DreamHack and Twitch invite video game industry luminaries to discuss the future of eSports – Valencia, Spain – September 7, 2012 – Valencia eSports Congress is hosting a one day event with video game industry leaders to discuss eSports development, media opportunities, and the rise of live streaming. DreamHack is organizing this landmark gathering while it is being presented by Twitch, who is sponsoring and streaming the event.
“DreamHack has a track record of working with all types of professional gaming leagues including ESL, CPL and will continue to do so in the future,” said Robert Ohlén, CEO of DreamHack. “Valencia eSports Congress will be a great way to bring more awareness to eSports and meet each other in real life.”
To bring awareness to the burgeoning eSports industry, DreamHack is partnering with Twitch, the leader in live online video game broadcasting.
“eSports has arrived as a major force in the video game and entertainment industries,” said Kevin Lin, COO of Twitch. “There is a need for the entire eSports ecosystem to get together to discuss a host of pressing issues on the business side of the equation including advertising, infrastructure, competitive standards, video content and delivery and more. We’re proud to be a part of it.”
All panels will be moderated by industry veteran and renowned host and caster personality Paul ‘Redeye’ Chaloner. Some of the industry representatives include:
• Alex Garfield – Team EG • Alex Lim – IeSF • Alexander Kokhanovskyy – Na’Vi • David Ting – IPL • Göran Hellgren – Telia Sonera • Ilja Rotelli – Blizzard • Kevin Lin – Twitch • Matthieu Dallon – ESWC • Michael O’Dell – Team Dignitas • Ralf Reichert – ESL • Robert Ohlén – DreamHack • Russell Pfister – NASL • Sam Matthews – Fnatic • Simon Whitcombe – CBS Interactive • Sundance DiGiovanni – Major League Gaming • Tomas Hermansson – DreamHack • Zvetan Dragulev – Own3d.TV
Team managers, event organizers and journalists are encouraged to apply to participate in the event. Interested parties should send an abbreviated resume and an explanation of why they should be part of the Congress using the contact form provided on our web site. We also have 250 seats in the Auditorium where you can attend to see the panel’s live. Tickets are currently available while supply lasts.
Seems like a nice initiative, good things can probably come out of it.
Curious if there will be any broadcasted discussions or whatever. Surprised that so many "important" figures are participating, wonder if Gabe Newell was busy.
edit
On September 07 2012 23:25 Panicc wrote: no one from korea as the country with most developted esportscene in the world?
Well for all we know they might have invited people from Gom, Kespa, Chinese organisations etc. The parties of the Korean esportscene are quite possibly mostly concerned about the Korean market and not whatever this congress is supposed to be about.
On September 07 2012 23:40 spaceG wrote: looks more like SC2 congress to me.
sc2 congress ? do you think that eswc, esl, team dignitas, dreamhack, fnatic, MLG(the most explicit exemple) are born with sc2 ? they are the old guard of esport, it won't be focus on sc2, you can trust me
This congress thing is actually really interesting. I would imagine it is something that many of the people in charge really look forward to. If only Nazgul and djWHEAT were there then it would have all relevant people imo (assuming that Koreans were not interested).
Team managers, event organizers and journalists are encouraged to apply to participate in the event. Interested parties should send an abbreviated resume and an explanation of why they should be part of the Congress using the contact form provided on our web site.
Current participants according to http://www.valenciaesportscongress.com/ : Note: I don't know much about many of them etc so are probably several errors. Let me know if I should change/add/remove things.
Host: Paul "Redeye" Chaloner.
Teams:
Michael "Odee" O'Dell - Managing director of Team Dignitas.
Alex Garfield - CEO of Evil Geniouses.
Alexander "ZeroGravity" Kokhanovskyy - Manager of Na'Vi.
Sam Mathews - Co founder and manager of Fnatic.
Television:
Joakim Sandberg - Among other things, project manager for SVT's(Swedish national television) Dreamhack broadcasts.
Sponsors:
Göran Hellgren - Senior project manager of Telia Gamings investments for TeliaSonera(as I understand it from wikipedia - Among other things Europes largest internet backbone provider with customers such as Blizzard, Twitch and Facebook. And "the largest Nordic and Baltic fixed-voice, broadband, and mobile operator by revenue and customer base", etc).
Streaming:
Kevin Lin - COO of Twitch.
Zvetan Dragulev - Own3d.
Esport event organizers:
David Ting - Genelal manager(?) of IPL.
Tomas "Greykarn" Hermansson - Head esports manager of Dreamhack.
Russell Pfister - Co founder of North American Star League.
Sundance Digiovanni - CEO of Major League Gaming.
Matthiew Dallon - Founder of the Electronic Sports World Cup.
I don't think anything significant will be accomplished by the discussions. I think more could be accomplished by having private discussions, which I assume these folks already have when necessary.
edit: This is my polite way of saying that this event is a big "hey look at us"
On September 08 2012 04:25 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't think anything significant will be accomplished by the discussions. I think more could be accomplished by having private discussions, which I assume these folks already have when necessary.
edit: This is my polite way of saying that this event is a big "hey look at us"
Well at the very least, I hope they had a public forum for the community to Q & A and stuff. I appreciate when industry leaders share a bit of insight into their operations, long term plans, and current view of things. It can be educational even if some people in the community spin it to something else.
I'm glad they don't have Wheat/carmac/2GD there. No disrespect to them, but it seems like those aren't the people that should be talking in this context. They are more face people, while this seems to be more about behind the scenes people, which is what you would hope for, so hopefully it will be quite in depth.
Wheat/2GD/carmac probably have some understanding of things, but they aren't the guys who are running their respective shows in terms of bottom line and control, so not having them there isn't a bad thing.
On September 08 2012 04:45 Lonyo wrote: I'm glad they don't have Wheat/carmac/2GD there. No disrespect to them, but it seems like those aren't the people that should be talking in this context. They are more face people, while this seems to be more about behind the scenes people, which is what you would hope for, so hopefully it will be quite in depth.
Wheat/2GD/carmac probably have some understanding of things, but they aren't the guys who are running their respective shows in terms of bottom line and control, so not having them there isn't a bad thing.
wait what? You do know Carmac is the man in charge for IEM right?
On September 08 2012 04:45 Lonyo wrote: I'm glad they don't have Wheat/carmac/2GD there. No disrespect to them, but it seems like those aren't the people that should be talking in this context. They are more face people, while this seems to be more about behind the scenes people, which is what you would hope for, so hopefully it will be quite in depth.
Wheat/2GD/carmac probably have some understanding of things, but they aren't the guys who are running their respective shows in terms of bottom line and control, so not having them there isn't a bad thing.
wait what? You do know Carmac is the man in charge for IEM right?
Would you rather have an ESL rep. or an IEM rep? I'd go for ESL.
Would like to see Day9 there. Right now we've got a bunch of guys who are either involved with the ownership of teams (players), to the guys who make money from the venue's all potentially discussing the future of a new sport where they can make more money. I understand it's about making money in business but this is already looking like a big pow wow on how you can milk the average gamer/consumer more.
I think having some strong community members there would be a step in the right direction of ensuring some level ground as far as the discussions go, but then again I don't know what they are actually discussing. It was only a matter of time tho before someone began the steps toward this and while I think its a positive thing overall, hopefully we don't see everything get muddy because of it.
On September 08 2012 04:25 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't think anything significant will be accomplished by the discussions. I think more could be accomplished by having private discussions, which I assume these folks already have when necessary.
edit: This is my polite way of saying that this event is a big "hey look at us"
I think you could be right about that it's at least partiallty a "hey look at us" thing. But I doubt all of them already know each other plus private discussions can be had in congresses like this.
But who knows what will happen, perhaps some of them realizes their organization shares interest with someone elses in a way they hadn't thought about before or whatever. Or perhaps there will be a fist fight between Robert and Alex where Kevin Lin breaks his glasses when he tries to break them up, because Robert(who hates bullies) mistakenly thought Alex made fun of Sundances hair when he tried to make a whitty joke about french onions, with Göran Hellgren yelling he will "make it so Odee will never be able to acces his facebook page again, possibly by turning off the entire internet of europe!" because he for some reason thinks it was Odee that broke his new friend Kevins glasses, etc.
edit
On September 08 2012 05:28 ExPresident wrote: Would like to see Day9 there. Right now we've got a bunch of guys who are either involved with the ownership of teams (players), to the guys who make money from the venue's all potentially discussing the future of a new sport where they can make more money. I understand it's about making money in business but this is already looking like a big pow wow on how you can milk the average gamer/consumer more.
Got the impression Day9 makes lot of money on doing what he does, at least compared to other community figures/casters, so not sure he would fit as well as you seem to think.
On September 08 2012 04:25 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't think anything significant will be accomplished by the discussions. I think more could be accomplished by having private discussions, which I assume these folks already have when necessary.
edit: This is my polite way of saying that this event is a big "hey look at us"
I think you could be right about that it's at least partiallty a "hey look at us" thing. But I doubt all of them already know each other plus private discussions can be had in congresses like this.
But who knows what will happen, perhaps some of them realizes their organization shares interest with someone elses in a way they hadn't thought about before or whatever. Or perhaps there will be a fist fight between Robert and Alex where Kevin Lin breaks his glasses when he tries to break them up, because Robert(who hates bullies) mistakenly thought Alex made fun of Sundances hair when he tried to make a whitty joke about french onions, with Göran Hellgren yelling he will "make it so Odee will never be able to acces his facebook page again, possibly by turning off the entire internet of europe!" because he for some reason thinks it was Odee that broke his new friend Kevins glasses, etc.
On September 08 2012 05:28 ExPresident wrote: Would like to see Day9 there. Right now we've got a bunch of guys who are either involved with the ownership of teams (players), to the guys who make money from the venue's all potentially discussing the future of a new sport where they can make more money. I understand it's about making money in business but this is already looking like a big pow wow on how you can milk the average gamer/consumer more.
Got the impression Day9 makes lot of money on doing what he does, at least compared to other community figures/casters, so not sure he would fit as well as you seem to think.
Day9 does have good ideas on expanding esports. His tournament alone brings large companies into the mix and shows them there is opportunity in investing in esports. Despite the fact he isn't struggling doesn't mean he can't have a valid opinion. Those who don't struggle monetarily tend to be the ones who actually have the solid ideas.
On September 08 2012 04:25 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't think anything significant will be accomplished by the discussions. I think more could be accomplished by having private discussions, which I assume these folks already have when necessary.
edit: This is my polite way of saying that this event is a big "hey look at us"
I don't think there needs to be "significant accomplishment" in order for the congress to be worthwhile. Surely these people have insight about the inner workings of teams and leagues that the public rarely glimpses, and they could share it with us a bit. Also, them saying that this will be an opportunity to "meet in real life" implies they probably don't have an open dialogue about this already. Surely private discussions will also be a component of this.
On September 08 2012 07:58 Shinobi1982 wrote: How is this not on at least 10th page by now? No drama no interest, it sure looks like it .
There really isn't a whole lot to discuss at this point, besides speculation and hope. I'm sure any decisions or announcements that come out off this will draw plenty of debate. At this point tho we can be hyped about the potential growth as a sport we could see Starcraft making because of this, and then fear the level of bureaucratic bullshit we could be subjected to as it transitions from motivated players and community members with a dream to greedy business men. Oh the joy.
On September 08 2012 04:25 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't think anything significant will be accomplished by the discussions. I think more could be accomplished by having private discussions, which I assume these folks already have when necessary.
edit: This is my polite way of saying that this event is a big "hey look at us"
I don't think there needs to be "significant accomplishment" in order for the congress to be worthwhile. Surely these people have insight about the inner workings of teams and leagues that the public rarely glimpses, and they could share it with us a bit. Also, them saying that this will be an opportunity to "meet in real life" implies they probably don't have an open dialogue about this already. Surely private discussions will also be a component of this.
I don't understand if you're trying to say something different than what I just said. I intentionally left open the possibility that the event as a whole could be worthwhile without the public discussions accomplishing anything. The public discussions will sway public opinion and be informative as trivia for a curious public but will otherwise be unproductive. I don't see what value the discussion gains from being public. Privacy encourages candor and privilege. It must not be the discussion gaining value but rather something else. I invite anyone to weigh the pros and cons of having these discussions publicly or privately. Publicity is better for sending out a message. The public will play no role. They're invited to watch and have their opinions swayed. And so the speakers will be talking not just to resolve whatever problem the discussion is focused on, but also to affect public opinion. A discussion unburdened by an extra purpose would be more productive.
On September 08 2012 04:25 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't think anything significant will be accomplished by the discussions. I think more could be accomplished by having private discussions, which I assume these folks already have when necessary.
edit: This is my polite way of saying that this event is a big "hey look at us"
I don't think there needs to be "significant accomplishment" in order for the congress to be worthwhile. Surely these people have insight about the inner workings of teams and leagues that the public rarely glimpses, and they could share it with us a bit. Also, them saying that this will be an opportunity to "meet in real life" implies they probably don't have an open dialogue about this already. Surely private discussions will also be a component of this.
I don't understand if you're trying to say something different than what I just said. I intentionally left open the possibility that the event as a whole could be worthwhile without the public discussions accomplishing anything. The public discussions will sway public opinion and be informative as trivia for a curious public but will otherwise be unproductive. I don't see what value the discussion gains from being public. Privacy encourages candor and privilege. It must not be the discussion gaining value but rather something else. I invite anyone to weigh the pros and cons of having these discussions publicly or privately. Publicity is better for sending out a message. The public will play no role. They're invited to watch and have their opinions swayed. And so the speakers will be talking not just to resolve whatever problem the discussion is focused on, but also to affect public opinion. A discussion unburdened by an extra purpose would be more productive.
It depends on what "productivity" is supposed to be. One advantage of discourse being public is that a certain kind of accountability is added. The interests of the public play a more central role, and thus the discussion may be more 'productive' from the public's point of view. If the world sees your negotiations, then you will be more careful about what you put on the table. In private, for example, discussions could theoretically center around how to increase subscription costs as much as possible to the detriment of fans, while in public this could not be a central topic.
I think that you are right that some candor is lost, but I think that public discourse has distinct advantages over backroom negotiations that shouldn't be discounted.
On September 08 2012 05:28 ExPresident wrote: Would like to see Day9 there. Right now we've got a bunch of guys who are either involved with the ownership of teams (players), to the guys who make money from the venue's all potentially discussing the future of a new sport where they can make more money. I understand it's about making money in business but this is already looking like a big pow wow on how you can milk the average gamer/consumer more.
I think having some strong community members there would be a step in the right direction of ensuring some level ground as far as the discussions go, but then again I don't know what they are actually discussing. It was only a matter of time tho before someone began the steps toward this and while I think its a positive thing overall, hopefully we don't see everything get muddy because of it.
Ever since success of World of Warcraft we have seen that making a "MMO" was the buzzword of the past 5 year for publishers to try and make money. Almost all failed very hard. Now in the past year it was very noticeable a trend away from MMO and now "e-sports" seems the new buzzword. Following the success stories of Starcraft2 and much more that of League of Legends. Many many titles pop up and try to milk the cash cows (players and spectators).
Do the participants in the so called esports industry notice this trend too? If yes, how do they plan to approach and handle the incoming swarm of possible titles?
-- Since this is day time i wont be able to watch from work, looking forward to some enlightening thoughts though. More important though is that the big guns get together for once and have some better knowing each others.
Talking about whether an international governing body would be a good idea. I would think it would be, but it would need minimal control at the moment.
On September 21 2012 17:56 TOCHMY wrote: At work atm, can't watch. Anything interesting being said?
some... alex said some cool stuff about marketing and who owns the rights to do what... for example can a venue decide whats on the table or what players wear... and how a governing body would help with these decisions...
the korean guy is hard to understand... he's said that it would be difficult because everything is dependent on each nation I think...
Good point on F1. They are very strict about who can do what. FOM are very protective of their rights, and a body like that in eSports would be far too harmful.
Currently discussing the pros/cons of having a shared e-sport body of regulation/goverment
Tournaments, generally thinks it's too early and thinks it will limit the innovation and freedom of league/tournament companies.
Alex Garfield stepping up, and telling the league-owners, that it's very unclear for teams what rights they have sending their players to tournaments - What can they show on camera in terms of sponsors compared if they happen to conflict with league sponsors etc - Just randomly saw Kennigit chime in on Twitter, that teams even struggle to get viewership numbers off of tournament arrangers; somethat that is absoloutely vital to the teams product.
On September 21 2012 18:05 ELA wrote: Just randomly saw Kennigit chime in on Twitter, that teams even struggle to get viewership numbers off of tournament arrangers; somethat that is absoloutely vital to the teams product.
This is so true, its a nightmare for people a position like mine within teams who have to report to higher ups on events. "you just spent $2500 sending this player to this event, what exposure did it get us" Most of the time I have to take a complete guess as to the viewer ship. It is extremely damaging to team/sponsor relationships because you are either forced to estimate and run the risk of being really wrong, or you say the truth in which they go "what was the point then?"
mmm this is a bit disappointing so far... alex is by far the best speaker here... or at least the one who seems to have done the most homework... everyone else is either too nervous or just not prepared... Tomas(?- I think) is alright too...
the sound is apalling sometimes... almost unwatchable with all the wubs and high pitched static...
On September 21 2012 18:10 meeple wrote: mmm this is a bit disappointing so far... alex is by far the best speaker here... or at least the one who seems to have done the most homework... everyone else is either too nervous or just not prepared... Tomas(?- I think) is alright too...
the sound is apalling sometimes... almost unwatchable with all the wubs and high pitched static...
Glad this is being put on though...
More panels after so hopefully it keeps getting better.
On September 21 2012 18:16 Gamegene wrote: lol alex garfield is relatively overdressed, but tries to tone it down with his shoes zzz.
this is stimulating but i'm slightly dissapointed to hear them talk about developers and not have Dustin Browder in to give him 2 cents.
Dustin Browder is a game designer and would be completely misplaced - The argument/point that a potential governing body should be revolve around a publisher, is a product of this discussion
As a games developer that's really interested in this, I would like to see those that help make the games be part of any body that is formed, if one is.
On September 21 2012 18:21 Laryleprakon wrote: From Carmac "Also, don't look at an esports federation. A SC2 federation, LoL federation, DotA 2 federation = more realistic."
You really need a publisher to be involved int this to actually have teeth if people don't follow the rules.
Game based federations are flawed imo because I strongly feel esports titles will always be limited by a shelf life.
Fundamentally I think what is likely to happen is that players stick within a genre where skill sets are similar, but move from title to title as we have with bw/war3 -> Sc2, players moving through the dota/hon/lol/dota2 spectrum, people moving between the different FPS etc.
A big thing about having a federation is also the map pool. Having an organisation able to impose a map pool to everybody is huge since it allow to make changes and having them followed by everybody, instead of the current situation of "well since everybody uses the same map, we are going to use the same ones" which leads to the stagnating map pool that we have currently, which contributes to the current stale metagame.
A federation regrouping the big tournaments could introduce new maps way easier than the current system.
On September 21 2012 18:27 BobMcJohnson wrote: A big thing about having a federation is also the map pool. Having an organisation able to impose a map pool to everybody is huge since it allow to make changes and having them followed by everybody, instead of the current situation of "well since everybody uses the same map, we are going to use the same ones" which leads to the stagnating map pool that we have currently, which contributes to the current stale metagame.
A federation regrouping the big tournaments could introduce new maps way easier than the current system.
Your thinking way to small imo, map pool is something smaller a players union could handle also no way to change maps for lol/dota.
On September 21 2012 18:27 BobMcJohnson wrote: A big thing about having a federation is also the map pool. Having an organisation able to impose a map pool to everybody is huge since it allow to make changes and having them followed by everybody, instead of the current situation of "well since everybody uses the same map, we are going to use the same ones" which leads to the stagnating map pool that we have currently, which contributes to the current stale metagame.
A federation regrouping the big tournaments could introduce new maps way easier than the current system.
The problem is that Blizzard pretty much monopolises the map pool with everyone playing on the ladder. I feel that the WCS has actually stagnated the map development scene as it has become the de facto map pool of choice for this entire year.
On September 21 2012 18:27 BobMcJohnson wrote: A big thing about having a federation is also the map pool. Having an organisation able to impose a map pool to everybody is huge since it allow to make changes and having them followed by everybody, instead of the current situation of "well since everybody uses the same map, we are going to use the same ones" which leads to the stagnating map pool that we have currently, which contributes to the current stale metagame.
A federation regrouping the big tournaments could introduce new maps way easier than the current system.
The problem is that Blizzard pretty much monopolises the map pool with everyone playing on the ladder. I feel that the WCS has actually stagnated the map development scene as it has become the de facto map pool of choice for this entire year.
Yes but having most of the tournaments using only non-ladder maps would force Blizzard to move, just like it did when GSL played with barely any ladder maps and Blizzard had to add Tal'darim.
I think the IESF-guy says some... Well, interesting things that sounds nice. Problem is, he's way too macro compared to the other panelists. Everyone but him, seems to think that the first step is to agree on small points where all benefit, whereas he wants to implement this big and somewhat 'done' model on both teams and organizers.
Redeye is a bad host... and here's why; Takes up too much time from the panelists, doesn't distribute questions or time evenly between the panelists, interrupts the panelists with new questions while they are answering the old ones and doesn't address those who have been siting quiet work a while with their perspective. I felt sorry for some of the attendees and turned off the stream.
On September 21 2012 18:34 archonOOid wrote: Redeye is a bad host... and here's why; Takes up too much time from the panelists, doesn't distribute questions or time evenly between the panelists, interrupts the panelists with new questions while they are answering the old ones and doesn't address those who have been siting quiet work a while with their perspective. I felt sorry for some of the attendees and turned off the stream.
Na, Redeye is a solid host. Some of the panelists literally had nothing to add during certain segments and all of the panelists were losing track of the topic at hand. It's his job to steer them, and I think he did a good job at that.
On September 21 2012 18:16 Gamegene wrote: lol alex garfield is relatively overdressed, but tries to tone it down with his shoes zzz.
this is stimulating but i'm slightly dissapointed to hear them talk about developers and not have Dustin Browder in to give him 2 cents.
What could Dustin really say? He is in no position to make any calls on such an organisation. Hell if it happened he properly wouldn't even know it before it happened.
Only thing which Dustin has any "power" over is the balance of the game. He might have some information about what Blizzard is trying to do with the eSports part of the game, but I think people will be disappointed in what he could bring..
On September 21 2012 18:34 archonOOid wrote: Redeye is a bad host... and here's why; Takes up too much time from the panelists, doesn't distribute questions or time evenly between the panelists, interrupts the panelists with new questions while they are answering the old ones and doesn't address those who have been siting quiet work a while with their perspective. I felt sorry for some of the attendees and turned off the stream.
On September 21 2012 18:16 Gamegene wrote: lol alex garfield is relatively overdressed, but tries to tone it down with his shoes zzz.
this is stimulating but i'm slightly dissapointed to hear them talk about developers and not have Dustin Browder in to give him 2 cents.
What could Dustin really say? He is in no position to make any calls on such an organisation. Hell if it happened he properly wouldn't even know it before it happened.
Eh, I'd just like some sort of Blizzard/publisher representation
On September 21 2012 18:34 archonOOid wrote: Redeye is a bad host... and here's why; Takes up too much time from the panelists, doesn't distribute questions or time evenly between the panelists, interrupts the panelists with new questions while they are answering the old ones and doesn't address those who have been siting quiet work a while with their perspective. I felt sorry for some of the attendees and turned off the stream.
The point of a host is to interrupt people when the answers they are giving aren't going anywhere. It keeps the discussion going.
On September 21 2012 18:16 Gamegene wrote: lol alex garfield is relatively overdressed, but tries to tone it down with his shoes zzz.
this is stimulating but i'm slightly dissapointed to hear them talk about developers and not have Dustin Browder in to give him 2 cents.
What could Dustin really say? He is in no position to make any calls on such an organisation. Hell if it happened he properly wouldn't even know it before it happened.
Eh, I'd just like some sort of Blizzard/publisher representation
This true, there should be a publisher on it. But if they should be represented on the panel, they should also be in a position where they can say things and not just say nice words. Which I think many publishers would mostly do because they haven't really thought about such a scenario.
On September 21 2012 18:16 Gamegene wrote: lol alex garfield is relatively overdressed, but tries to tone it down with his shoes zzz.
this is stimulating but i'm slightly dissapointed to hear them talk about developers and not have Dustin Browder in to give him 2 cents.
What could Dustin really say? He is in no position to make any calls on such an organisation. Hell if it happened he properly wouldn't even know it before it happened.
Eh, I'd just like some sort of Blizzard/publisher representation
This true, there should be a publisher on it. But if they should be represented on the panel, they should also be in a position where they can say things and not just say nice words. Which I think many publishers would mostly do because they haven't really thought about such a scenario.
And they probably wont think about such a scenario without a governing body or at least the makings of such in view.
On September 21 2012 18:27 BobMcJohnson wrote: A big thing about having a federation is also the map pool. Having an organisation able to impose a map pool to everybody is huge since it allow to make changes and having them followed by everybody, instead of the current situation of "well since everybody uses the same map, we are going to use the same ones" which leads to the stagnating map pool that we have currently, which contributes to the current stale metagame.
A federation regrouping the big tournaments could introduce new maps way easier than the current system.
The problem is that Blizzard pretty much monopolises the map pool with everyone playing on the ladder. I feel that the WCS has actually stagnated the map development scene as it has become the de facto map pool of choice for this entire year.
Yes but having most of the tournaments using only non-ladder maps would force Blizzard to move, just like it did when GSL played with barely any ladder maps and Blizzard had to add Tal'darim.
They were never forced to add taldarim, they did it out of free will.
On September 21 2012 18:16 Gamegene wrote: lol alex garfield is relatively overdressed, but tries to tone it down with his shoes zzz.
this is stimulating but i'm slightly dissapointed to hear them talk about developers and not have Dustin Browder in to give him 2 cents.
What could Dustin really say? He is in no position to make any calls on such an organisation. Hell if it happened he properly wouldn't even know it before it happened.
Eh, I'd just like some sort of Blizzard/publisher representation
This true, there should be a publisher on it. But if they should be represented on the panel, they should also be in a position where they can say things and not just say nice words. Which I think many publishers would mostly do because they haven't really thought about such a scenario.
well that's probably why some of the bigger fish denied the invitations.
On September 21 2012 18:16 Gamegene wrote: lol alex garfield is relatively overdressed, but tries to tone it down with his shoes zzz.
this is stimulating but i'm slightly dissapointed to hear them talk about developers and not have Dustin Browder in to give him 2 cents.
What could Dustin really say? He is in no position to make any calls on such an organisation. Hell if it happened he properly wouldn't even know it before it happened.
Eh, I'd just like some sort of Blizzard/publisher representation
This true, there should be a publisher on it. But if they should be represented on the panel, they should also be in a position where they can say things and not just say nice words. Which I think many publishers would mostly do because they haven't really thought about such a scenario.
Also the people in those positions are normally incredibly busy, someone like Mike Moham for Blizzard I doubt would have been free with a Wow expansion out next week, maybe they asked riot/vavle and they declined.
On September 21 2012 18:16 Gamegene wrote: lol alex garfield is relatively overdressed, but tries to tone it down with his shoes zzz.
this is stimulating but i'm slightly dissapointed to hear them talk about developers and not have Dustin Browder in to give him 2 cents.
What could Dustin really say? He is in no position to make any calls on such an organisation. Hell if it happened he properly wouldn't even know it before it happened.
Eh, I'd just like some sort of Blizzard/publisher representation
This true, there should be a publisher on it. But if they should be represented on the panel, they should also be in a position where they can say things and not just say nice words. Which I think many publishers would mostly do because they haven't really thought about such a scenario.
Also the people in those positions are normally incredibly busy, someone like Mike Moham for Blizzard I doubt would have been free with a Wow expansion out next week, maybe they asked riot/vavle and they declined.
still maybe have someone like rob simpson or some of their lesser fries, and just have them briefed on the companies official positions.
On September 21 2012 18:16 Gamegene wrote: lol alex garfield is relatively overdressed, but tries to tone it down with his shoes zzz.
this is stimulating but i'm slightly dissapointed to hear them talk about developers and not have Dustin Browder in to give him 2 cents.
What could Dustin really say? He is in no position to make any calls on such an organisation. Hell if it happened he properly wouldn't even know it before it happened.
Eh, I'd just like some sort of Blizzard/publisher representation
This true, there should be a publisher on it. But if they should be represented on the panel, they should also be in a position where they can say things and not just say nice words. Which I think many publishers would mostly do because they haven't really thought about such a scenario.
And they probably wont think about such a scenario without a governing body or at least the makings of such in view.
Also, people are forgetting the publisher angle on this - Are publishers really the best suited for a governing body? They would constantly want to push their new title, and not necessarily embody the best interests of a 3-4 year old game which is an e-sports title, putting alot of effort into a title that you or I may not be interested in.
I like the idea of publisher involvement, but I think that a governing body dominated by a publisher, can actually do more harm to a community than good.
On September 21 2012 18:16 Gamegene wrote: lol alex garfield is relatively overdressed, but tries to tone it down with his shoes zzz.
this is stimulating but i'm slightly dissapointed to hear them talk about developers and not have Dustin Browder in to give him 2 cents.
What could Dustin really say? He is in no position to make any calls on such an organisation. Hell if it happened he properly wouldn't even know it before it happened.
Eh, I'd just like some sort of Blizzard/publisher representation
This true, there should be a publisher on it. But if they should be represented on the panel, they should also be in a position where they can say things and not just say nice words. Which I think many publishers would mostly do because they haven't really thought about such a scenario.
Dustin will be on the panel, 3rd panel topic, "Game developers and esports, how they have embraced the concept and changed their games accordingigly.
Please check the website that is listed on page 1 of this thread for the schedule and topics covered. Because some of people only appear on certain panel topics.
On September 21 2012 18:16 Gamegene wrote: lol alex garfield is relatively overdressed, but tries to tone it down with his shoes zzz.
this is stimulating but i'm slightly dissapointed to hear them talk about developers and not have Dustin Browder in to give him 2 cents.
What could Dustin really say? He is in no position to make any calls on such an organisation. Hell if it happened he properly wouldn't even know it before it happened.
Eh, I'd just like some sort of Blizzard/publisher representation
This true, there should be a publisher on it. But if they should be represented on the panel, they should also be in a position where they can say things and not just say nice words. Which I think many publishers would mostly do because they haven't really thought about such a scenario.
And they probably wont think about such a scenario without a governing body or at least the makings of such in view.
Also, people are forgetting the publisher angle on this - Are publishers really the best suited for a governing body? They would constantly want to push their new title, and not necessarily embody the best interests of a 3-4 year old game which is an e-sports title, putting alot of effort into a title that you or I may not be interested in.
I like the idea of publisher involvement, but I think that a governing body dominated by a publisher, can actually do more harm to a community than good.
I honestly feel like the first step in a joint effort towards a governing body would be some sort of external online ladder with representatives from each significant tournament having a say in how it is ran, as well as pro/team feedback/support. Basically an ICCUP, but on a bigger scale and with tournament/representative support to act as incentive. This ladder would also be a better and easier way of introducing new maps, amateur players, rules, regulations, etc... finding a common ground between all the different entities to lay the groundwork before they jump into something feet first.
On September 21 2012 18:39 JunkkaGom wrote: can anyone summarize what happened and what each person think?
people will likely need to add to this but:
Russel: Against a governing body initially because he beleived that esports should be a open style organization... but said that there were some good aspects of it... generally non-commitive... talked about making sure the motives of such an ogarnization were true to the development of esports...
Won: Not totally sure... I think he's against it... he's mentioned that there will be difficulties making it function as an international identity...
Alex: For it... basically... he said that eventually it will be a financial body who can handle and simplify transactions but at this stage it would be a very softcore version of what it would end up being... also states that he thinks it can't evolve from something that already exists and will need to come about from an outsider perspective...
Tomas: I don't know... he barely said anything during the entire segment and I missed his initial minute...
David: He's mentioned letting economics and profitability naturally develop a structure and made that the basis of his argument...
On September 21 2012 18:16 Gamegene wrote: lol alex garfield is relatively overdressed, but tries to tone it down with his shoes zzz.
this is stimulating but i'm slightly dissapointed to hear them talk about developers and not have Dustin Browder in to give him 2 cents.
What could Dustin really say? He is in no position to make any calls on such an organisation. Hell if it happened he properly wouldn't even know it before it happened.
Eh, I'd just like some sort of Blizzard/publisher representation
This true, there should be a publisher on it. But if they should be represented on the panel, they should also be in a position where they can say things and not just say nice words. Which I think many publishers would mostly do because they haven't really thought about such a scenario.
Dustin will be on the panel, 3rd panel topic, "Game developers and esports, how they have embraced the concept and changed their games accordingigly.
Please check the website that is listed on page 1 of this thread for the schedule and topics covered. Because some of people only appear on certain panel topics.
Yes he is on a panel where he makes sense. There he has the position to say: "We thought about eSports so we built in an awesome spectator mode". Something where eSports might have changed their priority on features, and as the game designer he was the one making the calls based on what the Blizzard execs wanted.
But this is not what I am discussing with the government body. So please read the whole discussion.
A Rob Simpson would properly be okay. Atleast he is in a position where they know something about the stance on esports from the company and hopefully is in a position where they can give ideas to the execs about non-in-game development of eSports.
I think the Korean guy touched on something interesting when discussing the international olympic commity. In my naive, humble opinion, they seem to be looking in the wrong direction when looking for something to model a federation/governing body over. FIFA, NFL, etc are all centred around a single sport. It's near impossible to emulate such a structure for esports as there are numerous titles with unique requirements. I think the governing body would have to be centred around the same kind of model as the IOC, with individual commities for each game, applying to be a sub-element of the main commity. The game would have to adear to the main commities standards and rules (although tailored to the specific game), to be accepted and it would be the job of the main commity to give reason to the game publisher to become a sub-element of the commity. There is just too much variety for there to be a single governing body like a FIFA. I have no idea how tournaments and leagues would fit into such a commity though.
That's my uninformed opinion, just from watching that panel though. It's an incredibly hard question, as shown in the panel, as they made very little progress. I think Alex Garfield made the best comments though, in trying to just establish something, however small it is.
On September 21 2012 18:39 JunkkaGom wrote: can anyone summarize what happened and what each person think?
There was also some debate over the best possible structure for an organisation based on pre-existing sports in the west. There was a comparison between American style franchises, state funding, European football and the tennis/golf model.
I honestly think the tennis/golf model is what we should be moving towards with around 4 major events each year that are considered much more important than the rest. The events themselves would be organised by their own organisations so we'd have one MLG, one Dreamhack, the Blizzard WCS and say the NASL or IPL. Other large events would of course be there but the number of top tier events per year needs to remain low in order to not ti diminish their individual importance.
On September 21 2012 19:35 tyner wrote: ugh the sound quality is terrible. clipping all over the place. anyone know who's who? the big guy is odee right?
from left to right:
Sam Matthews - Fnatic Goran Hellgren - Telia Sonera Christopher Mitchell - Razer Matthieu Dallon - ESWC Michael O'dell - Dignitas
On September 21 2012 19:32 Anomek wrote: What's happening..., what's happening... ?
What Raleigh-incidident with Odee? How could I miss any drama?!
And thanks to everyone LRing event
Dignitas Dota2 LoL team was involved in coluding in the finals match along with the team Curse and was as consequence, disquallified and the prizemoney of the Dota2 finals was distributed to 3-5th place.
Now discussing sponsors and the need to find sponsors out of the hardware/gaming peripheral branches.
Telia, which is a large ISP in scandinavia and has alot of different branches into different products not broadband related, thinks that the demographic that e-sport attracts, is very relevant to almost all kinds of companies. From this point, it's just a matter of educating these companies in Esports and convince them that it's a legit thing.
EDIT: Not Dota 2-team, but League of Legends, thank you Asha'
On September 21 2012 19:35 tyner wrote: ugh the sound quality is terrible. clipping all over the place. anyone know who's who? the big guy is odee right?
from left to right:
Sam Matthews - Fnatic Goran Hellgren - Telia Sonera Christopher Mitchell - Razer Matthieu Dallon - ESWC Michael O'dell - Dignitas
On September 21 2012 19:32 Anomek wrote: What's happening..., what's happening... ?
What Raleigh-incidident with Odee? How could I miss any drama?!
And thanks to everyone LRing event
Dignitas Dota2 team was involved in coluding in the finals match along with the team Curse and was as consequence, disquallified and the prizemoney of the Dota2 finals was distributed to 3-5th place.
Now discussing sponsors and the need to find sponsors out of the hardware/gaming peripheral branches.
Telia, which is a large ISP in scandinavia and has alot of different branches into different products not broadband related, thinks that the demographic that e-sport attracts, is very relevant to almost all kinds of companies. From this point, it's just a matter of educating these companies in Esports and convince them that it's a legit thing.
Topic has now shifted from sponsorships, into the need of a governing body to simplify the introduction of new sponsors, as the Telia representative noted, that it's not an easy/obvious path for sponsors to get into esports compared to other sports etc. with the current setup.
Don't think any conclusion would result from this. Foreign teams or players would never want to be ruled or represented by any organization or union. Each foreign team is there with only one goal in mind, which is to generate profit. They would never let an organization or union threaten them. The last thing any employer or corporation wants is to have a union represent their own employees like esport organizations in Korea. The reason SlayerS never wanted to join any organization is because they want to rule their players. Jessica is one tough and thick-skinned business woman in order to make that decision. Imagining there's a gentlemen's agreement among foreign teams like Korean teams did; don't think that would ever happen. Foreign teams are always loose and single minded. Also, foreign players would never like to follow a code of conduct created by an organization. There's just too much immaturity going around among foreing players. No organization would be able to tie them down.
Believe it or not, you need iron fist authority like Kespa in order to have a long term and professional scene.
Complexity, on the topic of a governing body for players/leagues, mentions that a player disquallified for drugtaking, collusion etc. from a tournament, should be banned from all tournaments - Again, throwing Odee under the bus abit.
EDIT: RedeYe now taking twitter question with #VEC - First mentioned, compliments the fact that Odee is dressed like a Snooker-player (lol)
On September 21 2012 19:51 Laryleprakon wrote: I really dislike teams taking some prize money from teams, salaries should be based on the ROI from sponsors imo.
Well thats how it works in all team sports. You think the players from Barca get the prize money for winning the Champions league? Nope they get a salary plus bonuses, just like in any team sport.
Nothing wrong with the teams getting a large percentage of prize money. For example most of them pay more salary then they will get back in prize money.
On September 21 2012 19:51 Laryleprakon wrote: I really dislike teams taking some prize money from teams, salaries should be based on the ROI from sponsors imo.
Well thats how it works in all team sports. You think the players from Barca get the prize money for winning the Champions league? Nope they get a salary plus bonuses, just like in any team sport.
Nothing wrong with the teams getting a large percentage of prize money. For example most of them pay more salary then they will get back in prize money.
Maybe if you have a lot of incentives in your contracts for winning but EG has stated they don't take any prize money from players and they also pay the highest salaries, maybe they are insanely lucky or are just better than everyone else.
I think both ways are fine I just dislike taking prize money and relying more on teams finding sponsors.
A) Wish there was more audience watching these panels - these are amazing! B) Better questions C) Host: He's not very good at getting answers out of panelists, maybe phrase question better? Or think of ways to get some of the quieter panelists to talk? :D D) Prepared script for both panelist and hosts - this could include pre-determined questions (Not sure, maybe they already had a script) E) More interaction between the panelists themselves. F) Longer event, these people flew out all the way there to get only 1 panel? Should have at least 2 sessions for each and mix it up! :D (Maybe im greedy and just want more panels.)
Of course this was already a great event, first of its kind, it will only get better. Thanks for the efforts in making this event possible.
On September 21 2012 19:51 Laryleprakon wrote: I really dislike teams taking some prize money from teams, salaries should be based on the ROI from sponsors imo.
Well thats how it works in all team sports. You think the players from Barca get the prize money for winning the Champions league? Nope they get a salary plus bonuses, just like in any team sport.
Nothing wrong with the teams getting a large percentage of prize money. For example most of them pay more salary then they will get back in prize money.
The problem is not teams taking the prize money, but how much they take in correlation to how much they give. If a player is given $1000/month but believes he can make more than $12 000 in a year from prize money then it's certainly not a fair deal. And this is the most common concern among players and why they don't want teams to take the prize money.
Then there is also how much a player feels he is contributing and how much effort he put into winning that money. Playing and representing the team full time is doing a lot for just $1000/month and the prize money is often seen as a bonus or as a reward. When teams are able to give out proper salaries then we will be able to have a proper discussion regarding how much prize money should be given etc.
However, I also like the idea of tournaments spending more of the prize money on travel costs as it will help teams pay more salaries. It's the same thing as teams taking % of the prize money, but in a more fair way and it is easier for players to control where the money ends up. It sure is a tricky situation, but as esport grows things will get better and give better conditions to all parts involved.
On September 21 2012 20:08 kellymilkies wrote: A) Wish there was more audience watching these panels - these are amazing! B) Better questions C) Host: He's not very good at getting answers out of panelists, maybe phrase question better? Or think of ways to get some of the quieter panelists to talk? :D D) Prepared script for both panelist and hosts - this could include pre-determined questions (Not sure, maybe they already had a script) E) More interaction between the panelists themselves. F) Longer event, these people flew out all the way there to get only 1 panel? Should have at least 2 sessions for each and mix it up! :D (Maybe im greedy and just want more panels.)
Of course this was already a great event, first of its kind, it will only get better. Thanks for the efforts in making this event possible.
I agree. It's a great event so far and I'm excited to see the third panel.
I think point C has a lot to do with technical issues (and some language barriers - hosts always seem to have issues with language barriers). I do think RedEye is doing a good job overall.
On September 21 2012 20:08 kellymilkies wrote: A) Wish there was more audience watching these panels - these are amazing! B) Better questions C) Host: He's not very good at getting answers out of panelists, maybe phrase question better? Or think of ways to get some of the quieter panelists to talk? :D D) Prepared script for both panelist and hosts - this could include pre-determined questions (Not sure, maybe they already had a script) E) More interaction between the panelists themselves. F) Longer event, these people flew out all the way there to get only 1 panel? Should have at least 2 sessions for each and mix it up! :D (Maybe im greedy and just want more panels.)
Of course this was already a great event, first of its kind, it will only get better. Thanks for the efforts in making this event possible.
Dreamhack/Twitch, who took the initiative to this event, stated that the goal of this happening, is not the panels, but to actually get the different parties involved with each other and start talking - The panels are a side-thing.. The objective is to get these people involved, the panels are a side effect and as so, is kept relatively short. Pre-determined questions are killers of open discussion, RedeYe is taking the discussion in the direction he thinks is relevant based on what people are saying, within the constraints of the duration of each session - which he does a pretty decent job at imo.
On September 21 2012 19:51 Laryleprakon wrote: I really dislike teams taking some prize money from teams, salaries should be based on the ROI from sponsors imo.
Well thats how it works in all team sports. You think the players from Barca get the prize money for winning the Champions league? Nope they get a salary plus bonuses, just like in any team sport.
Nothing wrong with the teams getting a large percentage of prize money. For example most of them pay more salary then they will get back in prize money.
Maybe if you have a lot of incentives in your contracts for winning but EG has stated they don't take any prize money from players and they also pay the highest salaries, maybe they are insanely lucky or are just better than everyone else.
I think both ways are fine I just dislike taking prize money and relying more on teams finding sponsors.
Think of it this way: If a player wins, what about the other players on his team that helped him practice? Without the team the player is nothing.
On September 21 2012 19:51 Laryleprakon wrote: I really dislike teams taking some prize money from teams, salaries should be based on the ROI from sponsors imo.
Well thats how it works in all team sports. You think the players from Barca get the prize money for winning the Champions league? Nope they get a salary plus bonuses, just like in any team sport.
Nothing wrong with the teams getting a large percentage of prize money. For example most of them pay more salary then they will get back in prize money.
first you got to pay the players well before you consider taxing actual prize money and distributing it among the team.
The only reason that works for football is because the players from barca each make into the millions per player . The amount of money they make just in salary alone is not even comparable to some prize money tournaments give out to players for esport events. Even if stephano wins every tournament from now on, It still does not compare to any Big football player club transfer fees, You hear of guys making 50 million in thier contract.
Thats such a poor example you try to make.
I think its a really bad idea to actually tax the winners and distribute it among the team, until great salaries are paid out this should never be the case.
a team's ROI usually comes from its strongest player helping to get sponsors for the team thus lesser players that would not have gotten sponsors originally get them . Thats all that should be expected of them.
Lets say I was stephano and was told my prize money would have to be evenly distributed among EG players.
Id say fuck this team, and self sponsor myself or just leave the scene entirely . If i was as good as stephano, i'd pay for flight and travel to the tournaments i know i got atleast a high chance of placing in some prize money, and not bother about any team.
On September 21 2012 19:51 Laryleprakon wrote: I really dislike teams taking some prize money from teams, salaries should be based on the ROI from sponsors imo.
Well thats how it works in all team sports. You think the players from Barca get the prize money for winning the Champions league? Nope they get a salary plus bonuses, just like in any team sport.
Nothing wrong with the teams getting a large percentage of prize money. For example most of them pay more salary then they will get back in prize money.
Maybe if you have a lot of incentives in your contracts for winning but EG has stated they don't take any prize money from players and they also pay the highest salaries, maybe they are insanely lucky or are just better than everyone else.
I think both ways are fine I just dislike taking prize money and relying more on teams finding sponsors.
Think of it this way: If a player wins, what about the other players on his team that helped him practice? Without the team the player is nothing.
Good point, a lot of players do say they practice exclusively on ladder tho (Huk/Taeja to name a few)
As I said I don't mind which option teams use I just like the EG/Liquid(I think) model more.
Is there any real 1v1 sports which have teams, tennis/golf/boxing etc all are just individuals, I'm probably missing some but it's late =P
On September 21 2012 19:51 Laryleprakon wrote: I really dislike teams taking some prize money from teams, salaries should be based on the ROI from sponsors imo.
Well thats how it works in all team sports. You think the players from Barca get the prize money for winning the Champions league? Nope they get a salary plus bonuses, just like in any team sport.
Nothing wrong with the teams getting a large percentage of prize money. For example most of them pay more salary then they will get back in prize money.
Maybe if you have a lot of incentives in your contracts for winning but EG has stated they don't take any prize money from players and they also pay the highest salaries, maybe they are insanely lucky or are just better than everyone else.
I think both ways are fine I just dislike taking prize money and relying more on teams finding sponsors.
Think of it this way: If a player wins, what about the other players on his team that helped him practice? Without the team the player is nothing.
Good point, a lot of players do say they practice exclusively on ladder tho (Huk/Taeja to name a few)
As I said I don't mind which option teams use I just like the EG/Liquid(I think) model more.
Is there any real 1v1 sports which have teams, tennis/golf/boxing etc all are just individuals, I'm probably missing some but it's late =P
Of course there are, take table tennis for example, or maybe a more prominent sport, boxing. In boxing you are a member of a club, or a team if you want. Table tennis you often play in team leagues, but you also have individual tournaments where you represent your team and sponsors. Not sure you actually know how the liquid model work... As most contracts are closed to public I wouldn't really trust what people say, so much is just speculations...
On September 21 2012 19:51 Laryleprakon wrote: I really dislike teams taking some prize money from teams, salaries should be based on the ROI from sponsors imo.
Well thats how it works in all team sports. You think the players from Barca get the prize money for winning the Champions league? Nope they get a salary plus bonuses, just like in any team sport.
Nothing wrong with the teams getting a large percentage of prize money. For example most of them pay more salary then they will get back in prize money.
Maybe if you have a lot of incentives in your contracts for winning but EG has stated they don't take any prize money from players and they also pay the highest salaries, maybe they are insanely lucky or are just better than everyone else.
I think both ways are fine I just dislike taking prize money and relying more on teams finding sponsors.
Think of it this way: If a player wins, what about the other players on his team that helped him practice? Without the team the player is nothing.
Rarely does a pro play practice specifically with his team members. A team can earn money through team events, sponsors, teaching their players how to market the team, etc.. not by reaching into the fucking pockets of its players. that's just wrong.
On September 21 2012 20:08 kellymilkies wrote: A) Wish there was more audience watching these panels - these are amazing! B) Better questions C) Host: He's not very good at getting answers out of panelists, maybe phrase question better? Or think of ways to get some of the quieter panelists to talk? :D D) Prepared script for both panelist and hosts - this could include pre-determined questions (Not sure, maybe they already had a script) E) More interaction between the panelists themselves. F) Longer event, these people flew out all the way there to get only 1 panel? Should have at least 2 sessions for each and mix it up! :D (Maybe im greedy and just want more panels.)
Of course this was already a great event, first of its kind, it will only get better. Thanks for the efforts in making this event possible.
Dreamhack/Twitch, who took the initiative to this event, stated that the goal of this happening, is not the panels, but to actually get the different parties involved with each other and start talking - The panels are a side-thing.. The objective is to get these people involved, the panels are a side effect and as so, is kept relatively short. Pre-determined questions are killers of open discussion, RedeYe is taking the discussion in the direction he thinks is relevant based on what people are saying, within the constraints of the duration of each session - which he does a pretty decent job at imo.
Yes, the point was more about getting everyone in the same place. they might not be interacting much at the panel, but they certainly will be outside the panel. The panels were more of a "well, let's show the public who all is here and get the public to see some of their thoughts about where the people controlling esports think it's going as a bonus" deal.
ReDeYe does a good job of directing things.
My only complaint is for the sound. There are obviously not enough sound guys out there experienced with providing quality streaming. Instead of micing the room/pa they should feed the channels from the mics directly down to stereo into the computer, it would sound much better and would avoid all the reverb which can make people difficult to hear/understand.
RedeYe to Dustin Browder: "Why not just make Starcraft 2 multiplayer, free to play?"
Dustin Browder: "Well, we could do that, but then we could end up in a situation where I end up in a game against you, and I have more units than you do because I bought the game"
- Heh, I guess Blizzard is far away from making Starcraft multiplayer free2play
paraphasing 'BW is a very successful esport, even to this day, and i hope its successful for years to come'
except blizzard has made active efforts to switch people from BW to SC2 so they can make some money off it, due to sales and more control of the IP. no one gonna challenge the speakers on stuff like this?
On September 21 2012 22:33 turdburgler wrote: paraphasing 'BW is a very successful esport, even to this day, and i hope its successful for years to come'
except blizzard has made active efforts to switch people from BW to SC2 so they can make some money off it, due to sales and more control of the IP. no one gonna challenge the speakers on stuff like this?
The people designing the game (Browder) and the people marketing it / trying to make money out of it (upper management usually) aren't the same and they don't have the same priorities. I'm glad that the panel-debate didn't boil down to the "OMG y u kill BW OSL?" level, because this is nothing that Browder himself did or has anything to say about. He just decides which type of destructible rock is the best to add for playability.
On September 21 2012 22:33 turdburgler wrote: paraphasing 'BW is a very successful esport, even to this day, and i hope its successful for years to come'
except blizzard has made active efforts to switch people from BW to SC2 so they can make some money off it, due to sales and more control of the IP. no one gonna challenge the speakers on stuff like this?
The people designing the game (Browder) and the people marketing it / trying to make money out of it (upper management usually) aren't the same and they don't have the same priorities. I'm glad that the panel-debate didn't boil down to the "OMG y u kill BW OSL?" level, because this is nothing that Browder himself did or has anything to say about. He just decides which type of destructible rock is the best to add for playability.
if hes going to represent his company then he needs to be prepared to answer questions on every topic without reverting to marketing drivel. i couldnt care less about watching a 90 minute infomercial on esports. i had hoped that they would be prepared to actually debate their decisions and choices rather than advertise their games.
Dustin Browder: 'In Broodwar the community made maps to balance the game without patches" RedeYe: "So what you are saying is that SC2 needs anti zerg maps"
On September 21 2012 22:43 Highways wrote: Dustin Browder: 'In Broodwar the community made maps to balance the game without patches" RedeYe: "So what you are saying is that SC2 needs anti zerg maps"
On September 21 2012 22:43 Highways wrote: Dustin Browder: 'In Broodwar the community made maps to balance the game without patches" RedeYe: "So what you are saying is that SC2 needs anti zerg maps"
Well Antiga is like the most balanced map atm sooooo
On September 21 2012 22:43 Highways wrote: Dustin Browder: 'In Broodwar the community made maps to balance the game without patches" RedeYe: "So what you are saying is that SC2 needs anti zerg maps"
On September 21 2012 22:32 Boonbag wrote: dustin bowder is pretty bad
as usual
why?
most of his points have been good and he manages to be concise when he makes them which keeps discussion flowing.
but his points get nowhere hes just having his speech marketing talk is void
edit: they should've invited the guy blogging about coding sc1
Why would they invite a code monkey to discuss e-Sports? That's like inviting a zamboni driver to the CBA negotiations.
Boonbag miscalculated his words. The "guy blogging about coding sc1" is essentially the main game designer of SC1 and the equivalent of David Kim/Dustin Browder for SCII
Na'Vi guy is taking the discussion waaay off on a macro level every time.. Sure he has some interesting thoughts, but they are not really relevant to this discussion I feel
On September 21 2012 22:58 Musicus wrote: Did they talk about f2p/very cheap against full prize yet? Wheter Dustin thinks sc2 can grow their fanbase without making it free?
They mentioned it and I believe he said that they've been thinking about it
On September 21 2012 22:58 Musicus wrote: Did they talk about f2p/very cheap against full prize yet? Wheter Dustin thinks sc2 can grow their fanbase without making it free?
They did ask Carmac's "question" about Free multiplayer for SC2 in the future.
ELA wrote this few pages back. Don't know if it was word to word, i missed most of the question.
RedeYe to Dustin Browder: "Why not just make Starcraft 2 multiplayer, free to play?"
Dustin Browder: "Well, we could do that, but then we could end up in a situation where I end up in a game against you, and I have more units than you do because I bought the game"
On September 21 2012 22:58 Musicus wrote: Did they talk about f2p/very cheap against full prize yet? Wheter Dustin thinks sc2 can grow their fanbase without making it free?
They did ask Carmac's "question" about Free multiplayer for SC2 in the future.
ELA wrote this few pages back. Don't know if it was word to word, i missed most of the question.
RedeYe to Dustin Browder: "Why not just make Starcraft 2 multiplayer, free to play?"
Dustin Browder: "Well, we could do that, but then we could end up in a situation where I end up in a game against you, and I have more units than you do because I bought the game"
Thanks a lot. They could sell tons of stuff that doesn't affect the balance... skins, portraits or single player bonus missions for example. I hope they make it free some time, I wouldn't mind that I had to pay for it, more people playing the game is what sc needs imo.
On September 21 2012 22:58 Musicus wrote: Did they talk about f2p/very cheap against full prize yet? Wheter Dustin thinks sc2 can grow their fanbase without making it free?
They did ask Carmac's "question" about Free multiplayer for SC2 in the future.
ELA wrote this few pages back. Don't know if it was word to word, i missed most of the question.
RedeYe to Dustin Browder: "Why not just make Starcraft 2 multiplayer, free to play?"
Dustin Browder: "Well, we could do that, but then we could end up in a situation where I end up in a game against you, and I have more units than you do because I bought the game"
So basicly they are have trouble finding a way to make money from, SC2 can't offer what the other games have like items, gear, better exp etc. So I beleive SC2 won't be free in the near future unless they find something they can make money from.
I don't understand this panel, it's all fluff, and it is set up to be. There is basically only one side represented, the developer side, and there will never come any interesting discussions out of it. Don't get me wrong, I never expected them to actually come to any conclusions, but no one there will voice any differing opinions. It is just Redeye asking "How great is your company at promoting esports?". Even the subject sounds more like a presentation than a question to discuss.
I would have liked to see maybe a representantive or two from the player/team side who is actually involved in some of the games these guys represent, and even someone from the outside, perhaps someone who is more into business. There just aren't any tensions between these guys, no one who comes even with a slightly uncomfortable reply.
On September 21 2012 22:58 Musicus wrote: Did they talk about f2p/very cheap against full prize yet? Wheter Dustin thinks sc2 can grow their fanbase without making it free?
They did ask Carmac's "question" about Free multiplayer for SC2 in the future.
ELA wrote this few pages back. Don't know if it was word to word, i missed most of the question.
RedeYe to Dustin Browder: "Why not just make Starcraft 2 multiplayer, free to play?"
Dustin Browder: "Well, we could do that, but then we could end up in a situation where I end up in a game against you, and I have more units than you do because I bought the game"
Thanks a lot. They could sell tons of stuff that doesn't affect the balance... skins, portraits or single player bonus missions for example. I hope they make it free some time, I wouldn't mind that I had to pay for it, more people playing the game is what sc needs imo.
I would watch the VOD, he did say more than just that.
On September 21 2012 22:32 Boonbag wrote: dustin bowder is pretty bad
as usual
why?
most of his points have been good and he manages to be concise when he makes them which keeps discussion flowing.
but his points get nowhere hes just having his speech marketing talk is void
edit: they should've invited the guy blogging about coding sc1
Why would they invite a code monkey to discuss e-Sports? That's like inviting a zamboni driver to the CBA negotiations.
Boonbag miscalculated his words. The "guy blogging about coding sc1" is essentially the main game designer of SC1 and the equivalent of David Kim/Dustin Browder for SCII
Just to be clear, we're talking about Patrick Wyatt, formerly Vice President of Research and Development and a senior programmer at Blizzard, right?
So, "essentially" Patrick Wyatt was not a game designer, but hey, making shit up to prove a point is fun, right?
On September 21 2012 23:06 Appendix wrote: I don't understand this panel, it's all fluff, and it is set up to be. There is basically only one side represented, the developer side, and there will never come any interesting discussions out of it. Don't get me wrong, I never expected them to actually come to any conclusions, but no one there will voice any differing opinions. It is just Redeye asking "How great is your company at promoting esports?". Even the subject sounds more like a presentation than a question to discuss.
I would have liked to see maybe a representantive or two from the player/team side who is actually involved in some of the games these guys represent, and even someone from the outside, perhaps someone who is more into business. There just aren't any tensions between these guys, no one who comes even with a slightly uncomfortable reply.
Lol everyone looks uncomfortable except for our man Browder.
On September 21 2012 23:06 Appendix wrote: I don't understand this panel, it's all fluff, and it is set up to be. There is basically only one side represented, the developer side, and there will never come any interesting discussions out of it. Don't get me wrong, I never expected them to actually come to any conclusions, but no one there will voice any differing opinions. It is just Redeye asking "How great is your company at promoting esports?". Even the subject sounds more like a presentation than a question to discuss.
I would have liked to see maybe a representantive or two from the player/team side who is actually involved in some of the games these guys represent, and even someone from the outside, perhaps someone who is more into business. There just aren't any tensions between these guys, no one who comes even with a slightly uncomfortable reply.
Get IdrA up there with a tire iron. That'll liven things up.
On September 21 2012 22:58 Musicus wrote: Did they talk about f2p/very cheap against full prize yet? Wheter Dustin thinks sc2 can grow their fanbase without making it free?
They did ask Carmac's "question" about Free multiplayer for SC2 in the future.
ELA wrote this few pages back. Don't know if it was word to word, i missed most of the question.
RedeYe to Dustin Browder: "Why not just make Starcraft 2 multiplayer, free to play?"
Dustin Browder: "Well, we could do that, but then we could end up in a situation where I end up in a game against you, and I have more units than you do because I bought the game"
So basicly they are have trouble finding a way to make money from, SC2 can't offer what the other games have like items, gear, better exp etc. So I beleive SC2 won't be free in the near future unless they find something they can make money from.
We still don't have capes for banelings. There is still money to be made!
On September 21 2012 23:06 Appendix wrote: I don't understand this panel, it's all fluff, and it is set up to be. There is basically only one side represented, the developer side, and there will never come any interesting discussions out of it. Don't get me wrong, I never expected them to actually come to any conclusions, but no one there will voice any differing opinions. It is just Redeye asking "How great is your company at promoting esports?". Even the subject sounds more like a presentation than a question to discuss.
I would have liked to see maybe a representantive or two from the player/team side who is actually involved in some of the games these guys represent, and even someone from the outside, perhaps someone who is more into business. There just aren't any tensions between these guys, no one who comes even with a slightly uncomfortable reply.
Have to agree.
What they really need is to get Blizzard to sit down with the team owners, organizers and associations to unify everything.
This is just panels for every competitive game on the market.
Very similar to the other panels we've seen before.
It's nice to have different folks meet together, but this isn't the Summit I was asking for.
I feel the topic for his panel was never going to be much more than a lot of fluff, still fun but it would have been awesome to have Riot/Valve there as well.
Ubisoft guy seems really switched on tho, might check out his game sometime.
Why isn't Nazgul there? you'd say the founder and owner of both of Team Liquid and teamliquid.net is pretty infuential. Furthermore he seems like someone that could definately contribute to the discussion
On September 21 2012 23:15 LakseWim wrote: Why isn't Nazgul there? you'd say the founder and owner of both of Team Liquid and teamliquid.net is pretty infuential. Furthermore he seems like someone that could definately contribute to the discussion
Teamliquid wasn't invited, according to Kennigit twitter.
On September 21 2012 23:15 LakseWim wrote: Why isn't Nazgul there? you'd say the founder and owner of both of Team Liquid and teamliquid.net is pretty infuential. Furthermore he seems like someone that could definately contribute to the discussion
Because he properly declined to come. I've shamefully taken this from reddit on a question on why Riot and Valve isn't there, but I applies to why a person like Nazgul is not there:
This is a first time thing, and since we're doing this more out of passion of eSports and not because we have another million dollar to spend, we have to limit the number of participants. Alot of important people is missing. This is the first round of people we present and additional people will follow. It's also a open Congress where everyone can take part, you, Valve and RIOT. We will not disclose what companies or organisation we have invited directly. We just hope that this is the start of something that will bring people together and make eSports bigger in the long run.
Have they said anything important yet? This seems no different than a Dustin Browder interview with 4 other idiots occasionally talking about irrelevant stuff
On September 21 2012 23:18 floor exercise wrote: Have they said anything important yet? This seems no different than a Dustin Browder interview with 4 other idiots occasionally talking about irrelevant stuff
On September 21 2012 23:18 floor exercise wrote: Have they said anything important yet? This seems no different than a Dustin Browder interview with 4 other idiots occasionally talking about irrelevant stuff
On September 21 2012 23:15 LakseWim wrote: Why isn't Nazgul there? you'd say the founder and owner of both of Team Liquid and teamliquid.net is pretty infuential. Furthermore he seems like someone that could definately contribute to the discussion
Teamliquid wasn't invited, according to Kennigit twitter.
Well if not, then they properly wasn't invited because they are not multi-game oriented. Could see an argument for not taking organisations which aren't more multi-game. Lots of LoL teams aren't represented too if you want to discuss big eSports organisations...
On September 21 2012 23:15 LakseWim wrote: Why isn't Nazgul there? you'd say the founder and owner of both of Team Liquid and teamliquid.net is pretty infuential. Furthermore he seems like someone that could definately contribute to the discussion
Teamliquid wasn't invited, according to Kennigit twitter.
In other words, they failed to send in an "application" to participate. I guess you could skew that into "not invited".
On September 21 2012 23:15 LakseWim wrote: Why isn't Nazgul there? you'd say the founder and owner of both of Team Liquid and teamliquid.net is pretty infuential. Furthermore he seems like someone that could definately contribute to the discussion
Teamliquid wasn't invited, according to Kennigit twitter.
Well if not, then they properly wasn't invited because they are not multi-game oriented. Could see an argument for not taking organisations which aren't more multi-game. Lots of LoL teams aren't represented too if you want to discuss big eSports organisations...
On September 21 2012 23:15 LakseWim wrote: Why isn't Nazgul there? you'd say the founder and owner of both of Team Liquid and teamliquid.net is pretty infuential. Furthermore he seems like someone that could definately contribute to the discussion
Teamliquid wasn't invited, according to Kennigit twitter.
Well if not, then they properly wasn't invited because they are not multi-game oriented. Could see an argument for not taking organisations which aren't more multi-game. Lots of LoL teams aren't represented too if you want to discuss big eSports organisations...
there is official coverage for 3 titles, and decent user coverage for like 5-6 others? thats more variation than the whole panel combined.
On September 21 2012 22:58 Musicus wrote: Did they talk about f2p/very cheap against full prize yet? Wheter Dustin thinks sc2 can grow their fanbase without making it free?
They did ask Carmac's "question" about Free multiplayer for SC2 in the future.
ELA wrote this few pages back. Don't know if it was word to word, i missed most of the question.
RedeYe to Dustin Browder: "Why not just make Starcraft 2 multiplayer, free to play?"
Dustin Browder: "Well, we could do that, but then we could end up in a situation where I end up in a game against you, and I have more units than you do because I bought the game"
So basicly they are have trouble finding a way to make money from, SC2 can't offer what the other games have like items, gear, better exp etc. So I beleive SC2 won't be free in the near future unless they find something they can make money from.
I don't know how realistic it would be, but can't Blizzard find a better way to monetize the tournament scene (charge higher fee for license/concentrate on merchandising).
Granted the last WCG EU generated great viewership, but how long can SC2 sustain a high viewership to small playerbase ratio? I feel that not adapting to the F2P market is going to hit Blizzard really hard soon. Unless HOTS somehow recaptures the magic/luck of BW's gameplay and balance, SC2 needs to expand the scene. Going F2P will bring in China and we all saw what they did in terms of viewership with TI2 and several years of WC3.
On September 21 2012 22:58 Musicus wrote: Did they talk about f2p/very cheap against full prize yet? Wheter Dustin thinks sc2 can grow their fanbase without making it free?
They did ask Carmac's "question" about Free multiplayer for SC2 in the future.
ELA wrote this few pages back. Don't know if it was word to word, i missed most of the question.
RedeYe to Dustin Browder: "Why not just make Starcraft 2 multiplayer, free to play?"
Dustin Browder: "Well, we could do that, but then we could end up in a situation where I end up in a game against you, and I have more units than you do because I bought the game"
So basicly they are have trouble finding a way to make money from, SC2 can't offer what the other games have like items, gear, better exp etc. So I beleive SC2 won't be free in the near future unless they find something they can make money from.
I don't know how realistic it would be, but can't Blizzard find a better way to monetize the tournament scene (charge higher fee for license/concentrate on merchandising).
Granted the last WCG EU generated great viewership, but how long can SC2 sustain a high viewership to small playerbase ratio? I feel that not adapting to the F2P market is going to hit Blizzard really hard soon. Unless HOTS somehow recaptures the magic/luck of BW's gameplay and balance, SC2 needs to expand the scene. Going F2P will bring in China and we all saw what they did in terms of viewership with TI2 and several years of WC3.
how many people that watch nfl, nba, mlb etc actively play?
On September 21 2012 23:15 LakseWim wrote: Why isn't Nazgul there? you'd say the founder and owner of both of Team Liquid and teamliquid.net is pretty infuential. Furthermore he seems like someone that could definately contribute to the discussion
Teamliquid wasn't invited, according to Kennigit twitter.
Well if you read the OP you had to send them a letter saying why you should be there. ._.
Team managers, event organizers and journalists are encouraged to apply to participate in the event. Interested parties should send an abbreviated resume and an explanation of why they should be part of the Congress using the contact form provided on our web site. We also have 250 seats in the Auditorium where you can attend to see the panel’s live. Tickets are currently available while supply lasts.
In reality every big shot should have received an invite.
Then again, this is for all games and the reality is we need a Summit for SC2 alone to try and tie up all the loose ends.
On September 21 2012 23:15 LakseWim wrote: Why isn't Nazgul there? you'd say the founder and owner of both of Team Liquid and teamliquid.net is pretty infuential. Furthermore he seems like someone that could definately contribute to the discussion
Teamliquid wasn't invited, according to Kennigit twitter.
Well if you read the OP you had to send them a letter saying why you should be there. ._.
On September 21 2012 23:21 AlternativeEgo wrote: Next up @VLCeSportsCon: 17:00 - Kevin Lin (Twitch) Joakim Sandberg (SVT) Simon Whitcombe (CBSi) Mark Reed (Heaven Media) Stuart Saw (Own3D)
SVT is Swedish Television
Yes I think the two upcoming ones will be much more interesting, especially the last one. Robert will not disappoint.
Also, what is Heaven Media?
Edit: wow there was actually some real discussion in this panel
On September 21 2012 23:25 Laryleprakon wrote: Dustin mentioning ways to add sponsors into maps makes me happy!
You guys want this? I thought it was a bad idea
Really? I think it's quite interesting, and Im sure that there are ways to do it, so that it isn't invasive on the viewer or the player. Why do you think it's a bad idea?
On September 21 2012 22:58 Musicus wrote: Did they talk about f2p/very cheap against full prize yet? Wheter Dustin thinks sc2 can grow their fanbase without making it free?
They did ask Carmac's "question" about Free multiplayer for SC2 in the future.
ELA wrote this few pages back. Don't know if it was word to word, i missed most of the question.
RedeYe to Dustin Browder: "Why not just make Starcraft 2 multiplayer, free to play?"
Dustin Browder: "Well, we could do that, but then we could end up in a situation where I end up in a game against you, and I have more units than you do because I bought the game"
So basicly they are have trouble finding a way to make money from, SC2 can't offer what the other games have like items, gear, better exp etc. So I beleive SC2 won't be free in the near future unless they find something they can make money from.
I don't know how realistic it would be, but can't Blizzard find a better way to monetize the tournament scene (charge higher fee for license/concentrate on merchandising).
Granted the last WCG EU generated great viewership, but how long can SC2 sustain a high viewership to small playerbase ratio? I feel that not adapting to the F2P market is going to hit Blizzard really hard soon. Unless HOTS somehow recaptures the magic/luck of BW's gameplay and balance, SC2 needs to expand the scene. Going F2P will bring in China and we all saw what they did in terms of viewership with TI2 and several years of WC3.
how many people that watch nfl, nba, mlb etc actively play?
High viewership:small playerbase for an esport game. That's relative to DoTA and LoL.
A comparison with the major sports is not really relevant unless you envision SC2 lasting several decades and new technology cycles.
On September 21 2012 23:25 Laryleprakon wrote: Dustin mentioning ways to add sponsors into maps makes me happy!
You guys want this? I thought it was a bad idea
Why would it be bad?
Too intrusive imo. Maybe on the loading screen is okay.
Not more instrusive than the tons of banner and commercials already in the game for fun. I think done right it's pretty cool. Like logo's and buildings without making it hard to see what it is and such...
It happens in every sport, be it events advertising around the court or teams advertising on their gear, but the digital medium largely removes those kinds of external factors making a significant decrease in exposure for sponsors right now.
Valve managed to put banners into the game without causing too much distraction and I think sc2 can easily do the same
Paul: Why not make SC2 free to play? And multiplayer surely is the smaller element of the game. Most people play it for the single player, they'll pay the money to buy the game in the first place. Why not just make the multiplayer part of it free to play?
Dustin: It's definitely an option for us at some point down the road to make that decision. I think we'd want to make it when we knew we weren't going to do any damage to our ecosystem. I can imagine scenarios where, you know, I go to play a game on battle.net and I think I'm having a good time with you and then it turns out you have only half the units because that's what you bought. And while it might be a little bit fun for me to beat you down when you don't have access to some of the toys that you should have...
Paul: That might give me a chance of beating you.
Dustin: Yeah, I don't know if that would really be that much fun, right? Like we could certainly do that. We could obviously offer, you know, the races individually for a fee, the whole race at once. And that might be the way for us to go down the road. I don't think there's any reason why we wouldn't except we want to make sure we do it properly, we don't make any mistakes and that we, you know, are supporting the fans the way we're supposed to.
On September 21 2012 23:51 Zer atai wrote: so sad that Nazgul isn't there
Why? TL Pro is a one game organization right now (not that I don't think he'd have interesting viewpoints on things, just that this has a broader span than TL Pros current focus)
I do think a panel on esports reporting might have been interesting in which case a TL rep would have been cool, but it's more of a side issue to the bigger themes of todays talks.
On September 21 2012 23:51 Zer atai wrote: so sad that Nazgul isn't there
I'm more sad about Carmac missing this for unfortunate reasons than missing Teamliquid/Nazgul due own fault, if you will.
Carmac totally got screwed. :\ If anyone ever watched real talk with him he wasn't gonna go because of IEM, but then it got canceled due to the whole China Japan over island dispute.
ideal situation: free to play multiplayer will come with LAN. this should trigger immense growth in esports where Blizzard can also receive big $$ by collecting revenue from tournament organisation like GSL, as well as from broadcasting such as twitch.
This panel is pretty good - Everyone seems to get it. Almost wish they would start disagreeing on something soon so that you could say "Alright, we got that sorted"
On September 22 2012 00:19 ThePlayer33 wrote: ideal situation: free to play multiplayer will come with LAN. this should trigger immense growth in esports where Blizzard can also receive big $$ by collecting revenue from tournament organisation like GSL, as well as from broadcasting such as twitch.
On September 22 2012 00:45 AlternativeEgo wrote: They paint a very positive picture for the future. It's really encouraging to hear.
yup, it has been great!
(meanwhile as they preach the benefits of free content, it seems mlg announce the whole MvP invitational thing is ppv only >_<)
It's ok you won't have to face palm every time TDA is played.
I really hope some of the awesome players that have had little to no results do think about switching to casting for Hots, there really isn't a massive pool of talent imo.
To watch, purchase your pass now to access five weeks of insane competition in up to 1080p, hosted, commentated and analyzed by Nick “Axslav” Ranish and Alex “Axeltoss” Rodriguez. Plus, you will get exclusive access to VOD.
On September 22 2012 00:55 Grettin wrote: Unless you haven't watched Real Talk with Carmac, i suggest to do so. Great insight, great opinions and great real talk overall.
On September 22 2012 00:55 Grettin wrote: Unless you haven't watched Real Talk with Carmac, i suggest to do so. Great insight, great opinions and great real talk overall.
I felt the Windows 8 question wasn't correctly answered by Dustin Browder, like he talked about that everyone has predicted the death of the PC for years..etc but he didn't really say about the viability of Windows 8 as a gaming platform. As well as that I found it really funny that he said PC is an open platform when it really isn't. Its interesting how Valve are porting their stuff to Linux as a way to not be reliant on the Windows platform, id love to see what Blizzard are thinking about in this particular area.
On September 22 2012 01:05 FlukyS wrote: I felt the Windows 8 question wasn't correctly answered by Dustin Browder, like he talked about that everyone has predicted the death of the PC for years..etc but he didn't really say about the viability of Windows 8 as a gaming platform. As well as that I found it really funny that he said PC is an open platform when it really isn't. Its interesting how Valve are porting their stuff to Linux as a way to not be reliant on the Windows platform, id love to see what Blizzard are thinking about in this particular area.
I love the discussion though.
Open platform : everyone and their dog can make a game on the platform without any trouble of royalities and stuff. PC is about as open as you can get...
On September 22 2012 01:09 Bojas wrote: Anyone else getting a really annoying static background noise? Did they hire the infamous NASL sound guy for this congres?
How about unifying all the big tournaments together and creating one world circuit?
It would be a start.
I like this idea. Create a "FIFA" and have a true world tour. I think it would really help the growth. Problem is ofcourse the grass roots movement will get kind of destroyed.
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
This has been a brilliant event. Especially the current panel, there's been a lot of very interesting back and forth. Many thanks to DreamHack and all else involved in putting this together! Also, Redeye is the man!
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
Thats why they the TV broadcasters wants and need the esports crowd they cant really get them. Its pretty exciting
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
the rose ball stat was really impressive and a more accurate analogy. The yankee game not so much.. The yankees play what like 172 games a year or so? And the numbers for a major event that takes place 2-3 times a year had similar numbers to REGIONAL numbers of a Yankee game, the yankees sure are popular!
How about unifying all the big tournaments together and creating one world circuit?
It would be a start.
didn't they said at the start that there is a lot of different business models actually going on right now, and they pretty much all work as well as the others, it will take time before a real "winner" comes out so they need this competition between the organization to establish the future of esport
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
LOL
You realize that US television viewership numers are still generated mostly by ratings (Gallup-like polls for different demographics and multiplied to the population that owns a television set) as opposed to online viewership can be directly measured, down to exact geographic location and demographicaly?
Yeah, sure - TV viewership is much more accurate than online media
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
LOL
You realize that US television viewership numers are still generated mostly by ratings (Gallup-like polls for different demographics and multiplied to the population that owns a television set) as opposed to online viewership can be directly measured, down to exact geographic location and demographical...
And yet still the estimation from TV viewers is more accurate than the "everytime someone opens the stream you get a viewers, even if he immediately goes away" system that most livestream sites uses.
I mean just go to the twitch.tv page the some stream will autoplay, and they get a new unique viewers. Even when you wants to watch something completely different. The Estimation is way more correct than that.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
I think we can safely assume that the people buying ads on MLG and other leagues demand accurate numbers and are always on the look out for "cooked" viewer amounts. CBSi has been selling ads on the internet for years and they would not back MLG if their numbers were crap.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
You also have to take that statistic a little further. The Rose Bowl isn't the draw (for the 18-24 yom) market that it once was. Overall, it still (probably) gets more overall viewers (females of all age and males over 24). Also, NA (US) advertisers will probably care that the Rose Bowl will (probably) get more 18-24yom viewers in their geographic region.
...and stream seems to have cut out for a few seconds again (half of the viewers lost instantly).
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
Hmm I think TV is measured by following a few people and extrapolating by statistics, while twitch can measure the real number.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
LOL
You realize that US television viewership numers are still generated mostly by ratings (Gallup-like polls for different demographics and multiplied to the population that owns a television set) as opposed to online viewership can be directly measured, down to exact geographic location and demographicaly?
Yeah, sure - TV viewership is much more accurate than online media
Its why the viewership of PBS and NPR is always through the roof, even though their real viewship is much lower.. Everyone wants to claim they listen and watch the "smart" tv and radio.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
I think we can safely assume that the people buying ads on MLG and other leagues demand accurate numbers and are always on the look out for "cooked" viewer amounts. CBSi has been selling ads on the internet for years and they would not back MLG if their numbers were crap.
It is not that their numbers are crap, it is just that it completely senseless to compare TV viewers to the model that twitch/mlg uses.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
I think we can safely assume that the people buying ads on MLG and other leagues demand accurate numbers and are always on the look out for "cooked" viewer amounts. CBSi has been selling ads on the internet for years and they would not back MLG if their numbers were crap.
It is not that their numbers are crap, it is just that it completely senseless to compare TV viewers to the model that twitch/mlg uses.
Then why did you just post that their numbers were crap?
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
LOL
You realize that US television viewership numers are still generated mostly by ratings (Gallup-like polls for different demographics and multiplied to the population that owns a television set) as opposed to online viewership can be directly measured, down to exact geographic location and demographical...
And yet still the estimation from TV viewers is more accurate than the "everytime someone opens the stream you get a viewers, even if he immediately goes away" system that most livestream sites uses.
I mean just go to the twitch.tv page the some stream will autoplay, and they get a new unique viewers. Even when you wants to watch something completely different. The Estimation is way more correct than that.
How about unifying all the big tournaments together and creating one world circuit?
It would be a start.
didn't they said at the start that there is a lot of different business models actually going on right now, and they pretty much all work as well as the others, it will take time before a real "winner" comes out so they need this competition between the organization to establish the future of esport
hopefully dreamhack model wins
That's the thing, tying it altogether is much stronger. All the organizers would benefit under the model I have in mind. If they really want to make more money this is the way to go. It would be far more legit and all of them would get to host tour dates.
It fits right into their system and this would help raise their numbers.
The real hardship is more on the teams and players.
oh man the stream is unwatchable..... even at 480p it stops every 15s (no it's not my internet). volume is super low. Overall it seems pretty interesting but watched like this it's PAINFULL
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
I think we can safely assume that the people buying ads on MLG and other leagues demand accurate numbers and are always on the look out for "cooked" viewer amounts. CBSi has been selling ads on the internet for years and they would not back MLG if their numbers were crap.
It is not that their numbers are crap, it is just that it completely senseless to compare TV viewers to the model that twitch/mlg uses.
Then why did you just post that their numbers were crap?
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
GG
I didn't mean that their numbers where crap, I meant that that entire "unique viewer" thing is crap.
On September 22 2012 01:27 Castigo wrote: oh man the stream is unwatchable..... even at 480p it stops every 15s (no it's not my internet). volume is super low. Overall it seems pretty interesting but watched like this it's PAINFULL
Stream's fine here (720p) after some hiccups few mins back. Volume has been a problem, but its been more stable this panel than earlier today.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
LOL
You realize that US television viewership numers are still generated mostly by ratings (Gallup-like polls for different demographics and multiplied to the population that owns a television set) as opposed to online viewership can be directly measured, down to exact geographic location and demographical...
And yet still the estimation from TV viewers is more accurate than the "everytime someone opens the stream you get a viewers, even if he immediately goes away" system that most livestream sites uses.
I mean just go to the twitch.tv page the some stream will autoplay, and they get a new unique viewers. Even when you wants to watch something completely different. The Estimation is way more correct than that.
How can an estimation be "way more correct than that"?
Because dreamhack had how many streams? 20?
they had atleast 2 starcraft streams. And pretty much every person who wanted to watch starcraft2, had both of the streams open at one point. This alone means that one real viewers, gets counted twice. Also the events runs over 3 days, and everyday every viewers gets recounted. That is simply not accurate.
Moreover, just go to twitch.tv mainpage, you will immediately add an unique viewers to one random stream, that you may not even care about.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
I think we can safely assume that the people buying ads on MLG and other leagues demand accurate numbers and are always on the look out for "cooked" viewer amounts. CBSi has been selling ads on the internet for years and they would not back MLG if their numbers were crap.
It is not that their numbers are crap, it is just that it completely senseless to compare TV viewers to the model that twitch/mlg uses.
Then why did you just post that their numbers were crap?
On September 22 2012 01:14 Yoshi- wrote:
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
GG
I didn't mean that their numbers where crap, I meant that that entire "unique viewer" thing is crap.
You mean the term that the industry, which you clearly do not understand, uses to say "the most accurate representation we can provide that the connection to our stream is a real person watching the stream"? What term would you like them to use? Or have you back yourself into a corner on this one?
On September 22 2012 01:27 Castigo wrote: oh man the stream is unwatchable..... even at 480p it stops every 15s (no it's not my internet). volume is super low. Overall it seems pretty interesting but watched like this it's PAINFULL
Stream's fine here (720p) after some hiccups few mins back. Volume has been a problem, but its been more stable this panel than earlier today.
Try pop the stream out.
Didn't make any difference (i'm on a 40mbit connection, just tested, so again, not my connection)
On September 08 2012 04:25 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't think anything significant will be accomplished by the discussions. I think more could be accomplished by having private discussions, which I assume these folks already have when necessary.
edit: This is my polite way of saying that this event is a big "hey look at us"
I still think talks like these are worth having, considering e-sports should be publicized and continued to be brought to the attention of everyone (so that it can become more normalized and ingrained in our culture)... and they're doing a pretty good job of talking about the things that need to be done to make progress (in all aspects of the community, from the individual player and team to the leagues and streams and big businesses involved). Private discussions are surely good too, but they won't get as much attention in the outside world, and so these types of announcements and gatherings are good from time to time.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
I think we can safely assume that the people buying ads on MLG and other leagues demand accurate numbers and are always on the look out for "cooked" viewer amounts. CBSi has been selling ads on the internet for years and they would not back MLG if their numbers were crap.
It is not that their numbers are crap, it is just that it completely senseless to compare TV viewers to the model that twitch/mlg uses.
Then why did you just post that their numbers were crap?
On September 22 2012 01:14 Yoshi- wrote:
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
GG
I didn't mean that their numbers where crap, I meant that that entire "unique viewer" thing is crap.
You mean the term that the industry, which you clearly do not understand, uses to say "the most accurate representation we can provide that the connection to our stream is a real person watching the stream"? What term would you like them to use? Or have you back yourself into a corner on this one?
Just because it is may the most accurate thing that is possible, it doesn't mean that it is good, or well it is good when you want to compare different streams using the same system, but not when you compare those numbers to numbers generated on a completely different way.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
LOL
You realize that US television viewership numers are still generated mostly by ratings (Gallup-like polls for different demographics and multiplied to the population that owns a television set) as opposed to online viewership can be directly measured, down to exact geographic location and demographical...
And yet still the estimation from TV viewers is more accurate than the "everytime someone opens the stream you get a viewers, even if he immediately goes away" system that most livestream sites uses.
I mean just go to the twitch.tv page the some stream will autoplay, and they get a new unique viewers. Even when you wants to watch something completely different. The Estimation is way more correct than that.
How can an estimation be "way more correct than that"?
Because dreamhack had how many streams? 20?
they had atleast 2 starcraft streams. And pretty much every person who wanted to watch starcraft2, had both of the streams open at one point. This alone means that one real viewers, gets counted twice. Also the events runs over 3 days, and everyday every viewers gets recounted. That is simply not accurate.
Moreover, just go to twitch.tv mainpage, you will immediately add an unique viewers to one random stream, that you may not even care about.
You have no ability to back up any of those claims. You don't think they have the ability to detect when the same ISP is connected to both streams. The people selling ads to twitch and MLG are going to be looking out for things like that and they are far better at spotting cooked numbers than you will ever be.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
I think we can safely assume that the people buying ads on MLG and other leagues demand accurate numbers and are always on the look out for "cooked" viewer amounts. CBSi has been selling ads on the internet for years and they would not back MLG if their numbers were crap.
It is not that their numbers are crap, it is just that it completely senseless to compare TV viewers to the model that twitch/mlg uses.
Then why did you just post that their numbers were crap?
On September 22 2012 01:14 Yoshi- wrote:
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
GG
I didn't mean that their numbers where crap, I meant that that entire "unique viewer" thing is crap.
You mean the term that the industry, which you clearly do not understand, uses to say "the most accurate representation we can provide that the connection to our stream is a real person watching the stream"? What term would you like them to use? Or have you back yourself into a corner on this one?
Just because it is may the most accurate thing that is possible, it doesn't mean that it is good. Especially when you start comparing those numbers to different numbers that are generated on a completely different way, the full thing gets ridiculous
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You are basicly claiming that the numbers are inaccurate they are not based on going into people's houses and confirming they are watching MLG or Dreamhack.
On September 22 2012 01:20 WarrickHunt wrote: ITS CALLED FOOTBALL NOT SOCCER, and hes ment to be British -.-
Why is it necessary for some British person to bring this up every single time it's mentioned? You guys are seriously the only country who actually cares what it's called for some silly reason. Everyone knows what's being talked about regardless.
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
LOL
You realize that US television viewership numers are still generated mostly by ratings (Gallup-like polls for different demographics and multiplied to the population that owns a television set) as opposed to online viewership can be directly measured, down to exact geographic location and demographical...
And yet still the estimation from TV viewers is more accurate than the "everytime someone opens the stream you get a viewers, even if he immediately goes away" system that most livestream sites uses.
I mean just go to the twitch.tv page the some stream will autoplay, and they get a new unique viewers. Even when you wants to watch something completely different. The Estimation is way more correct than that.
How can an estimation be "way more correct than that"?
Because dreamhack had how many streams? 20?
they had atleast 2 starcraft streams. And pretty much every person who wanted to watch starcraft2, had both of the streams open at one point. This alone means that one real viewers, gets counted twice. Also the events runs over 3 days, and everyday every viewers gets recounted. That is simply not accurate.
Moreover, just go to twitch.tv mainpage, you will immediately add an unique viewers to one random stream, that you may not even care about.
Yeah I see the multiple stream-watcher issue, but on the other side that means multiple revenue/add-watcher (not sure how to express) so that is still legit numbers when it comes to selling numbers to the commercial market I think. You are watching two channels at the same time, not one channel twice.
And still you can get the exact numbers for everything, it's just that they like to whip the biggest one around. ^^
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
The thing is, the tv numbers are actually accurate, the "unique viewers" that things like twitch/mlg generate are just crap that has in the end no real relation to the reality.
LOL
You realize that US television viewership numers are still generated mostly by ratings (Gallup-like polls for different demographics and multiplied to the population that owns a television set) as opposed to online viewership can be directly measured, down to exact geographic location and demographical...
And yet still the estimation from TV viewers is more accurate than the "everytime someone opens the stream you get a viewers, even if he immediately goes away" system that most livestream sites uses.
I mean just go to the twitch.tv page the some stream will autoplay, and they get a new unique viewers. Even when you wants to watch something completely different. The Estimation is way more correct than that.
How can an estimation be "way more correct than that"?
Because dreamhack had how many streams? 20?
they had atleast 2 starcraft streams. And pretty much every person who wanted to watch starcraft2, had both of the streams open at one point. This alone means that one real viewers, gets counted twice. Also the events runs over 3 days, and everyday every viewers gets recounted. That is simply not accurate.
Moreover, just go to twitch.tv mainpage, you will immediately add an unique viewers to one random stream, that you may not even care about.
Yeah I see the multiple stream-watcher issue, but on the other side that means multiple revenue/add-watcher (not sure how to express) so that is still legit numbers when it comes to selling numbers to the commercial market I think. You are watching two channels at the same time, not one channel twice.
And still you can get the exact numbers for everything, it's just that they like to whip the biggest one around. ^^
Yes that is exactly my point and i was never talking about add-revenue, it is just that everyone should realize that the numbers from twitch to numbers from real TV are two completely different things and shouldn't be compared. For the same reason why that infographic where MLG compared their viewers number to the size of some football(or something like that) stadium is also senseless. You can't compare that.
Kevan and ellirc, are you watching directly on twitch or on TL? I watch via TL and it has been a pretty smooth ride for me so far. Don't know if that should make a difference but it seems a bit strange since we're from the same region.
On September 22 2012 01:57 AlternativeEgo wrote: Kevan and ellirc, are you watching directly on twitch or on TL? I watch via TL and it has been a pretty smooth ride for me so far. Don't know if that should make a difference but it seems a bit strange since we're from the same region.
Doesn't make any difference at all. I have a Mac, a Win7 PC and an Android smartphone. Lags on all devices no matter where I watch it(including all resolutions). That includes the worthless Twitch app on Android.
On September 22 2012 01:57 AlternativeEgo wrote: Kevan and ellirc, are you watching directly on twitch or on TL? I watch via TL and it has been a pretty smooth ride for me so far. Don't know if that should make a difference but it seems a bit strange since we're from the same region.
Doesn't make any difference at all. I have a Mac, a Win7 PC and an Android smartphone. Lags on all devices no matter where I watch it. That includes the worthless Twitch app on Android.
Stragely, going to 720p+ (Native resoloution) solved it for me.. Didn't have a single studder since I changed to that
"they will do what they always do. they will all make some hippie peace love togetherness statement with no binding agreement and/or no way to punish breaking of the agreement. then slowly 1 by 1 organisations will deviate from the agreement, first using excuses like "realities of the situation" or "we believe this will also grow esports" or whatever. then people will stop even refering to any agreement because they know its meaningless you know... the same thing that happens every time"
On September 22 2012 01:57 AlternativeEgo wrote: Kevan and ellirc, are you watching directly on twitch or on TL? I watch via TL and it has been a pretty smooth ride for me so far. Don't know if that should make a difference but it seems a bit strange since we're from the same region.
Doesn't make any difference at all. I have a Mac, a Win7 PC and an Android smartphone. Lags on all devices no matter where I watch it(including all resolutions). That includes the worthless Twitch app on Android.
Yep lags on my desktop PC and laptop, all resolutions, embedded or not. 100/10 Mbit connection should be enough for 240p atleast but I guess it has to do with the routing where you live and Twitch's servers.
On September 22 2012 01:57 AlternativeEgo wrote: Kevan and ellirc, are you watching directly on twitch or on TL? I watch via TL and it has been a pretty smooth ride for me so far. Don't know if that should make a difference but it seems a bit strange since we're from the same region.
Doesn't make any difference at all. I have a Mac, a Win7 PC and an Android smartphone. Lags on all devices no matter where I watch it(including all resolutions). That includes the worthless Twitch app on Android.
Yep lags on my PC and laptop, all resolutions, embedded or not. 100/10 Mbit connection should be enough for 240p atleast but I guess it has to do with the routing where you live and Twitch's servers.
Are you located in the Skaraborg-area by chance? I'm in Skövde. Just asking because I am genuinly interested in why the fuck I am lagging with this connection. 200/50 should be enough
On September 22 2012 02:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Will there be VODs of the panels posted in this thread sometime in the near future for those of us who missed some discussions?
First 2 and the keynote was posted after they ended on the twitch tv channel. Just try to look at it....
On September 22 2012 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watching now...
More male 18-24 Americans watched MLG Anaheim than the Rose Bowl for college football? That's like... ridiculously amazing. Also, comparing a standard audience for a big SC2 event to a Yankee game... another really really cool thing to hear
Yeah but it's also total bullshit at the same time.
MLG is a 3 day event. Rosebowl is a 3 hour event. So let's divide MLGs numbers by 72 and then times that by three and see if it still wins. I doubt it.
On September 22 2012 02:08 crms wrote: this fucking camera man. if they leave the fucking camera on redeye while someone else it talking im going to fucking fly to spain and punch this guy.
that would be the director then
good lord, could someone LT this to make up for the fact that twitch can't even stream sound decently?
On September 22 2012 02:11 Legace wrote: haha, did he say "I hate Germany!" ? :D
Yeah lol he's very informal and trolling pretty hard, but at least he's making his "friend + enemy = we're all frienemies" point consistently clear lol
On September 22 2012 02:13 Massing wrote: its unwatchable due to lag
No lag/ video problems for me, even on highest resolution Only problem for me is the occasional audio blip/ whisper/ microphone hit, but it's nothing for me.
Sundance is an american. Very much so :D You can really see how he thinks differently from the others here. Of course the polarization is Robert. I love this.
World tour or masters circuit possibility? Each event contributes.
Sundance:
There's challenges to that, inter-continental competition. How do we build something bigger for everyone rather than fighitng for scraps when we're all running a business. Doesn't mean we can't find a way to collaborate though so we need to sit down and see what we can actually accomplish. Competition can be healthy, but cooperation is good too.
Still a lot of untapped potential in the market, refers to LoL viewer count vs player count and the challenges of bringing all that in while competing as organizations
lots of factors, but this kind of meeting is the first step and everyone can motivate each other to do better.
Redeye:
are there commonalities you could agree on between each other already this weekend? Standardisations in format etc?
Sundance:
Not tonight, we'll talk more etc, but this is a big first step.
Perception of the community is quite a bit different from reality in terms of civility between organizations.
Everyone wants to see esports grow, and we have to make the right choices.
We're much further along
Robert:
The power of alcohol!
Ralf:
We're talking about esports and not just one game so there's a lot of considerations
Robert:
You can have the same ruleset across each game category though?
Ralf:
Of course, but there's at least 5 categories or so already and it's not as easy as it sounds on paper.
It's good that MLG does some...relatively experimental tournament systems (laughter from all).
Robert:
Basically we're doing this for you guys (points at viewers), however we've been like islands in an ocean without really being interconnected, but now we're (sort of talking, gets cut off here)
On September 22 2012 02:16 ellirc wrote: Sundance is an american. Very much so :D You can really see how he thinks differently from the others here. Of course the polarization is Robert. I love this.
Long load in, quick load out when it comes to scheduling events which makes it hard to work around many other events. It's not easy for an esports event to just walk in and schedule a place when they want it.
Sponsors want specific days and day ranges for their advertising, things are far more restricted than they can appear on the surface.
It's a new business and trying to figure itself out, and we can share our experiences better to try and overcome some of these new challenges.
Redeye:
Do you think its worthwhile forming a tournament federation that meet regularly (once a month?) to discuss these issues
David:
yeah it sounds good
Robert:
the short answer is yes, it's just figuring out how to do it
On September 22 2012 02:16 ellirc wrote: Sundance is an american. Very much so :D You can really see how he thinks differently from the others here. Of course the polarization is Robert. I love this.
Sicillian American
I thought he was part native american or something? Or were his parents just hippies?
On September 22 2012 02:16 ellirc wrote: Sundance is an american. Very much so :D You can really see how he thinks differently from the others here. Of course the polarization is Robert. I love this.
Sicillian American
I thought he was part native american or something? Or were his parents just hippies?
On September 22 2012 02:16 ellirc wrote: Sundance is an american. Very much so :D You can really see how he thinks differently from the others here. Of course the polarization is Robert. I love this.
Sicillian American
I thought he was part native american or something? Or were his parents just hippies?
That wasn't my point anyway. Don't get me wrong, I love Sundance and MLG for what they do. But he has a very american look on things.
On September 22 2012 02:16 ellirc wrote: Sundance is an american. Very much so :D You can really see how he thinks differently from the others here. Of course the polarization is Robert. I love this.
Sicillian American
I thought he was part native american or something? Or were his parents just hippies?
Part snake part hippie iirc.
You laugh but his second knowledge bomb just dropped, while some other panelists are just making fun of each other or just answering with "we don't know". Not nearly as constructive answers.
On September 22 2012 02:16 ellirc wrote: Sundance is an american. Very much so :D You can really see how he thinks differently from the others here. Of course the polarization is Robert. I love this.
Sicillian American
I thought he was part native american or something? Or were his parents just hippies?
That wasn't my point anyway. Don't get me wrong, I love Sundance and MLG for what they do. But he has a very american look on things.
Aye, I know - I was just responding to the Sicillian American-part
Just kidding, but it's the smart thing to do financially, apparently! That's because more Americans watch Dreamhack than any other country- including Sweden
How do you get more mainstream sponsors involved in events, can you then share that knowledge with other events
Sundance
Getting sponsors has unique challenges because we're not the same as traditional sports competitions, it's key to demonstrate to main stream brands (Namedrops sponsors) how the unique delivery of esports content can be great for their market.
Important to be able to demonstrate your track record.
Ralf
Gaming is still brand new so getting a company into the mindsight of "oh we need to do something in gaming" is hard. Often times it's hard to get a decent position in marketing spending because we're still at the beginning of the esports phenomenon.
Robert
We're small, we have a small population, and our number 1 viewing figures come from the US. Really we should move the whole thing! It's important to work out how to promote what is good about a global audience. It can be hard to get people to understand the benefits of showing off on a global scale when they are used to marketing to a local audience
Redeye
Formula one has global sports because they are a global brand, should we be doing the same?
Robert
We're still in the infancy and talking about lifestyle brands, but we haven't realised ourselves that we need to be approaching bigger brands.
Redeye
How do you get those sponsors
Robert
If we join forces there's a synergistic effect, and it looks better to people from the outside looking in.
Just kidding, but it's the smart thing to do financially, apparently! That's because more Americans watch Dreamhack than any other country- including Sweden
Well yeah, but every country should try their best to foster growth in their own country. : )
Just kidding, but it's the smart thing to do financially, apparently! That's because more Americans watch Dreamhack than any other country- including Sweden
Well yeah, but every country should try their best to foster growth in their own country. : )
Sure, especially to normalize e-sports in their culture And on a global scale too ^^
* missed some stuff, sorry. Mostly the same track as before regarding*
Ralf:
Sundance doing a good job with doctor pepper in NA = great for people looking to do the same in Europe, there's a big marketing span and you then have comparisons to other succesful ventures.
redeye:
asks mathieu about government support
Matthieu:
answers and I miss it
David:
part of IGN, the challenge is to convince people that Esports is it. When all the tournaments are talking they are all talking to different kinds of contacts, and people are competing + helping each other out by doing so.
There's a lot of things to figure out about working out how to best go about getting sponsorships, and in some ways having lots of people approach the problem from different angles will actually help work out the best paths for future esports ventures.
Redeye:
yeah, sponsorship isn't exactly straight forward
Mathieu:
it's very difficult dividing budget between local & other countries and trying to get people interested in the right area.
Sundance just stated that Raleigh is not a sure venue/ city for next year (3 year deal just ended), so for next year, there may be MLG Raleigh again, or that MLG event may be in another city
On September 22 2012 02:29 o)_Saurus wrote: Did the NASL and ESWC CEO already talk beside the opening statement? They seem so calm. o0
Yeah poor NASL man hasn't said anything and doesnt look to enyoy himself very much
He look nervous or something
Mad nervous, he's stuttering a lot now.
Also talking to Redeye and not the Audience.
Yes they - or at least the ones on the left side - should try not to turn to Redeye as they then loses contact to the microphone, making it hard to be heard. n00b mistake. :p
Talking about the impact of MLG on local economies, often very beneficial to local areas and they may well be able to get support for that. However Government involvement isn't necessarily wanted, but NA is diff. to EU and Asia in many ways.
Robert:
Another important point is that the NA leagues are all dealing with pretty much one market, while the EU leagues are dealing with a more fractured market which makes for a lot of extra challenges.
Sundance:
We all have our own geographical problems and every league does well to work those out, the next step is to work out how to solidify that to help each other out.
Robert:
really really fast baby steps
redeye
How do little leagues become big leagues in the face of the domination by the current big leagues.
Ralf
same way as small clans become big clans. you have to build up a track record, prove you can do it and then grow that concept. It's a thin line and you can't go too big too fast. You need a lot of hard work and a big understanding of the esports viewership and the players. That's why I think everyone on this panel is a true gamer.
esports is very hard to understand and difficult to build up, we make mistakes, but learning from that and trying to please the partners, players, and viewership is what we do all day, and when we don't we talk to each other and try to improve it.
redeye
robert, you've had incredible growth lately, how did you move from byoc lan to full fledged esports
Robert:
we're a bit different in that we are more like the burning man of esports, but what we've done is taken the esports slice and improved it, worked on it, and are now taking it on the road.
Esports needs a solid base of amateur gamers, grass roots movements, ams to semi-pros to pros.
Russel:
New leagues have to believe in their vision. You don't have to do the same as everyone else, listen to the community, but there is plenty of space and not everything has to be the same model. There's room in esports to fill a niche that someone else isn't and that will help push it too.
You need the passion for it and you need to be confident in what you're doing. Just because someone didn't do something before doesn't mean that it was wrong.
David:
It has to be a project of passion. If people are coming into esports trying to make a profit they'll be making a mistake. If you're starting a new league you need to be in it for the long haul, and you need to be prepared to take a hit on your budget.
Redeye:
Do you think there's a misconception about how much money tournaments make
Sundance
i get told what a bastard i am each week for all the money i'm rolling in
Robert
ah, evil corporate sundance
redeye
what's reality
David
Personally, I have to project a budget, I project a loss right now, and then I have to explain that loss. If it all goes well then we can invest more instead.
Sundance:
We lost money in year 1-8, they've put more in than they've got out, but they have now turned the corner.
Has gamebattles to help out, but where do you go from here is the next question.
As Dave said we were a small company once too, you've just got to stick through the losses to reach your vision. The challenges are building a sustainable business with your limitations.
redeye:
Is that the same in Europe?
Ralf
Some years we make money, some years we lose money. Esports dark ages are behind it and we tend to break even, if not make money (which we normally invest into the next year).
Making money doesn't mean you go out and buy a porche like sundance (everyone laughs)
Everyone has to report to someone, if we don't lose money we're doing ok!
"We're doing it make money but reinvest revenue. We do it to make it better, badder more beautiful for the viewers. If we end up not going to the poor house, good for us"
Sounds to me like everyone makes money or breaks even, except those who are backed by large corporations (ipl) or venture capitalists (mlg). Anyone else got the same picture?
On September 22 2012 02:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Sundance talking about the importance of sponsorship revenue for the business to stay financially stable.
Read as: possibility of pay-per-view and other things in general.
Uh oh. Flaming incoming?
Why because he said direct to consumer revenue needs to be one of 4 pillars of revenue?
You mentioned dark ages (cgs and recession etc). We're coming away from that now, but is the marketing pot one of the first things to go in that situation?
Robert:
Everything froze and because we're a fledgling industry we got hit hard.
Redeye:
Are you concerned that the money you've secured and worked hard for could be taken away by continued financial trouble
Robert:
No, we've developed too far in the last couple of years and the streaming technology grabs such a desirable demographic that it will continue to get people interested.
Dreamhack always reinvests its profits to make things better for the audience.
Sundance
there's a challenge that we all face in terms of sponsorship revenue and alternative content distribution e.g. ppv.
advertising is important, but it's not a certainty. people aren't guaranteed to continue to invest in a certain product.
being able to say X number of people WILL pay for this content is vital.
I'll take the flack for trying ppv, but i think it will be good for everyone here that we tried the model
Ralf
Look at any other sport, there's always entrance admissions and all the rest,. The fans do pay in some shape or form
Robert
Someone always has to pick up the bill
Redeye
Is over saturation hurting you guys?
Robert
survival of the fittest (laughs)
It's a misconception caused by the void there was prior to the last year or two. Look at sports, you have so many and they are all sustainable, right down through the amateur leagues. Audiences don't have to follow everything minute by minute every weekend
Redeye
Are you dividing the sponsorship/oversaturating sponsorship requests
David
Small slice of NFL dollars could pay for all of us and more, we're still really early in the development of things so there's no real worries about the competition for sponsor $$$. In the next few years we can really get into this.
Redeye
Is the death of CGS still causing issues
Sundance
Never caused us issues outside of behind the scenes deals with Halo while cgs was alive. *just business*
No one in the outside world remembers what happens. It's important to understand, if we don't build something that's sustainable then esports doesn't even exist tomorrow to the people who control the kind of money they are after.
Yes at times we'll have arguments between each other, but the fact is we want to compete healthily against each other and to work for an audience that has the same passion as us.
My mission in life is for MLG to outlive me, that and to raise my quest
*All agree*
Ralf:
I've played in leagues that don't exist anymore, and that's the reason I started ESL because I wanted to see something like that happen and believed in it.
David:
I watched, but again I wanted to push forward something I believe in.
People might over-analyse a tweet but we're really not that backstabby at all!
On September 22 2012 02:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Sundance talking about the importance of sponsorship revenue for the business to stay financially stable.
Read as: possibility of pay-per-view and other things in general.
Uh oh. Flaming incoming?
Why because he said direct to consumer revenue needs to be one of 4 pillars of revenue?
Not particularly based on the fact that he/ MLG has cogent financial reasons for setting up such a thing. Merely because of the huge thread wars in the past and because a lot of people feel entitled to free material and don't want to pay for things, etc. The other panelists didn't really respond, but I think if the topic had lasted more than two minutes, there would be at least some discussion on the topic (just as there is every time a PPV event is announced on TL). I support the idea; I know a lot of people who don't and are very vocal about their reasons why.
On September 22 2012 02:57 Castigo wrote: 720p+ setting fixed the lag for me. Go figure.... also ROFL at "i don't go and buy a porsche like Sundance"
Its the video compression at Twitch that seems to be the problem - If you choose the native resolution of the stream, it will skip a link in the processing chain - This goes for all online video actually
Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
The advantage of single elimination (apart for the increased entertainment value) is that you can move from Bo3 to Bo5 in the quarter- or semifinals (like GSL does) which reduces a lot of the added volatility.
On September 22 2012 02:57 ELA wrote: bo1 making best entertainment Sundance? xD Really?
Single elimination is fine, but bo1 in Starcraft is like Russian Roulette
I see it this way. Sure Bo3 is more fair and just as good as Bo1, but when it comes to Bo1 format, that would mean more games shown on streams and thus more entertainment and variety.
Some Bo3's might be completely face-roll matches, which really isn't that entertaining. But when it comes to Bo1, we might see more entertaining games because there is more matches to show. But then, Bo1 just as well might be one cheesy game and thats that.
I dunno, interesting topic nevertheless. Sundance should've said his reasons why Bo1 is more entertaining. Opinions i guess.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
This is the problem with Bo1 for sure. As ELA said, it's really russian roulette for the players. It can or cannot be fair to some.
I don't mind double elimination... it's the occasional extended series coupled with double elimination that I disagree with. If you're going to allow every player to have two lives in the tournament, then don't make the second life worth less than the first just because player x happens to meet up with player y again. The penalty was the fact that one life was lost for the losing player; a second, additional penalty of being down the previous match score is completely unnecessary.
In fact, double elimination is perfectly fine in my book, because that hypothetically allows for any player to play any other player in the finals- even if they're on the same side of the bracket at the beginning of the tournament. (That's not to say I dislike single elimination or other tournament setups, but I think double elimination without extended series can be run quite well.)
Womens baseball/Softball came up with double elimination, why are we still using double elim, isn't it time we changed to something more modern?
Sundance:
Most fair vs Most entertaining
Single elim = most entertaining because it's volatile and exciting, they're considering it.
Agrees many of their rules are grandfathered in from older games, and sometimes things take a while to change but they won't change mid season and will try to correct
Mathieu
Double elim gives players a second chance, but we changed to double group stage into single elim bracket to make it clear who is the winner and who is the loser.
Redeye
good point, you all want to increase the number of people at your tournaments and isn't it better to have a simple format so people can easily understand.
Ralf
Double elim has legacy because players want the best one to win and like the extra chances. In classic sports often the luckier guy can win, and players don't like that.
Different formats can be interesting, but can be complicated. We'll try some stuff
Robert:
comes back to advertising, it needs to be easy to explain to sponsors and viewers or it'll be a hard sell
Russel
well anyone can overcomplicate a formula
redeye:
yeah I guess double elim is just you lose twice and your out
russel
for a casual audience a tournament bracket and point system isn't traditional sports. Most sports go on leagues and a tournament at the end.
sundance
It needs experimenting for season formats too. we've done points systems that have been carried on too long, and in some formats fan favourites can qualify early and don't need to show up which hurts the events too.
redeye
Is double elim the historical format for esports by now?
robert
Even single elim group play can be bad if you don't think out the rules properly, we've had tiebreaks that go on and on and on.
Sundance
Many times you have to play way too many games to win a tournament, and to keep it exciting and package it up. Then you have to factor in that maybe 80% of games at an event like MLG don't even make it to the broadcast.
double elim needs to be looked at, but till we have something better for advertisers, spectators, and players we need to stick with what we know.
Redeye
Maybe something similar to tennis structure with major tournaments and a standardised ruleset across events?
Robert:
If everyone uses the same ruleset it makes life great for everyone
Sundance:
Even in tennis you play on clay, there's differences and it makes it a little bit interesting.
I think we need to get rid of what sucks, but if several things do work there's no reason not to keep them.
On September 22 2012 03:03 MLG_Adam wrote: He was being sensational on purpose. Chill.
You should chill to be honest. There are five people posting in this thread. 3962 other people are actually listening and thinking about what is said on the panel. Chill.
MLG_Adam, you really don't have to defend Sundance on everything he says, you aren't accomplishing anything. Some people just want to make fun, and there's nothing wrong with that. Some people just want to entertain an idea, even if it's unlikely.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
On September 22 2012 03:03 MLG_Adam wrote: He was being sensational on purpose. Chill.
You should chill to be honest. There are five people posting in this thread. 3962 other people are actually listening and thinking about what is said on the panel. Chill.
On September 22 2012 03:03 MLG_Adam wrote: He was being sensational on purpose. Chill.
You should chill to be honest. There are five people posting in this thread. 3962 other people are actually listening and thinking about what is said on the panel. Chill.
rofl thinking? do you see that troll chat?
Never include the chat. Never.
Edit: Or better yet - never take part of it in any way
On September 22 2012 03:03 MLG_Adam wrote: He was being sensational on purpose. Chill.
You should chill to be honest. There are five people posting in this thread. 3962 other people are actually listening and thinking about what is said on the panel. Chill.
rofl thinking? do you see that troll chat?
Alright. Subtract about 50 more. Still no reason for a MLG representative to act like this.
When will they talk about heuristic models of talent evaluation? That is one of the biggest problems stopping the foreign scene from being equal with the Korean scene.
On September 22 2012 03:03 MLG_Adam wrote: He was being sensational on purpose. Chill.
You should chill to be honest. There are five people posting in this thread. 3962 other people are actually listening and thinking about what is said on the panel. Chill.
I feel they kinda snaked out of this one - Revenue sharing isn't just about cash, it's also about being flexible with allowing teams/players to display their sponsors in a good and meaningful way, as well as disclose viewership numbers, demographics and so on, so that the teams can sell their product more easily.
Abit disappointed with these answers
EDIT: And Robert adresses it just as I posted that, hah... Not very indepth though
On September 22 2012 03:11 Dosey wrote: What are you smoking sundance? Your event with the biggest prize pool was one of the most competitive tournaments.
You can't look at it like that. First of all, the prize pool of Providence was special because all prior MLG events that year had a really small prize pool. Second, it was the season finale. They had built up the hype of Providence during the whole year. Compare to the super bowl, how important do you think the prize pool is for it's viewership?
On September 22 2012 03:14 ELA wrote: I feel they kinda snaked out of this one - Revenue sharing isn't just about cash, it's also about being flexible with allowing teams/players to display their sponsors in a good and meaningful way, as well as disclose viewership numbers, demographics and so on, so that the teams can sell their product more easily.
Abit disappointed with these answers
EDIT: And Robert adresses it just as I posted that, hah... Not very indepth though
MLG was pretty notorious for it though (what Robert hinted at), especially in the HALO days.
On September 22 2012 03:15 AlternativeEgo wrote: Ooooohh..have MLG asked players not to have their team shirts on?
It was a while back, and as far as I know, they didn't actually do it - But there have been episodes with teams not feeling very exposed on the sponsor side at MLG's due to conflicting sponsors and so on
I wish they would have a player panel also, hear their side of the story. Because a lot of them are probably struggling just as hard as these companies are.
Do you fear you'd lose your identity somewhat with a global collab?
Sundance:
Not really, everyone operates differently etc. The key point is sustainability. There are bigger worries than having your logo front and centre.
Internationally federations are incredibly difficult to run, especially in an area with limited funds available.
Redeye:
What kind of responsibility do you feel towards the players. Sharing revenue when you make profits etc? Who needs who
Russel
Well we can put the prize pool up, the players are a big part, the game is the bottom necesasry component.
Players are the most important element to esports
Sundance
Players and the game are top of the list. The game has to have the hooks and accessibility to get an audience. Esports titles are useless if no one actually plays them.
Games will probably last longer than individual players, we need stars and to make stars, but we need the games too.
Robert:
to answer your question?
Sundance:
oh, well these guys are having an opportunity thanks to what we're doing right now. It's a hard one.
redeye:
paying for travel etc?
Sundance:
I got yelled at for paying for flights and hotels etc. I tried but I got yelled at.
Prize money doesn't change attendance and viewership that much, found this out during spending arms race vs CGS
Doesn't mean it's not important of course, but the infrastructure needs to be strong and what it is to be a team actually means to something. We can count on them to show up, or to contribute to content the league is making.
One of our mission statements was to see 100 players making money NOT from prize winnings
David
Players are important, the game is important, but making esports are viable profession is important.
If we're ever profitable we'll have a choice between raising staff salary, making events bigger, or raising prize pool. We'll probably do all of the above, it's very tight working in esports right now and it can be hard to make ends meet.
It needs to be a balance for the long haul.
Redeye:
was it good for blizz to pay for players to attend wcs?
Robert
very good start and initiative.
the audience needs to understand it's not easy to pay out prize money in terms of getting it in, and then getting it out.
Dreamhack get a lot of hate because they only award the really top tier, but the plan is to build hype and build stars and to get people to really want to go there and compete, especially for the open content that travels around Europe.
Redeye
Do you feel less responsibility to the players?
Robert
nononon, my responsibility is not paying players, that's all on the team. My responsibility is to make sure that teams get the most out of my events, be that sponsor visibility or whatever.
Redeye:
Are you worried in any way about Riots plans and ideals for the next year?
Ralf
It's great that a publisher takes a big interest in esports and I think we've all benefited from it. Now they've got a plan to do something like CGS *deep breath*, either way we're all in different discussions with them about this.
If they find a format which is beneficial for all and good for our tournaments of course we'll be happy, and if not then i'm sure we won't.
Sundance
Things are good when they go there way, but then you can get pains in the ass like the last event (referring to match rigging in finals).
We have a great relationship with blizz, activision, other people etc, it goes on.
Riot have a vision for how they want to go forwards and they are going to do what they are going to do. We can't operate out of fear and instead of have to hope it's an opportunity.
They will say this is what we want, and we'll have to say yes or no. There's other options like Dota etc or you don't even need to look at the same kind of genre.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
"They are killing esports, no bullshit" (by setting up monoculture)
Mh.. i wonder. Would you guys stop watching Stacraft 2 tournaments, or League of Legends tournaments, when Blizzard or Riot only would produce those tournaments? (Different country tournaments, one big tournament, etc)
Would it become boring? Because if they want to set something like this up, those companies will hire the needed people that have enough competence and knowledge of how to organise such a tournament.
And for all that have troubles with a horribly lagging stream, someone already mentioned it : Use the 720p+ option. My lags stopped and i can watch it without any lags. ( i watched on 360p before)
If it's a trend that devs and publishers want to do this themselves where does that leave you?
Sundance
well we've worked with them to this point on most things. there's guys from blizz here today talking with everyone.
we can impact the lifestyle of a game when given the tools.
if riot wants to control all that then that's fine, and that will have tobe the first time a publisher alone has managed to make it work
Robert
I sincerely hope that none of the guys at valve/blizz/riot want to stifle the competition from us
If they try that, they are literally killing esports.
Matthieu
esports is beyond the game already *big laughs* You can't just limit it on single games.
We need to pay respect to WCG for what they did accomplish outside of just a game etc
esports doesn't belong to just one person
Sundance
WE COULD MAKE A GAME. If there were barriers to entry, we could definitely make a game to compete anyway.
Ralf
It's not easy to monopolise esports anyway, it's much more. It's why there's 6 guys from around the world here today and not just one.
Robert
I do think what valve/blizz/riot do is benefiting us because it's making a big impact. old time media loves the whole $1million tag etc and it's great publicity to a wider audience with these big one offs.
I don't think they are a threat to us or anything really.
======
There's one question left on where esports will be in 10 years from now, but I've got to dash. Hope the LT was useful to some people who were having problems watching and that it remained readable (it's hard to keep up!)
On September 22 2012 03:23 Ein0r wrote: "They are killing esports, no bullshit" (by setting up monoculture)
Mh.. i wonder. Would you guys stop watching Stacraft 2 tournaments, or League of Legends tournaments, when Blizzard or Riot only would produce those tournaments? (Different country tournaments, one big tournament, etc)
Would it become boring? Because if they want to set something like this up, those companies will hire the needed people that have enough competence and knowledge of how to organise such a tournament.
Have you seen Blizzards ladder map pool? And you speak of competence? Pfft.
On September 22 2012 03:03 MLG_Adam wrote: He was being sensational on purpose. Chill.
You should chill to be honest. There are five people posting in this thread. 3962 other people are actually listening and thinking about what is said on the panel. Chill.
rofl thinking? do you see that troll chat?
Alright. Subtract about 50 more. Still no reason for a MLG representative to act like this.
Are you this offended that I said to 'chill'? It was not intended to be combative, apologies if I upset you. Have a great weekend.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
Yes, I wonder why tournaments don't do Bo101s. You should contact them.
Edit: In case you don't understand this, you have to balance between fairness, time and entertainment for the viewers.
Really enjoyed watching this, good parts of every panel - I still think the most reasureing one was the Marketing-guys going at it - However, I hope that the 6 guys who just left the stage will be the ones that really gets to sit down, get shitfaced and make great things happen together.
On September 22 2012 03:23 Ein0r wrote: "They are killing esports, no bullshit" (by setting up monoculture)
Mh.. i wonder. Would you guys stop watching Stacraft 2 tournaments, or League of Legends tournaments, when Blizzard or Riot only would produce those tournaments? (Different country tournaments, one big tournament, etc)
Would it become boring? Because if they want to set something like this up, those companies will hire the needed people that have enough competence and knowledge of how to organise such a tournament.
Generally when a sports grows large enough, it becomes consolidated under one league. The culture then grows from grassroots support into team support based on region.
On September 22 2012 03:03 MLG_Adam wrote: He was being sensational on purpose. Chill.
You should chill to be honest. There are five people posting in this thread. 3962 other people are actually listening and thinking about what is said on the panel. Chill.
rofl thinking? do you see that troll chat?
Alright. Subtract about 50 more. Still no reason for a MLG representative to act like this.
Are you this offended that I said to 'chill'? It was not intended to be combative, apologies if I upset you. Have a great weekend.
I wasn't personally offended. Don't think anyone was offended. That's not something anyone has touched here at all. Maybe you were offended? So offended by comments that you made the comment to begin with? I don't know and I don't care. We're here for the same reasons. Just be sure to not mistake a vocal minority for the whole community, that could potentially be very dangerous.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
Yes, I wonder why tournaments don't do Bo101s. You should contact them.
Edit: In case you don't understand this, you have to balance between fairness, time and entertainment for the viewers.
i don't need to. I'm fine with their using Bo1. Some people are too worked up with the idea "better player needs to win".
On September 22 2012 03:03 MLG_Adam wrote: He was being sensational on purpose. Chill.
You should chill to be honest. There are five people posting in this thread. 3962 other people are actually listening and thinking about what is said on the panel. Chill.
rofl thinking? do you see that troll chat?
Alright. Subtract about 50 more. Still no reason for a MLG representative to act like this.
Are you this offended that I said to 'chill'? It was not intended to be combative, apologies if I upset you. Have a great weekend.
I wasn't personally offended. Don't think anyone was offended. That's not something anyone has touched here at all. Maybe you were offended? So offended by comments that you made the comment to begin with? I don't know and I don't care. We're here for the same reasons. Just be sure to not mistake a vocal minority for the whole community, that could potentially be very dangerous.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
Yeah exactly. There's actually not a single good reason why every series in a weekend-long tournament isn't a "best of positive infinity" match.
I'm going to just assume you're attempting to be funny and that your comment was rhetorical. Please don't reply to me unless you have something intelligent to say on the topic.
On September 22 2012 03:03 MLG_Adam wrote: He was being sensational on purpose. Chill.
You should chill to be honest. There are five people posting in this thread. 3962 other people are actually listening and thinking about what is said on the panel. Chill.
rofl thinking? do you see that troll chat?
Alright. Subtract about 50 more. Still no reason for a MLG representative to act like this.
Are you this offended that I said to 'chill'? It was not intended to be combative, apologies if I upset you. Have a great weekend.
I wasn't personally offended. Don't think anyone was offended. That's not something anyone has touched here at all. Maybe you were offended? So offended by comments that you made the comment to begin with? I don't know and I don't care. We're here for the same reasons. Just be sure to not mistake a vocal minority for the whole community, that could potentially be very dangerous.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
Yeah exactly. There's actually not a single good reason why every series in a weekend-long tournament isn't a "best of positive infinity" match.
I'm going to just assume you're attempting to be funny and that your comment was rhetorical. Please don't reply to me unless you have something intelligent to say on the topic.
How can I pass your standard of "intelligent posts"? Oh I forget I don't need to! Don't want to be off-topic but next time don't bring the "intelligence" argument out please.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Agreed. Hockey has BoX games, Baseball has BoX games, Tennis has BoX sets for every single match, Basketball has BoX games...
(American) Football has just one game with the Super Bowl though. lol.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
Yeah exactly. There's actually not a single good reason why every series in a weekend-long tournament isn't a "best of positive infinity" match.
I'm going to just assume you're attempting to be funny and that your comment was rhetorical. Please don't reply to me unless you have something intelligent to say on the topic.
How can I pass your standard of "intelligent posts"? Oh I forget I don't need to! Don't want to be off-topic but next time don't bring the "intelligence" argument out please.
We all know you are not serious about prefering bo1 over bo3, no one with a sense of anything would - You are taking the discussion way out on a tangent. Please just stop.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
No. Every single tennis match in tournaments is at least a Bo3 (increases to Bo5 for men) sets. Never ever a Bo1.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
No. Every single tennis match in tournaments is at least a Bo3 (increases to Bo5 for men) sets. Never ever a Bo1.
What are you even talking about? I don't even...There is only 1 game for every tennis match last time I checked.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
Yeah exactly. There's actually not a single good reason why every series in a weekend-long tournament isn't a "best of positive infinity" match.
I'm going to just assume you're attempting to be funny and that your comment was rhetorical. Please don't reply to me unless you have something intelligent to say on the topic.
How can I pass your standard of "intelligent posts"? Oh I forget I don't need to! Don't want to be off-topic but next time don't bring the "intelligence" argument out please.
We all know you are not serious about prefering bo1 over bo3, no one with a sense of anything would - You are taking the discussion way out on a tangent. Please just stop.
Very subtle way of saying either you are trolling or you are senseless. How can I win this argument? Oh I forget you aren't the one who decides what is right, what is wrong and especially what i really think.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
Most events in the Olympics arent bo1. The only one that comes to mind are the martial arts (even then you have Repechage) and I guess track events. World cup and Euros both have group stages (plus qualifiers), in tennis you have more than 1 set in a match.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
Tennis tournaments don't use Bo1s. They play a single series with a Bo3 set or a Bo5 set. Every 'game" is only a single win; you need four wins to win a point and 6 points to win a set.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
No. Every single tennis match in tournaments is at least a Bo3 (increases to Bo5 for men) sets. Never ever a Bo1.
What are you even talking about? I don't even...There is only 1 game for every tennis match last time I checked.
Every match consists of at least 2 sets which is basically bo3. You can't really regard a 5 set match as one game... it'd be as regarding a bo3 sc2 match als one game.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Agreed. Hockey has BoX games, Baseball has BoX games, Tennis has BoX sets for every single match, Basketball has BoX games...
(American) Football has just one game with the Super Bowl though. lol.
BoX with football would be a nightmare. Imagine all the injured players...
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Agreed. Hockey has BoX games, Baseball has BoX games, Tennis has BoX sets for every single match, Basketball has BoX games...
(American) Football has just one game with the Super Bowl though. lol.
BoX with football would be a nightmare. Imagine all the injured players...
Jesus... rosters would have to be DEEP, especially for QBs
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
Most events in the Olympics arent bo1. The only one that comes to mind are the martial arts (even then you have Repechage) and I guess track events. World cup and Euros both have group stages (plus qualifiers), in tennis you have more than 1 game in a match.
How can qualifiers and group stages be considered a part of Best of X series???? OK so you are admitting from the playoff stage they will be doing Bo1 format, right? And Tennis is just how you score it. There is no objective in the match. You score until you have enough to win the match, according to the rules. In E-Sport there are definite ways of winning the game and force losers to leave. How can you compare a set of tennis with a full match in e-sport?
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
No. Every single tennis match in tournaments is at least a Bo3 (increases to Bo5 for men) sets. Never ever a Bo1.
What are you even talking about? I don't even...There is only 1 game for every tennis match last time I checked.
lol yes one match is one match, tautologically...
But if you've ever looked at how StarCraft is comparable to tennis (which is talked about quite frequently), you'd understand that the comparison is between winning a game of SC and winning a set in tennis, and having the endurance, intellect, dexterity, and knowledge (what to do differently, what to do the same, etc.) to play on into the next game of SC and next set of tennis until you win the entire BoX series of SC or BoX set in tennis.
Obviously you just play one match of tennis, if you want to define it like that. But we're talking in terms of how it relates to SC. (Hell, you could just as easily say "there's only one world series for baseball, right?", but that doesn't make the comparison any more valid for it being a Bo1 "like SC".)
And furthermore, all of this is still irrelevant to your initial argument that a Bo1 is as good a calculator of skill as a Bo3 or 5 or 7, etc. Maybe not a true coinflip, but still far more volatile.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
world cup and euro cup use qualifier in to groups into single elim but i dont think you can compare BoX in starcraft to playing 1 game in football.
On September 22 2012 03:09 Assirra wrote: [quote] If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
No. Every single tennis match in tournaments is at least a Bo3 (increases to Bo5 for men) sets. Never ever a Bo1.
What are you even talking about? I don't even...There is only 1 game for every tennis match last time I checked.
lol yes one match is one match, tautologically...
But if you've ever looked at how StarCraft is comparable to tennis (which is talked about quite frequently), you'd understand that the comparison is between winning a game of SC and winning a set in tennis, and having the endurance, intellect, dexterity, and knowledge (what to do differently, what to do the same, etc.) to play on into the next game of SC and next set of tennis until you win the entire BoX series of SC or BoX set in tennis.
Obviously you just play one match of tennis, if you want to define it like that. But we're talking in terms of how it relates to SC. (Hell, you could just as easily say "there's only one world series for baseball, right?", but that doesn't make the comparison any more valid for it being a Bo1 "like SC".)
And furthermore, all of this is still irrelevant to your initial argument that a Bo1 is as good a calculator of skill as a Bo3 or 5 or 7, etc. Maybe not a true coinflip, but still far more volatile.
I never said that Bo1 was a more accurate indicator of skill than Bo3 or further Best of X series. And of course Best of anything higher than 5 or at the max 7 will be ridiculous and impractical. However, how can you decide which format is the "enough" one to apply? I mean you will never be able to choose the best, absolute best player anyways because of the limitations of time and practical factors. Then why bother? Are Bo1 and Bo3 so much different? I don't think so. If you do a Bo3, the losers will have the excuse to go like "If you did a Bo5, Bo7 I would be the winner...This is not fair...", See the problem now? The only reason you choose Bo3 isn't its fairness but its convenience. i still think Bo1 has some merits to decide who is a better player, and you will never know if the one who wins the Bo3 would win a Bo5, Bo7 if it was held.
On September 22 2012 03:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
No. Every single tennis match in tournaments is at least a Bo3 (increases to Bo5 for men) sets. Never ever a Bo1.
What are you even talking about? I don't even...There is only 1 game for every tennis match last time I checked.
lol yes one match is one match, tautologically...
But if you've ever looked at how StarCraft is comparable to tennis (which is talked about quite frequently), you'd understand that the comparison is between winning a game of SC and winning a set in tennis, and having the endurance, intellect, dexterity, and knowledge (what to do differently, what to do the same, etc.) to play on into the next game of SC and next set of tennis until you win the entire BoX series of SC or BoX set in tennis.
Obviously you just play one match of tennis, if you want to define it like that. But we're talking in terms of how it relates to SC. (Hell, you could just as easily say "there's only one world series for baseball, right?", but that doesn't make the comparison any more valid for it being a Bo1 "like SC".)
And furthermore, all of this is still irrelevant to your initial argument that a Bo1 is as good a calculator of skill as a Bo3 or 5 or 7, etc. Maybe not a true coinflip, but still far more volatile.
I never said that Bo1 was a more accurate indicator of skill than Bo3 or further Best of X series. And of course Best of anything higher than 5 or at the max 7 will be ridiculous and impractical. However, how can you decide which format is the "enough" one to apply? I mean you will never be able to choose the best, absolute best player anyways because of the limitations of time and practical factors. Then why bother? Are Bo1 and Bo3 so much different? I don't think so. If you do a Bo3, the losers will have the excuse to go like "If you did a Bo5, Bo7 I would be the winner...This is not fair...", See the problem now? The only reason you choose Bo3 isn't its fairness but its convenience. i still think Bo1 has some merits to decide who is a better player, and you will never know if the one who wins the Bo3 would win a Bo5, Bo7 if it was held.
"However, how can you decide which format is the "enough" one to apply?"
It's subjective- obviously- but it all depends on how much time you have to run the tournament, how many games the players will need to play over the course of the tournament, player and audience input, and surely several other variables. There's no established single best format, or else it would be universally used by all tournaments.
"Then why bother?"
The same reason why you "bother" with any other tournament rules... you need some sort of structure, and you need justifications for implementing the rules that you create. If you can't properly defend your regulations (and- even worse- if people start to disagree and make a fuss about your rules), then there are going to be problems. That's bad for business, the future of the tournament, anyone who wanted to play or watch your matches, etc.
"Are Bo1 and Bo3 so much different? I don't think so. If you do a Bo3, the losers will have the excuse to go like "If you did a Bo5, Bo7 I would be the winner...This is not fair...","
As long as there are justifiable rules in place, then the players' whines aren't acceptable. This is because there are elements of luck involved in StarCraft (e.g. imperfect information), the fact that the outcomes aren't predetermined in the tournament (or else why bother having the tournament to begin with?), and the fact that these are estimated probabilities but can't account for other hidden variables (e.g. sickness, mental tilt, jetlag, improper scouting, etc.).
"The only reason you choose Bo3 isn't its fairness but its convenience."
No. Do the math. Pick two arbitrary probabilities (summing to 1) for a player who's favored and a player who isn't, and then work out the calculations between the chances of each of them winning a Bo1 vs. a Bo3 vs. a Bo5, etc. You'll see it becomes more and more likely that the player who's statistically better is more likely to win the higher BoXs. So if you don't want upsets and want the better players to move on to the next rounds (because you want the best games possible), you increase the BoX if time and player stamina and audience focus will allow.
I feel like you're arguing just to be difficult. What are all these "merits" to a Bo1 format? You haven't named any yet. If you want to create an interesting and novel tournament called The Tournament Of Upsets, and make it all Bo1s, go ahead, but it will not decide who is the better player. Heck, I'd probably watch it too, because it'd be pretty neat. But there's a reason why all the big tournaments use some sort of Bo3 (or more) tournament setting, round robins, or something else. They all reduce the statistical volatility that's inherent in Bo1s.
On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
Most events in the Olympics arent bo1. The only one that comes to mind are the martial arts (even then you have Repechage) and I guess track events. World cup and Euros both have group stages (plus qualifiers), in tennis you have more than 1 game in a match.
How can qualifiers and group stages be considered a part of Best of X series???? OK so you are admitting from the playoff stage they will be doing Bo1 format, right? And Tennis is just how you score it. There is no objective in the match. You score until you have enough to win the match, according to the rules. In E-Sport there are definite ways of winning the game and force losers to leave. How can you compare a set of tennis with a full match in e-sport?
Wait so now youre saying that you cant compare traditional sports to sc2? playing one game of sc2 is essentially like playing a set in tennis I really dont get where your going with "Its just how its scored". I can say the same thing about sc2. You couldnt have a best of 3 football match becuase you can get draws then you would have to deal with penalty shoot outs (which people complain about becuase its more luck than skill).
Most north american sports except american football have series play in their playoffs... (American) football only has best of one because the sport is so physically demanding and it's much more convenient for TV ratings that way.
Also, in SC2, a single game is the smallest unit of measurement for victory. In fencing, you don't declare the first touch the winner, just like the first team to score in most sports isn't automatically declared the winner.
On September 22 2012 01:05 FlukyS wrote: I felt the Windows 8 question wasn't correctly answered by Dustin Browder, like he talked about that everyone has predicted the death of the PC for years..etc but he didn't really say about the viability of Windows 8 as a gaming platform. As well as that I found it really funny that he said PC is an open platform when it really isn't. Its interesting how Valve are porting their stuff to Linux as a way to not be reliant on the Windows platform, id love to see what Blizzard are thinking about in this particular area.
I love the discussion though.
Open platform : everyone and their dog can make a game on the platform without any trouble of royalities and stuff. PC is about as open as you can get...
Not really exactly correct because his point was PC is an open platform but so is Mac and so is Linux but both do it half as good as Linux to be honest. Everyone and their dog can make games and applications on any system. Ill give you an example how open Linux is, if SC2 was on Linux they could have controls in the game to change the song on the music player because they all agreed on a common API to expose controls to developers. (its called mpris if you want to look at it)
I can give 100 other examples but the point is Linux is entirely open, if Blizzard found a bug they can fix it unlike Windows where they work around bugs in the system. So really its infinitely more open in terms of what you can do.
On September 22 2012 01:05 FlukyS wrote: I felt the Windows 8 question wasn't correctly answered by Dustin Browder, like he talked about that everyone has predicted the death of the PC for years..etc but he didn't really say about the viability of Windows 8 as a gaming platform. As well as that I found it really funny that he said PC is an open platform when it really isn't. Its interesting how Valve are porting their stuff to Linux as a way to not be reliant on the Windows platform, id love to see what Blizzard are thinking about in this particular area.
I love the discussion though.
Open platform : everyone and their dog can make a game on the platform without any trouble of royalities and stuff. PC is about as open as you can get...
Not really exactly correct because his point was PC is an open platform but so is Mac and so is Linux but both do it half as good as Linux to be honest. Everyone and their dog can make games and applications on any system. Ill give you an example how open Linux is, if SC2 was on Linux they could have controls in the game to change the song on the music player because they all agreed on a common API to expose controls to developers. (its called mpris if you want to look at it)
I can give 100 other examples but the point is Linux is entirely open, if Blizzard found a bug they can fix it unlike Windows where they work around bugs in the system. So really its infinitely more open in terms of what you can do.
you're mixing everything PC and mac is hardware, windows,linux, macOS is software forgetting the softwares, PC is open, mac is patented what he meant to say, is that everyone can make a PC, not just build it, but creating one. You can create your company that makes and build PCs, tweak them in every way you want, however, you can't make macs
On September 22 2012 03:09 Assirra wrote: [quote] If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then.
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse.
So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right?
If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win?
Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games.
No. You are sadly mistaken.
Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
Most events in the Olympics arent bo1. The only one that comes to mind are the martial arts (even then you have Repechage) and I guess track events. World cup and Euros both have group stages (plus qualifiers), in tennis you have more than 1 game in a match.
How can qualifiers and group stages be considered a part of Best of X series???? OK so you are admitting from the playoff stage they will be doing Bo1 format, right? And Tennis is just how you score it. There is no objective in the match. You score until you have enough to win the match, according to the rules. In E-Sport there are definite ways of winning the game and force losers to leave. How can you compare a set of tennis with a full match in e-sport?
Wait so now youre saying that you cant compare traditional sports to sc2? playing one game of sc2 is essentially like playing a set in tennis I really dont get where your going with "Its just how its scored". I can say the same thing about sc2. You couldnt have a best of 3 football match becuase you can get draws then you would have to deal with penalty shoot outs (which people complain about becuase its more luck than skill).
playing one game in SC2 is NOT equal to a set in Tennis. It would be more equal to a(drum roll).......
a game! a game is won after many points, and sometimes a single game drags on for a pretty long while. it takes 6 games to win a set. so a set in tennis is more akin to an entire match(bo3, about) in SC2. A 5 set match would be akin to an entire best of 7.
Its pretty interesting. Especially towards the end where you can see a huge difference between europe and USA where esl and dh have such a huge history and familiarity with each other that they are comfortable with running competitions into each other. Whereas on the north american side Ting and Russell dont know whether they will be around in 3 years and sundance is almost too confident.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.dreamhack.se/dhw12/files/2012/09/congress_w700_h247.jpg)
.
![[image loading]](http://www.leddisplaysale.com/images/Advertising-led-display-351.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://u.jimdo.com/www38/o/s7d6a93d924a03bc8/img/i69991774b312fdf5/1308903664/std/miami-masters.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://a34.idata.over-blog.com/600x450/0/11/26/66/pr-sentation/chicago/71-match-chicago-bulls-et-jazz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://esportsbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wolvesdota2.jpg)
