think twice about trying it with the circuit. You say that UFC is thriving and it may be economically. But it's miniscule in terms of viewership. That model works especially well for them because their product is really targeted at males from 18-40 or something like that. They're not looking to grab kids or laeger quantities of women because they know they can't with that kind of entertainment. Sc2 however does not restrict itself to young adult males. SC2 is utterly 100% mainly watched by young adult males. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=214457 My point was that the product itself does not cater to young men specifically. Young men is the majority of viewers (allthough your argument fall apart when you consider the vast ammount of teen guys that can't pay for PPV) but there is nothing in the actual game that is repellant to women (except maybe booth girls but they aren't abundant). UFC is based on fighting (something that almost only men enjoy watching) and they have such things as bikini babes as part of the entertainment. They have simply conceeded any oppurtunity to grow a female market. Sc2 may not be played by a lot of women but look into a crowd at MLG and I'll wager you'll see atleast 10% women which is good if you consider the enourmous skew of male to female players in the game. What I'm saying is that UFC targets a very specific type of people to buy their product. The sc2 scene is trying to grow and diversify and that also encompasses bringing in more women etc. If they were to add booth babes to every tournament most people would consider that a bad buissness move since they are alienating an untapped potential female fanbase (which has been proven to exist in brood war by the way). Why is it that the same type of limiting of the scene that removes any potential viewership from the lower socio economic buyer is percieved as a non-problem? Lastly TL does not represent the entirety of people that follow MLG or other sc2 events. Most casual viewers do not hang here at all and I would assume many of those are women. Maybe in Sweden, but not at ALL in the United States. In the states, in general, woman are VERY turned off by video games. And the specific games they are turned off by? World of Warcraft and Starcraft. Arguably the two biggest antifemale games out there (to the majority, I do realize there are a decent # of woman WoW gamers). When girls think of "nerds" they think of WoW and SC, from my personal experience at least. I can't imagine women EVER making up a decent viewer base for SC2. Hell, they don't make a decent viewerbase for the majority of sports on TV (unless they're sitting with a male), why would SC2 be more likely? Point is, SC2 is not marketable imo to females whatsoever, and it's futile to even try. About 30% of the crowd at the barcraft I went to was female. Yep they couldn't STAND being around NERDs and watching NERD games being played by NERDs. I don't know what kind of community you live in but it's not uncommon for women so be gamers... Where is it common for women to be gamers? Because it's damn sure not here on TL.net. Nor is it anywhere I've been. Went to high school in a place predominately white/wealthy, and now go to college in one of the most Asian universities out there (UCI). Neither has any substantial gaming population. Neither has girls significantly into gaming, from what I've seen at the clubs/facebook groups/barcrafts/MLG Anaheim attended. Would anyone here actually bring up Starcraft if hitting on a woman at a bar, or bring it up on a first date? Guys will generally brag about being on the men's swimming team, but I've never once in my life heard of a guy bragging to a girl he just met about being super good at Starcraft. An exception might be a progamer. But if you're just "really good" aka high masters/GM status but nothing more, please, even I'd personally laugh at a guy doing that. Well, that's the kind of community I live in. Not sure where the hell you are. Your seemingly random capitalization of the word "nerds" is also retarded. On February 27 2012 15:48 StarBrift wrote:On February 27 2012 15:42 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 27 2012 15:26 StarBrift wrote:On February 27 2012 15:09 mvtaylor wrote:On February 27 2012 15:07 StarBrift wrote:On February 27 2012 15:02 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 27 2012 14:57 jmbthirteen wrote:On February 27 2012 14:53 Ghost.573 wrote:
[quote]
Which is exactly what i said a few pages back. Thats the deal though. If the company sees that it can make money this way than it will try. They may know that not every tournament can do it, but that is perfect for businesses. If they can monopolize or get close to it than they will make the majority of the money from the game. Its good for business but bad for SC2. I realize its stretching, but it is a logical path that this could go if the tools are there.
If every company is dumb enough to make all their stuff PPV then only the strong deserve to survive. As many others have pointed out, UFC seems to be thriving just great off of PPV. If you can make money doing it, than do it. If MLG made a good profit, they will do it again and it is a slippery slope then. Yes they may lose their viewers, and if so they will go back to the old model. However, if they don't lose too many then it will be PPV always. Basically if they profit enough of of this arena, I don't think they would think twice about trying it with the circuit. You say that UFC is thriving and it may be economically. But it's miniscule in terms of viewership. That model works especially well for them because their product is really targeted at males from 18-40 or something like that. They're not looking to grab kids or laeger quantities of women because they know they can't with that kind of entertainment. Sc2 however does not restrict itself to young adult males. SC2 is utterly 100% mainly watched by young adult males. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=214457 My point was that the product itself does not cater to young men specifically. Young men is the majority of viewers (allthough your argument fall apart when you consider the vast ammount of teen guys that can't pay for PPV) but there is nothing in the actual game that is repellant to women (except maybe booth girls but they aren't abundant). UFC is based on fighting (something that almost only men enjoy watching) and they have such things as bikini babes as part of the entertainment. They have simply conceeded any oppurtunity to grow a female market. Sc2 may not be played by a lot of women but look into a crowd at MLG and I'll wager you'll see atleast 10% women which is good if you consider the enourmous skew of male to female players in the game. What I'm saying is that UFC targets a very specific type of people to buy their product. The sc2 scene is trying to grow and diversify and that also encompasses bringing in more women etc. If they were to add booth babes to every tournament most people would consider that a bad buissness move since they are alienating an untapped potential female fanbase (which has been proven to exist in brood war by the way). Why is it that the same type of limiting of the scene that removes any potential viewership from the lower socio economic buyer is percieved as a non-problem? Lastly TL does not represent the entirety of people that follow MLG or other sc2 events. Most casual viewers do not hang here at all and I would assume many of those are women. Maybe in Sweden, but not at ALL in the United States. In the states, in general, woman are VERY turned off by video games. And the specific games they are turned off by? World of Warcraft and Starcraft. Arguably the two biggest antifemale games out there (to the majority, I do realize there are a decent # of woman WoW gamers). When girls think of "nerds" they think of WoW and SC, from my personal experience at least. I can't imagine women EVER making up a decent viewer base for SC2. Hell, they don't make a decent viewerbase for the majority of sports on TV (unless they're sitting with a male), why would SC2 be more likely? Point is, SC2 is not marketable imo to females whatsoever, and it's futile to even try. Did you ever stop to think that you surround yourselves with or trying to appeal to shallow women? I know a bunch of girls that has shown interest in gaming and sc2 has done a better job than most of bringing that to light. The reason why women don't watch UFC is because it caters to the baser instincts of men only. The reason why not many women like gaming is because they labeled it as nerdy. There is nothing in the content itself that dissuades women from watching. Unless you mean to argue that competition itself is unattractive to women? Women generally are shallow yes. Pity is, I am too to an extent. Who doesn't want a pretty woman? Of course, looks aren't everything. But they're something. At local gaming communities, generally only the really trollish ones actually show up and play T_T. And even then, it's an absolute minimal amount. And no, my standards aren't super high by any means.... . Regardless, besides saying that in general, competition DOES seem less attractive to women than men, we've had years upon years to witness that women are not into video games NOR generally that interested in Sci Fi/Fantasy, at least when compared to their male counterparts. If by some means we were going to introduce gaming to women, it sure as hell shouldn't be through a super complex, intricate game like SC2 that involves tons of different units, tons of different maps, and a game based on friggin' war and killing the other side. If you could ask me, you'd have to introduce girls to gaming through games like Zelda or Oblivion, but what do I know, by ex gf only played The Sims... sparingly. Appreciate your honesty. And yes, you live in one of the most vapid, shallow, MLM scam generating, highest per capita plastic surgeon relocating, BMW driving counties in the country. Image is everything in the OC they even have shows about it so I'm not surprised intellectual pursuits are generally kept on the down low. Outside of that bubble, people are more real. Look at incs or torches girl. Not saying it's popular to be a nerd but it not an auto eject button either.
Late response, but Irvine is the opposite of what you think of when you think OC. Everyone here is noticeably less attractive with lower standards . And I'm originally from San Fran area.
|
I was originally not going to watch or pay. 20$ is a seriously high asking price for someone with my income.
But when i found out i could simply open the stream through twitch.tv and never get the pop-up, i did that for a few of the games.
But after watching the content i have to say that it most certainly isn't worth 20 $, i am very sorry MLG, Sundance and everyone else who wanted it to be, but it is not. It is a very steep entry level as well. I cant see why there should not be more pricing options available like 5 bucks for low quality or something.
Also the idea of PPV is kinda old and to me it seems like a step in the wrong direction. Just two months ago people were all watching MLG for free, while getting exposed to ads and other forms of endorsement, no problem, now people are thieves and leeches for taking advantage of a seriously flawed system. Maybe the the content you produce can't sustain itself with ad revenue and sponsorship, but then maybe you are expecting too much?
To be honest i think you are making everyone lose in the end, either people don't think its worth the 20 bucks, so they don't watch or they re stream, or people will pay up. Either way you are making the content less freely available and more restrictive, which in my mind is always a bad thing. Plus you are losing to the guy who puts out great content but does it with ad revenues and premiums.
To end it off, i just want to say that if you DO make something PPV, at least do your customers justice and don't just let people watch for free even without workarounds and re-streams, that is simply just tech fail at its highest. If people want something really bad, i am sure they will find a way, but being able to simply watch straight up is pretty dumb.
just my 2 c
|
On February 28 2012 00:37 StarBrift wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 16:19 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 27 2012 15:48 DoomBacon wrote:On February 27 2012 15:42 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 27 2012 15:26 StarBrift wrote:On February 27 2012 15:09 mvtaylor wrote:On February 27 2012 15:07 StarBrift wrote:On February 27 2012 15:02 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 27 2012 14:57 jmbthirteen wrote:On February 27 2012 14:53 Ghost.573 wrote:
[quote]
Which is exactly what i said a few pages back. Thats the deal though. If the company sees that it can make money this way than it will try. They may know that not every tournament can do it, but that is perfect for businesses. If they can monopolize or get close to it than they will make the majority of the money from the game. Its good for business but bad for SC2. I realize its stretching, but it is a logical path that this could go if the tools are there.
If every company is dumb enough to make all their stuff PPV then only the strong deserve to survive. As many others have pointed out, UFC seems to be thriving just great off of PPV. If you can make money doing it, than do it. If MLG made a good profit, they will do it again and it is a slippery slope then. Yes they may lose their viewers, and if so they will go back to the old model. However, if they don't lose too many then it will be PPV always. Basically if they profit enough of of this arena, I don't think they would think twice about trying it with the circuit. You say that UFC is thriving and it may be economically. But it's miniscule in terms of viewership. That model works especially well for them because their product is really targeted at males from 18-40 or something like that. They're not looking to grab kids or laeger quantities of women because they know they can't with that kind of entertainment. Sc2 however does not restrict itself to young adult males. SC2 is utterly 100% mainly watched by young adult males. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=214457 My point was that the product itself does not cater to young men specifically. Young men is the majority of viewers (allthough your argument fall apart when you consider the vast ammount of teen guys that can't pay for PPV) but there is nothing in the actual game that is repellant to women (except maybe booth girls but they aren't abundant). UFC is based on fighting (something that almost only men enjoy watching) and they have such things as bikini babes as part of the entertainment. They have simply conceeded any oppurtunity to grow a female market. Sc2 may not be played by a lot of women but look into a crowd at MLG and I'll wager you'll see atleast 10% women which is good if you consider the enourmous skew of male to female players in the game. What I'm saying is that UFC targets a very specific type of people to buy their product. The sc2 scene is trying to grow and diversify and that also encompasses bringing in more women etc. If they were to add booth babes to every tournament most people would consider that a bad buissness move since they are alienating an untapped potential female fanbase (which has been proven to exist in brood war by the way). Why is it that the same type of limiting of the scene that removes any potential viewership from the lower socio economic buyer is percieved as a non-problem? Lastly TL does not represent the entirety of people that follow MLG or other sc2 events. Most casual viewers do not hang here at all and I would assume many of those are women. Maybe in Sweden, but not at ALL in the United States. In the states, in general, woman are VERY turned off by video games. And the specific games they are turned off by? World of Warcraft and Starcraft. Arguably the two biggest antifemale games out there (to the majority, I do realize there are a decent # of woman WoW gamers). When girls think of "nerds" they think of WoW and SC, from my personal experience at least. I can't imagine women EVER making up a decent viewer base for SC2. Hell, they don't make a decent viewerbase for the majority of sports on TV (unless they're sitting with a male), why would SC2 be more likely? Point is, SC2 is not marketable imo to females whatsoever, and it's futile to even try. About 30% of the crowd at the barcraft I went to was female. Yep they couldn't STAND being around NERDs and watching NERD games being played by NERDs. I don't know what kind of community you live in but it's not uncommon for women so be gamers... Where is it common for women to be gamers? Because it's damn sure not here on TL.net. Nor is it anywhere I've been. Went to high school in a place predominately white/wealthy, and now go to college in one of the most Asian universities out there (UCI). Neither has any substantial gaming population. Neither has girls significantly into gaming, from what I've seen at the clubs/facebook groups/barcrafts/MLG Anaheim attended. Would anyone here actually bring up Starcraft if hitting on a woman at a bar, or bring it up on a first date? Guys will generally brag about being on the men's swimming team, but I've never once in my life heard of a guy bragging to a girl he just met about being super good at Starcraft. An exception might be a progamer. But if you're just "really good" aka high masters/GM status but nothing more, please, even I'd personally laugh at a guy doing that. Well, that's the kind of community I live in. Not sure where the hell you are. Your seemingly random capitalization of the word "nerds" is also retarded. On February 27 2012 15:48 StarBrift wrote:On February 27 2012 15:42 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 27 2012 15:26 StarBrift wrote:On February 27 2012 15:09 mvtaylor wrote:On February 27 2012 15:07 StarBrift wrote:On February 27 2012 15:02 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 27 2012 14:57 jmbthirteen wrote:On February 27 2012 14:53 Ghost.573 wrote:
[quote]
Which is exactly what i said a few pages back. Thats the deal though. If the company sees that it can make money this way than it will try. They may know that not every tournament can do it, but that is perfect for businesses. If they can monopolize or get close to it than they will make the majority of the money from the game. Its good for business but bad for SC2. I realize its stretching, but it is a logical path that this could go if the tools are there.
If every company is dumb enough to make all their stuff PPV then only the strong deserve to survive. As many others have pointed out, UFC seems to be thriving just great off of PPV. If you can make money doing it, than do it. If MLG made a good profit, they will do it again and it is a slippery slope then. Yes they may lose their viewers, and if so they will go back to the old model. However, if they don't lose too many then it will be PPV always. Basically if they profit enough of of this arena, I don't think they would think twice about trying it with the circuit. You say that UFC is thriving and it may be economically. But it's miniscule in terms of viewership. That model works especially well for them because their product is really targeted at males from 18-40 or something like that. They're not looking to grab kids or laeger quantities of women because they know they can't with that kind of entertainment. Sc2 however does not restrict itself to young adult males. SC2 is utterly 100% mainly watched by young adult males. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=214457 My point was that the product itself does not cater to young men specifically. Young men is the majority of viewers (allthough your argument fall apart when you consider the vast ammount of teen guys that can't pay for PPV) but there is nothing in the actual game that is repellant to women (except maybe booth girls but they aren't abundant). UFC is based on fighting (something that almost only men enjoy watching) and they have such things as bikini babes as part of the entertainment. They have simply conceeded any oppurtunity to grow a female market. Sc2 may not be played by a lot of women but look into a crowd at MLG and I'll wager you'll see atleast 10% women which is good if you consider the enourmous skew of male to female players in the game. What I'm saying is that UFC targets a very specific type of people to buy their product. The sc2 scene is trying to grow and diversify and that also encompasses bringing in more women etc. If they were to add booth babes to every tournament most people would consider that a bad buissness move since they are alienating an untapped potential female fanbase (which has been proven to exist in brood war by the way). Why is it that the same type of limiting of the scene that removes any potential viewership from the lower socio economic buyer is percieved as a non-problem? Lastly TL does not represent the entirety of people that follow MLG or other sc2 events. Most casual viewers do not hang here at all and I would assume many of those are women. Maybe in Sweden, but not at ALL in the United States. In the states, in general, woman are VERY turned off by video games. And the specific games they are turned off by? World of Warcraft and Starcraft. Arguably the two biggest antifemale games out there (to the majority, I do realize there are a decent # of woman WoW gamers). When girls think of "nerds" they think of WoW and SC, from my personal experience at least. I can't imagine women EVER making up a decent viewer base for SC2. Hell, they don't make a decent viewerbase for the majority of sports on TV (unless they're sitting with a male), why would SC2 be more likely? Point is, SC2 is not marketable imo to females whatsoever, and it's futile to even try. Did you ever stop to think that you surround yourselves with or trying to appeal to shallow women? I know a bunch of girls that has shown interest in gaming and sc2 has done a better job than most of bringing that to light. The reason why women don't watch UFC is because it caters to the baser instincts of men only. The reason why not many women like gaming is because they labeled it as nerdy. There is nothing in the content itself that dissuades women from watching. Unless you mean to argue that competition itself is unattractive to women? Women generally are shallow yes. Pity is, I am too to an extent. Who doesn't want a pretty woman? Of course, looks aren't everything. But they're something. At local gaming communities, generally only the really trollish ones actually show up and play T_T. And even then, it's an absolute minimal amount. And no, my standards aren't super high by any means.... . Regardless, besides saying that in general, competition DOES seem less attractive to women than men, we've had years upon years to witness that women are not into video games NOR generally that interested in Sci Fi/Fantasy, at least when compared to their male counterparts. If by some means we were going to introduce gaming to women, it sure as hell shouldn't be through a super complex, intricate game like SC2 that involves tons of different units, tons of different maps, and a game based on friggin' war and killing the other side. If you could ask me, you'd have to introduce girls to gaming through games like Zelda or Oblivion, but what do I know, by ex gf only played The Sims... sparingly. No. Women aren't "generally shallow". You and the women you surround yourself with may be. But you're making incredibly stupid fratboyish generalisations about something you have no perspective of. Have you ever been to or watched any type of coverage of a comic con or something similar? Are you seriously going to tell me that there are no women there? Or do you not consider them real women because they don't meet your standards of what a woman should be? I truly pity you for your view on women. It sounds like you think every member of the opposing sex is a pair of tits on a stick with a mushy brain and princess complex. You don't even attempt to adress the point either. The point is that the reason women are underrepresented in gaming is that it gets a bad rep. When that slowly dissipates there WILL be more women coming into the scene. They probably wont be posting on or reading TL though because of people like you who file them into some kind of category of ditzy girls that only care for shapping and make up.
1. I disagree. I don't "surround" myself with shallow women, I feel that women at Irvine specifically are some of the least shallow (and least attractive) women I've "surrounded" myself with in my entire life. If I wanted to be surrounded by shallow people I would have gone to either SDSU or UCSB, two huge party schools both in my relative area. Instead, I picked the school notorious for having unattractive people, no football team, lack of school spirit, etc.
2. Most events like comic con have around a 20:1 ratio of male to female. Did I say NO women show up? No. But I did say it's a terrible market to shoot for. Why even attempt to go for the female market when you can just pull in more males?
3. Pity me for my view on women? Almost everyone is shallow. Would you hit on a woman that's 400lbs, but has an amazing personality? I wouldn't. Because I won't find her attractive. Nor will 99% of the male population I've encountered. Yes, there are exceptions. Exceptions are terrible arguments to use in a debate, especially one revolving around marketability. Please. Save me your lectures, it serves no point.
4. Women being underrepresented in gaming won't dissipate, as you suggest, nor have you given any reason it will. It hasn't over decades, and like I said, even if it does, you'd be foolish to think that they'd choose a game like SC2 to get into.
|
On February 28 2012 01:58 TheSir wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 01:52 Adreme wrote:
I can outright tell you piracy impacts sales. Half of the gamers on this campus pirate there games but since you couldnt pirate SC2 they just up and bought it because they watned to play it. LOL you cant pirate SC2? You are kidding right?
Its impossible to play multiplayer without legal copy. Probably thats what he meant.
|
I didnt not pay, I did not watch.
I had a blast watching assembly!
|
On February 28 2012 02:21 jliu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 02:11 aderum wrote:On February 28 2012 02:10 jliu wrote:
The amount of people using the spelling of payed rather than paid is staggering... is that an alternate spelling? Or is TL that bad at spelling? Or am I that bad at spelling?
Also it was possible for multiple people to log in one twitchTV account and watch the premium stream as well. or maybe people on TL has English as a second language? Dont be rude ? I apologize I didn't mean to be rude. If you can't spell thats fine and thats the truth, I am bilingual as well and thats. Just how it is. Ironic how people weren't so senitive when TB made a joke involving Korean players' inability to speak english at ASUS ROG.
Are you kidding me? They bitched and moaned about that too. TL is not a hivemind with one opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
60283
6225
5918
EPT
