Popularity of LOL, SC2 and BW in Korea

On May 27 2013 21:34 Andr3 wrote:
Great video.

What stuck the most in my head is the bit where you compared team games to 1vs1.

I've been only playing DotA the past few months and it's so much easier to blame your team than yourself. When you lose in SC it's all your fault.

I think that deters a lot of people from actually playing SC2. I'm pretty sure the balance between people that play SC2 and people that watch it is heavily shifted towards the latter.

On May 27 2013 21:34 Andr3 wrote:
Great video.

What stuck the most in my head is the bit where you compared team games to 1vs1.

I've been only playing DotA the past few months and it's so much easier to blame your team than yourself. When you lose in SC it's all your fault.

I think that deters a lot of people from actually playing SC2. I'm pretty sure the balance between people that play SC2 and people that watch it is heavily shifted towards the latter.

On May 27 2013 22:30 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
As usual I appreciate any sort of insight from you directly from Korea, but if I understand you correctly then as far as I know the information you're basing this on isn't accurate. If the pc bang owners just needed to purchase the full game it wouldn't have been as big of an issue upon the launch of WoL. Usually the games get thousands of hours of playtime and the hourly cost is extremely low in that case. However For WoL Blizzard introduced a set cost per hour played. This set cost per hour is many times more expensive than buying a new game and just using that for years. This has been quoted as the reason for why the Korean pc bangs didn't promote SC2 much at all. If a game is played 3000 hours over the course of three years that costs $600 instead of $50.

I completely agree with your explanation of why team games are so successful. People just love to blame others for their mistakes and it is so relaxing and rewarding to do so. The viewing to playing ratio of SC2 still blows any other game out of the water. It's an amazing spectator sport, but sometimes people find it stressful to play.

On May 27 2013 21:19 Khaldor wrote:
I recorded a video today in which I wanted to address a few things that influence the shift in popularity of StarCraft in Korea. Some of you might already know about the points I'm talking about but I see those questions popping up all the time on Reddit and TL and wanted to talk about them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI60fgk2oN4

Have fun with the video and make sure to upvote/subscribe if you enjoy it!

On May 27 2013 22:30 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:

I completely agree with your explanation of why team games are so successful. People just love to blame others for their mistakes and it is so relaxing and rewarding to do so. The viewing to playing ratio of SC2 still blows any other game out of the water. It's an amazing spectator sport, but sometimes people find it stressful to play.

On May 27 2013 23:04 Propelled wrote:
I'm quite sure he's talking about casual gamers, not progamers.

On May 27 2013 22:10 TaShadan wrote:
Broodwar was/is a 1on1 game too. So how do you explain it beeing more popular than any other game?

On May 27 2013 22:10 Big G wrote:

Team games exist in SC2 too, but for some reason they're labeled as "for fun" so the competitive community doesn't care and Blizzard doesn't even try to balance them - or at least provide a decent map pool. Which is a shame, since they can gather A LOT of players who suffers from ladder anxiety.

On May 27 2013 23:23 rpgalon wrote:
Am I the only that thinks the growth of LoL as an esports can attract spectators (not players) to SC2?

On May 27 2013 23:07 TsGBruzze wrote:

What difference would that make?

On May 27 2013 23:49 Propelled wrote:

To my knowledge, in games like lol and dota you can queue up for games solo and get teamed up with random people. As such you can get away with blaming everyone but yourself, and while your teammates might get annoyed and block/ignore you, you would still be able to continue getting new games. This is in contrast to organized or pro teams where such would quickly get you booted.

On May 27 2013 22:52 StarStruck wrote:
Those players wouldn't last very long Victor unless they owned the team like a certain few individuals. I won't mention names because they know who they are lol.

On May 27 2013 22:10 TaShadan wrote:
Broodwar was/is a 1on1 game too. So how do you explain it beeing more popular than any other game?

On May 27 2013 22:30 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
As usual I appreciate any sort of insight from you directly from Korea, but if I understand you correctly then as far as I know the information you're basing this on isn't accurate. If the pc bang owners just needed to purchase the full game it wouldn't have been as big of an issue upon the launch of WoL. Usually the games get thousands of hours of playtime and the hourly cost is extremely low in that case. However For WoL Blizzard introduced a set cost per hour played. This set cost per hour is many times more expensive than buying a new game and just using that for years. This has been quoted as the reason for why the Korean pc bangs didn't promote SC2 much at all. If a game is played 3000 hours over the course of three years that costs $600 instead of $50.

I completely agree with your explanation of why team games are so successful. People just love to blame others for their mistakes and it is so relaxing and rewarding to do so. The viewing to playing ratio of SC2 still blows any other game out of the water. It's an amazing spectator sport, but sometimes people find it stressful to play.

On May 27 2013 23:09 NexCa wrote:



It's not, wtf are you talking about !? Even CS is more popular than SC, sad, but true. And if you had listened to him, you'd probably know the answer already+ Show Spoiler +

On May 27 2013 23:33 Torte de Lini wrote:
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=142288 -- I feel Hoon's 2010 blog made a lot of sense, despite its age.

On May 28 2013 00:31 eScaper-tsunami wrote:


I don't see why Blizzard can't transition SC2 to free to play for custom games in the immediate future to accommodate some of the issues in Korea and and eventually free to play completely and go into a micro-transaction model.

As to the team game aspect. SC2 could have and should have featured 2v2 and 3v3 in the Open GSL right off the bat. 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3 can co-exist but Blizzard chose to promote 1v1 only because it was easier for them. It's quite a big blunder in their marketing. They essentially undersold themselves.

I understand people will be concerned about balance and etc but that's Blizzard responsibility as the developer to tackle these challenges and it seems like they either didn't care for it or didn't have the balls or possibly both.

On May 27 2013 21:34 Andr3 wrote:
Great video.

What stuck the most in my head is the bit where you compared team games to 1vs1.

I've been only playing DotA the past few months and it's so much easier to blame your team than yourself. When you lose in SC it's all your fault.

I think that deters a lot of people from actually playing SC2. I'm pretty sure the balance between people that play SC2 and people that watch it is heavily shifted towards the latter.

On May 27 2013 22:10 TaShadan wrote:
Broodwar was/is a 1on1 game too. So how do you explain it beeing more popular than any other game?

On May 28 2013 02:33 ACrow wrote:
Do you guys, as customers, really want microtransactions in your games? It always leaves me with the feeling that you either do not get all features you need to succeed (= risk of p2w) or in the case of cosmetic or 'social' features it leads to the game acting like a dealer, trying to peer pressure you into stuff you don't need or making addicts out of certain persons.

On May 28 2013 02:33 ACrow wrote:
or in the case of cosmetic or 'social' features it leads to the game acting like a dealer, trying to peer pressure you into stuff you don't need or making addicts out of certain persons.

On May 28 2013 03:12 evilfatsh1t wrote:
khaldor what is your personal opinion on dota2's chances of being successful when it enters the korean market? do you think the free to play nature of the game will attract players, or do you think the game being similar to LoL will make players just stay with LoL

On May 27 2013 22:10 TaShadan wrote:
Broodwar was/is a 1on1 game too. So how do you explain it beeing more popular than any other game?

On May 28 2013 02:33 ACrow wrote:
Do you guys, as customers, really want microtransactions in your games? It always leaves me with the feeling that you either do not get all features you need to succeed (= risk of p2w) or in the case of cosmetic or 'social' features it leads to the game acting like a dealer, trying to peer pressure you into stuff you don't need or making addicts out of certain persons. Despite this, RTS traditionally have a big problem with microtransactions (AOE online, C&C etc) because there just isn't as much identification with your units/armies as their is with the hero in MMOs and Mobas. So even if they introduced a microtransaction based business model, I doubt it would be profitable for them.

As you might have guessed, I dislike f2p, and I personally hope it doesn't actually become the standard for big studios. I want high quality games for which I'm willing to pay one time an amount worth of the work put into creating the game and then get a complete package, without having the feeling of incompleteness or the game behaving like an annoying peddler, constantly trying to talk me into buying its stuff.

On May 28 2013 03:15 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
So blizzard should worry about balancing team games? im not playing team games but i hear that the maps for team games are mostly atrocious to play on and very rush favored.

On May 28 2013 03:17 cocosoft wrote:
Blizzard has done things in the past to balance team games in Starcraft 2.

On May 28 2013 03:18 SpikeStarcraft wrote:


did it work?

On May 28 2013 03:21 cocosoft wrote:
Yes, they have improved balance on some units for 2vs2 balance, that did not affect the 1v1 balance significantly. I'm sorry that I can't remember any examples at the moment.

On May 28 2013 03:28 darkness wrote:


Reaper?

On May 28 2013 03:21 cocosoft wrote:
Yes, they have improved balance on some units for 2vs2 balance, that did not affect the 1v1 balance significantly. I'm sorry that I can't remember any examples at the moment.

On May 28 2013 04:01 eScaper-tsunami wrote:


I think the point is Blizzard could've promoted 2v2, 3v3 and so on. And you really can't say much about balance unless there are people really heavily investing their time and money in it... like GSL OPEN but they never attempted and now it feels like the opportunity is lost. As to whether SC2 can be balanced in all forms of competition (ie. 1v1 2v2 3v3) blizzard hasn't tried, we don't know.

On May 28 2013 03:21 cocosoft wrote:
Yes, they have improved balance on some units for 2vs2 balance, that did not affect the 1v1 balance significantly. I'm sorry that I can't remember any examples at the moment.

On May 28 2013 02:33 ACrow wrote:
Do you guys, as customers, really want microtransactions in your games? It always leaves me with the feeling that you either do not get all features you need to succeed (= risk of p2w) or in the case of cosmetic or 'social' features it leads to the game acting like a dealer, trying to peer pressure you into stuff you don't need or making addicts out of certain persons. Despite this, RTS traditionally have a big problem with microtransactions (AOE online, C&C etc) because there just isn't as much identification with your units/armies as there is with the hero in MMOs and Mobas. So even if they introduced a microtransaction based business model, I doubt it would be profitable for them.

As you might have guessed, I dislike f2p, and I personally hope it doesn't actually become the standard for big studios. I want high quality games for which I'm willing to pay one time an amount worth of the work put into creating the game and then get a complete package, without having the feeling of incompleteness or the game behaving like an annoying peddler, constantly trying to talk me into buying its stuff.

On May 28 2013 04:06 MasterOfPuppets wrote:


They really couldn't have promoted team games any more than they did, because team games were never their focus. In fact, it would almost actively hurt to do so, since team games are so boring and predictable in terms of the builds and strategies employed. It would be like the GSL Open Seasons all over again, perhaps with a little bit better macro and micro.

Beyond the aspect of boring the viewers with one base all-ins over and over and over again, it would also be harder to follow, what with there being 4 players and whatnot. Finally, the team game map pool overall has always been dreadful, and we know Blizzard have been adamant about keeping their own sub-par maps in the ladder pool even for 1v1, which is supposed to be SC2's main focus, despite the community producing far better efforts.

On May 28 2013 04:19 eScaper-tsunami wrote:
1.) Why wasn't it their focus right from the bat? When open GSL came out, why didn't they have 1v1 and 2v2 and 3v3 tournaments running in parallel?

On May 28 2013 04:19 eScaper-tsunami wrote:
2.) How do you know team matches would be boring and have predictable builds when it has never been done at a professional level? Isn't 1v1 mostly in the same situation right now?

On May 28 2013 04:19 eScaper-tsunami wrote:
3.) LoL and Dota2 have their success despite having 10 players not just 4. With so much information displayed on their observer UI such as researches, upgrades and production, the information is there and easy to follow. Most of the production in SC2 is followed through production tab. The monitor is mostly used exclusively for engagements.

On May 28 2013 04:19 eScaper-tsunami wrote:
4.) Why would it only be 1 base all-ins? And if it comes to that, changes can be made.

On May 28 2013 04:19 eScaper-tsunami wrote:
5.) Map pool can be changed, not even an issue.

On May 28 2013 04:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:


Go ask Blizzard. I'm guessing it's because they set out to make StarCraft 2 a 1v1 competitive game, balancing it strictly for 1v1 play. (whether or not the game could be balanced for both 1v1 and team games, that's another matter entirely)

On May 28 2013 04:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:


There have, as a matter of fact, been online tournaments with prize pools for 2v2 games. The EG Master's Cup Team League has in fact featured 2v2s in one of their editions. I'm guessing you haven't watched any of said tournaments, and that you haven't watched very many team games in general. Otherwise you would know that rushes and cheese have always been the status quo. I will go a bit more into detail down below.

On May 28 2013 04:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:


LoL and DotA2 have infinitely less action going on in them than in SC2. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to say they're bad games, clearly they're not, but they're far farrr easier to follow and understand up to a reasonable degree of depth, from a spectator standpoint. (which is also part of why they're so successful)

On May 28 2013 04:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:


Cheese and all-ins is all you ever see. Why? Because of fundamental game design flaws, such as negligible defender's advantage coupled with bad map design in that players are often at considerable distance apart. This makes it so that strategies involving both players rushing and attacking only one of the opponents are simply too viable not to exploit, just like many other strategies which were simply too good not to use back in early WoL beta/release.

On May 28 2013 04:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:


Yeah, just like they always add the standard GSL maps that every tournament uses into the ladder map pool... Oh wait!

On May 28 2013 04:19 eScaper-tsunami wrote:
3.) LoL and DotA2 have infinitely less action going on in them than in SC2. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to say they're bad games, clearly they're not, but they're far farrr easier to follow and understand up to a reasonable degree of depth, from a spectator standpoint. (which is also part of why they're so successful)

On May 28 2013 05:18 edlover420 wrote:


Nope. Every race in sc2 has about 6 units that they actively use in different compositions. Everyone knows which units counters which and what composition is going to come ahead in a fight (unlike in BW and WC3 where micro actually mattered and games were good). But in Dota2 you have about 100 heroes that fight each other in 1v1 lanes, duo lanes, trilanes, offlanes and in teamfights. And this 100 heroes uses more than 100 items. There is so many possibilities. So many surprises. So many builds, so many undiscovered lane combos and counters. And the throw potential is huge. But when a team comes back in a Dota2 match it is actually really cool for viewers, unlike in SC2 where it is almost frustrating to watch players lose when they are ahead due to imbalances and hellbats rofl.

On May 28 2013 04:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:


LoL and DotA2 have infinitely less action going on in them than in SC2. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to say they're bad games, clearly they're not, but they're far farrr easier to follow and understand up to a reasonable degree of depth, from a spectator standpoint. (which is also part of why they're so successful)

On May 28 2013 06:00 coolcor wrote:
I don't get it, if Koreans have trouble with buying a game no matter the price how did broodwar sell over 4.5 million copies in south korea? Thats almost 10% of the population its insane so how can it be proof that they only liked bw because it was free? Until sc2 sells much more than 30 million copies in America alone I think we should take it as proof that Americans do not like buying games at all and blizzard should compensate for sc3 by raising the price and using more DRM or something.

I do think it would be smart of blizzard to make sc2 ftp though.

On May 28 2013 03:17 Lunchador wrote:

The "BW prime" for the players that I remember was a list of TvB games of "3v3 BGH pros only nr20 gogogo!" It was the scrubbiest @#$% ever, but it was the most popular game type and those games ALWAYS filled in under a minute. And when you won, it was because you were a badass, and when you lost, it was always because you had an ally who sucked/spawned in the corner and got rushed. And it was fun as hell either way. I'd always imagine all those years ago, most Koreans who went to the PC bang played mostly team games with each other.

On May 28 2013 06:06 nojitosunrise wrote:

BW was popular because custom games were seriously addicting.
Play Sunken D all day...go home and watch OSL before you go to sleep

On May 27 2013 23:23 rpgalon wrote:
Am I the only that thinks the growth of LoL as an esports can attract spectators (not players) to SC2?

On May 28 2013 05:18 edlover420 wrote:


Nope. Every race in sc2 has about 6 units that they actively use in different compositions. Everyone knows which units counters which and what composition is going to come ahead in a fight (unlike in BW and WC3 where micro actually mattered and games were good). But in Dota2 you have about 100 heroes that fight each other in 1v1 lanes, duo lanes, trilanes, offlanes and in teamfights. And this 100 heroes uses more than 100 items. There is so many possibilities. So many surprises. So many builds, so many undiscovered lane combos and counters. And the throw potential is huge. But when a team comes back in a Dota2 match it is actually really cool for viewers, unlike in SC2 where it is almost frustrating to watch players lose when they are ahead due to imbalances and hellbats rofl.

On May 28 2013 06:45 Power[Xp] wrote:The players had more opportunity to shine with micro and split second decision making. Now I have to admit that I haven't watched Starcraft 2 in a year, but I was an active Brood War player for about 10 years and I played the first 2 years quite actively in the Starcraft 2 scene. This feeling for the players to shine is kind of what I missed in Starcraft 2. In Brood War players were able to develop a lot of unique styles. In Starcraft 2 there is also room for players to create a unique style, but they are getting more mainstream, due to the fact that there's less room for players to be a lot better at a certain aspect (micro, macro) compared to other players. This is because some elements in Starcraft 2 has just been made a lot less challenging compared to a game like Brood War. You can think about micro (max groups of 12) compared to unlimited groups, clustering, spamming storm with all your templars etc. or you can think about macro (selecting one building vs selecting all Barracks, Factory etc.). This also has an impact on multitasking.

On May 28 2013 08:53 IAMFAPMAN wrote:
there "was" a broodwar community outside of korea? get your facts right khaldor, you lost me there.

On May 28 2013 04:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:



There have, as a matter of fact, been online tournaments with prize pools for 2v2 games. The EG Master's Cup Team League has in fact featured 2v2s in one of their editions. I'm guessing you haven't watched any of said tournaments, and that you haven't watched very many team games in general. Otherwise you would know that rushes and cheese have always been the status quo. I will go a bit more into detail down below.



Cheese and all-ins is all you ever see. Why? Because of fundamental game design flaws, such as negligible defender's advantage coupled with bad map design in that players are often at considerable distance apart. This makes it so that strategies involving both players rushing and attacking only one of the opponents are simply too viable not to exploit, just like many other strategies which were simply too good not to use back in early WoL beta/release.



Yeah, just like they always add the standard GSL maps that every tournament uses into the ladder map pool... Oh wait!

On May 28 2013 08:53 rift wrote:
Ironic that the genre that was birthed by Starcraft has now taken its place.

On May 28 2013 10:37 Kommander wrote:
I wonder, hypothetically if LoL existed at the same time as BW, would LoL be the much more popular game in Korea than BW and BW would never have gotten as big as it did?

On May 27 2013 22:30 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
As usual I appreciate any sort of insight from you directly from Korea, but if I understand you correctly then as far as I know the information you're basing this on isn't accurate. If the pc bang owners just needed to purchase the full game it wouldn't have been as big of an issue upon the launch of WoL. Usually the games get thousands of hours of playtime and the hourly cost is extremely low in that case. However For WoL Blizzard introduced a set cost per hour played. This set cost per hour is many times more expensive than buying a new game and just using that for years. This has been quoted as the reason for why the Korean pc bangs didn't promote SC2 much at all. If a game is played 3000 hours over the course of three years that costs $600 instead of $50.

I completely agree with your explanation of why team games are so successful. People just love to blame others for their mistakes and it is so relaxing and rewarding to do so. The viewing to playing ratio of SC2 still blows any other game out of the water. It's an amazing spectator sport, but sometimes people find it stressful to play.

On May 28 2013 10:37 Kommander wrote:
I wonder, hypothetically if LoL existed at the same time as BW, would LoL be the much more popular game in Korea than BW and BW would never have gotten as big as it did?

On May 28 2013 05:25 eScaper-tsunami wrote:


Quoted the wrong guy bro:

On May 28 2013 11:27 Cele wrote:

no, not really. People play 1v1 in BW the most. But there are less people with ladder anxiety. Because you can smurf.

On May 28 2013 12:04 Lunchador wrote:


........ Extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemely doubtful about that. How do you know that for a fact? And even after a few years, the Blizzard SC1 ladder stopped holding any meaning when everyone just win-botted it to 9999 points.

The BW craze takes me and my friends back to my high school days around 2001-2005. The one "normal" map we always flocked to was 3v3 BGH. None of us (except me) really took an interest in actually getting legit good at the game, even after watching BoxeR's famous SCV rush vs YellOw and getting a little exposure to the Korean professional scene. Teamliquid was a smalllllllllllllllllll small site back then where really only the most hardcore and dedicated of SC1 fans went.

TvB games were by far the most popular out of all the melee types. BGH was THE map everyone publicly played, talked about, cried about, etc. Create a '3v3 BGH gogogo' and it fills up in under a minute. Try creating some 'legit' map and... it definitely took a while. And if private servers like iCCuP were even around back in the day, I'm sure they had an even lesser following because of how... third party it was.

On May 27 2013 22:30 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
As usual I appreciate any sort of insight from you directly from Korea, but if I understand you correctly then as far as I know the information you're basing this on isn't accurate. If the pc bang owners just needed to purchase the full game it wouldn't have been as big of an issue upon the launch of WoL. Usually the games get thousands of hours of playtime and the hourly cost is extremely low in that case. However For WoL Blizzard introduced a set cost per hour played. This set cost per hour is many times more expensive than buying a new game and just using that for years. This has been quoted as the reason for why the Korean pc bangs didn't promote SC2 much at all. If a game is played 3000 hours over the course of three years that costs $600 instead of $50.

I completely agree with your explanation of why team games are so successful. People just love to blame others for their mistakes and it is so relaxing and rewarding to do so. The viewing to playing ratio of SC2 still blows any other game out of the water. It's an amazing spectator sport, but sometimes people find it stressful to play.

On May 28 2013 10:41 SolidMoose wrote:


That was warcraft

On May 27 2013 23:33 Torte de Lini wrote:
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=142288 -- I feel Hoon's 2010 blog made a lot of sense, despite its age.

On May 28 2013 12:07 S:klogW wrote:
I think SC2 is pretty steady and will surpass LOL by the time LOTV is out

On May 28 2013 12:37 eScaper-tsunami wrote:

I wish for the same, but I'm not as optimistic If anyone can screw something up, count blizzard on it :D. All jokes aside, the downfall of LoL and Dota2 will be the constant new heroes and items. Eventually players will just say "enough is enough" and move on but I think Riot and Valve is too smart to make that mistake.

On May 28 2013 12:37 eScaper-tsunami wrote:

I wish for the same, but I'm not as optimistic If anyone can screw something up, count blizzard on it :D. All jokes aside, the downfall of LoL and Dota2 will be the constant new heroes and items. Eventually players will just say "enough is enough" and move on but I think Riot and Valve is too smart to make that mistake.

On May 28 2013 13:24 forsooth wrote:
I'm actually kind of surprised that there's such a strong internet cafe culture in South Korea despite how good its internet infrastructure is. I've had the opportunity to do a lot of travel so far in my life and the only places I found where internet cafes had any real popularity or importance were in countries where in-home internet connections are typically slower and more expensive or difficult to get if you don't live in a major city.

On May 28 2013 13:07 chisuri wrote:

You know nothing.
Ok let me give you an example. I have played DotA (1 and 2) for years now and I mostly (98%) p;ayed support heroes. There are like 6-8 notable supports each version. And I never grow tired or bored of playing them. Once I played 2 heroes for all the matches for 6 straight months. Maybe I am an exception but people can play for decades with a roster of more than 100 heroes, and still more to come, in DotA right now.

On May 28 2013 14:10 eScaper-tsunami wrote:


Nah you didn't understand me. Sure there's 100 heroes now, and there was 150 pokemons and it's all good but number of pokemons increased and sadly that didn't generate more buyers. New pokemons just like new heroes can only attract so many NEW players but the main reason for releasing these new content is for player RETENTION. It's how they keep you playing. However once they break each individual's threshold on how many legitimate heroes that should available in the game, people will start leaving because there's simply too much to handle. Unless you want to argue against me that a game with infinite heroes is the best possible game ever, then I'd be glad to hear your reasons why. But as I was saying, Valve and Riot is probably too smart to make this mistake.

On May 28 2013 13:24 forsooth wrote:
I'm actually kind of surprised that there's such a strong internet cafe culture in South Korea despite how good its internet infrastructure is. I've had the opportunity to do a lot of travel so far in my life and the only places I found where internet cafes had any real popularity or importance were in countries where in-home internet connections are typically slower and more expensive or difficult to get if you don't live in a major city.

On May 28 2013 13:24 forsooth wrote:
I'm actually kind of surprised that there's such a strong internet cafe culture in South Korea despite how good its internet infrastructure is. I've had the opportunity to do a lot of travel so far in my life and the only places I found where internet cafes had any real popularity or importance were in countries where in-home internet connections are typically slower and more expensive or difficult to get if you don't live in a major city.

On May 28 2013 14:32 chisuri wrote:
My point is the number of heroes doesn't matter.

On May 28 2013 14:32 chisuri wrote:
I just play my favorite heroes, which have been there for almost ten years now. I don't care about new heroes too much or even play them to see their spells. I just keep picking the heroes I want and those particular ones hardly change. If DotA has indefinite heroes it doesn't even change the way I play the game. Of course, that will make the game too complicated but you know and I know, that will never happen. DotA has been releasing new heroes with a very slow speed, and I don't even anticipate them. When they come, I will welcome them, but they are not the reason I keep playing DotA. That DotA will release 100 new heroes tomorrow or never to realease any new heroes anymore I will be playing the game.

On May 28 2013 14:32 chisuri wrote:
About new gamers, they still catch up really quick. The truth is you just need to learn 3-4 heroes and youre right on track to charge into the battlefield. The real variation in DotA games is combination of your team and the enemies' team. Even when you just play 1000 games using 1 hero, those games will be different and freshing. That's the retaining attraction of DotA genre.

On May 28 2013 14:10 eScaper-tsunami wrote:


Nah you didn't understand me. Sure there's 100 heroes now, and there was 150 pokemons and it's all good but number of pokemons increased and sadly that didn't generate more buyers. New pokemons just like new heroes can only attract so many NEW players but the main reason for releasing these new content is for player RETENTION. It's how they keep you playing. However once they break each individual's threshold on how many legitimate heroes that should be available in the game, people will start leaving because there's simply too much to handle. Unless you want to argue against me that a game with infinite heroes is the best possible game ever, then I'd be glad to hear your reasons why. But as I was saying, Valve and Riot is probably too smart to make this mistake.

You're contradicting your own argument. If I told you everyone had to play the same 1 hero would you play? Would it be as appealing? Of course not. In other words the number of heroes DOES matter. You can have too little or too much and trust me too much is much less than infinitive.

On May 28 2013 14:59 dartoo wrote:


Actually the real way they keep the game fresh is to release new patches that change the meta game, more than heroes. As sated by someone else, the real fun of dota comes from team compositions, lane matchups as opposed to just trying out new heroes.

On May 28 2013 14:59 dartoo wrote:


You have no idea how popular pudge wars is dont you?

On May 28 2013 08:42 Level10Peon wrote:


BW was more successful in Korea but (as Khaldor said) SC2 is more successful as an esport basically everywhere else in the world, where as BW had a very tiny, dedicated following outside of Korea. This leads me to believe that cultural and economic explanations are accurate, not the nostaliga-filtered memories of BW's UI and gameplay by foreigners.

As an aside, I think it is unfair to compare micro and control for BW players 10 years after BW's release to SC2 players 2 years after release.

On May 28 2013 17:47 Patate wrote:
Just some SC2 apologist stuff, just like when Artosis said SC2 was the best game ever made.

even if LoL is a "free" game, people spend way more than they would on SC2. once you get to Ranked games, you actually need to pay for some Riot Points because you will NEVER have the influence points (experience) to actually afford enough champions to be decent.

The whole PC bang doesn't say why LoL has DESTROYED SC2 in terms of popularity.. just being a free game is not it neither.

On May 28 2013 17:40 Power[Xp] wrote:


I know it is unfair to compare the two, but you need to see the reason why I make the comparison. Maybe I wasn't clear in my explanation. I make the micro and mechanics comparison between the two games, because it explains why one game was more attractive to watch at compared to other games. Most people watch a game with a certain intention. They either like a certain team or player and want to see it for that reason or they expect to a certain player make an amazing play he's famous for. Here comes the reason for my comparison. There was simply more room in a game like Brood War to develop your own unique style and truly shine at it compared to Starcraft 2. And players with a unique style (like Boxer was always known for his outstanding micro and ballsy plays) attracts viewers.

As to why Starcraft 2 is a bigger e-Sport outside Korea compared to Brood War, I think the reason is simple. First of all Starcraft 2 has been released in an era in which Blizzard has a lot more fame compared to the time they released Brood War. So the release of Starcraft 2 got a lot more attention. And I still believe Brood War was quite big outside of Korea, there was a huge player base. The difference was that in those years there weren't many gaming industries and companies outside Korea willing to invest into a game. There are a few exceptions (Counter Strike 1.6, Unreal Tournament and probably more games I forgot) that did get more sponsors and hence grew into big e-sports over the world. But to point out unfair comparisons, I think it is unfair to compare the release of a game in 1998 to the release of a game in 2010 (which builds forth on the fame of the prequel and the company that's releasing it), because during the time a lot has changed in the e-sports scene.

And last I want to point out that it's not nostalgia-filtered memories that make the difference. Like I said, the game design and the depth of a game give players room to create their own unique style and to shine at certain aspects of the game. The room to make different types of plays is very important in keeping a game attractive.

Edit: Oh and could somebody tell me how many Clan Leagues there are nowadays in the non-Korean Starcraft 2 scene? Because even though the community is bigger in Starcraft 2 than it ever has in Brood War, I always felt like the amateur teams and recreative players got ignored. There are plenty of professional teams, but I never saw that many 'recreative teams'. This is btw not critizism, I'm just curious as to how big the scene is for players who don't earn money. In Brood War there were at some point 3 Clan Leagues running at the same time and that provided a lot of activity and fun for the competitive gamers who can't put in as much time as the progamers.

On May 28 2013 17:50 Power[Xp] wrote:


Nice post, I have to agree with you (except on the IP stuff). I think it's possible to get enough champions to be decent in ranked, but most people will spend money on it anyway.

I also feel that while this video has good points, it's also neglecting certain problems in the game Starcraft 2, which is probably the biggest cause as to why it's not a popular game. It's too easy to say certain games are more popular just because they are teamgames and because they are free to play.

On May 28 2013 17:57 OopsOopsBaby wrote:
diablo 3 held 1st place in most played game in pc bangs for several months ahead of LoL after its launch until the problems in the game (overpopulated servers and broken economy) killed it.

i doubt diablo 3 is free in kr.

On May 28 2013 05:12 Philozovic wrote:


I disagree with that, I played a lot of LoL before SC2 came out (during LoL open beta so like October 2009-September 2010) and not only it's way harder to understand a loss (well except like there is a DQ or 0/0/17 guy i'm talking about on the edge game) but it, most of the time, comes down to synergy and teamplay (or that was at least what I felt) and therefore the fault is spread and you don't feel as bad as when losing a 1v1 game.

Edit : And they nerfed nitro pack which was not used in 1v1 if I remember correctly to nerfed Speedling reaper+nitro in 2v2

On May 28 2013 17:47 Patate wrote:
even if LoL is a "free" game, people spend way more than they would on SC2. once you get to Ranked games, you actually need to pay for some Riot Points because you will NEVER have the influence points (experience) to actually afford enough champions to be decent.

On May 28 2013 20:51 Silvanel wrote:


Thats simply not true. I know a lot of people who play ranked and never bought single riot point. If You play a lot You can buy all heros with IP.

On May 28 2013 18:01 Patate wrote:


And for the record, I do play LoL but I do not really watch it because I don't feel like the players are doing inhuman mechanical prowess. They go around with their 50 APM and this kind of rustles me. However, for having taken a look at the All-star games last weekend in Shanghai (200k viewers just on Twitch, by the way), I feel the game has the magic and legendary feel that BW tournaments had. Also, I did not follow BW before playing SC2, so this is not really a nostalgic thing. But for the non-believers, please take a look at a BW OSL final on youtube. It's all in Korean, you don't know the players that much, but you can feel that this is legend in the making, not some other SC2 tournament whose winner will be destroyed by some foreigner next tournament.

On May 28 2013 17:50 Power[Xp] wrote:


Nice post, I have to agree with you (except on the IP stuff). I think it's possible to get enough champions to be decent in ranked, but most people will spend money on it anyway.

I also feel that while this video has good points, it's also neglecting certain problems in the game Starcraft 2, which is probably the biggest cause as to why it's not a popular game. It's too easy to say certain games are more popular just because they are teamgames and because they are free to play.

On May 28 2013 23:47 Power[Xp] wrote:


Yeah it is a shame that LoL doesn't require a lot of apm. I play LoL myself now as well and I was a high apm player in Brood War and Starcraft 2, but I could not really use it to my advantage in LoL. But the good side about it is that I had to learn a lot of new stuff in LoL, which made it a new challenge for me and that's what I like in games

And I think the LoL Tournaments are growing in excitement. The games are more exciting than before and some players are really establishing themselves in the scene. The players have their own unique playstyle for a certain role of the game (jungle, ad carry, mid etc) and it makes people look forward to see how an agressive jungler has an influence on the game against a passive jungler who makes his lanes stronger etc. The different type of plays and games is what attracts the people to watch it. It was the same in Brood War

On May 29 2013 00:19 Apolo wrote:
Entomb.

On May 29 2013 00:54 Arzar wrote:
Every time this topic come I'm constantly amaze by how nobody seems to know exactly how sc2 in pc bangs work.
Sc2 is almost 3 years old now and I still never saw a clear cut answer to the following situation :

Let's say that I, who own the game, want to go with 3 friends, who doesn't own the game, in a pc bang to play some fun 2v2 games.

What happen exactly ? Can someone clear that up ?

Because by reading this thread I can come up with at least 3 scenario :

1) According to Kahldor video
You need to buy the game to be able to play in pc bang
You need a battlenet account

Result : I can't go at all in a pc bang to play with my friends who doesn't own the game.

2) According to MrHoon blog :
You don't need to buy the game.
You need to create a battlenet account (phone number + social security number)

Result : We can go to the pc bang. I use my own account, but we need to create 3 battlenet account for my friends. (we can do it inside the pcbang) It's quite an hassle because they need a phone number + social security number

3) By reading the post of Nazgul I would assume :
You don't need to buy the game.
You don't need to create a battlenet account

Result : We can go to the pc bang. I use my account and my friends use 3 premade account provided by the pc bang. We can start to play right now without any hassle.

Which one is correct ?

On May 28 2013 17:57 OopsOopsBaby wrote:
diablo 3 held 1st place in most played game in pc bangs for several months ahead of LoL after its launch until the problems in the game (overpopulated servers and broken economy) killed it.

i doubt diablo 3 is free in kr.

On May 28 2013 17:40 Power[Xp] wrote:


I know it is unfair to compare the two, but you need to see the reason why I make the comparison. Maybe I wasn't clear in my explanation. I make the micro and mechanics comparison between the two games, because it explains why one game was more attractive to watch at compared to other games. Most people watch a game with a certain intention. They either like a certain team or player and want to see it for that reason or they expect to a certain player make an amazing play he's famous for. Here comes the reason for my comparison. There was simply more room in a game like Brood War to develop your own unique style and truly shine at it compared to Starcraft 2. And players with a unique style (like Boxer was always known for his outstanding micro and ballsy plays) attracts viewers.

As to why Starcraft 2 is a bigger e-Sport outside Korea compared to Brood War, I think the reason is simple. First of all Starcraft 2 has been released in an era in which Blizzard has a lot more fame compared to the time they released Brood War. So the release of Starcraft 2 got a lot more attention. And I still believe Brood War was quite big outside of Korea, there was a huge player base. The difference was that in those years there weren't many gaming industries and companies outside Korea willing to invest into a game. There are a few exceptions (Counter Strike 1.6, Unreal Tournament and probably more games I forgot) that did get more sponsors and hence grew into big e-sports over the world. But to point out unfair comparisons, I think it is unfair to compare the release of a game in 1998 to the release of a game in 2010 (which builds forth on the fame of the prequel and the company that's releasing it), because during the time a lot has changed in the e-sports scene.

And last I want to point out that it's not nostalgia-filtered memories that make the difference. Like I said, the game design and the depth of a game give players room to create their own unique style and to shine at certain aspects of the game. The room to make different types of plays is very important in keeping a game attractive.

On May 29 2013 00:26 Targe wrote:


Personally I feel Dota has more depth to it in the sense you just described but each man to himself.

On May 29 2013 12:35 udgnim wrote:
ignoring mechanic requirements

LoL is a more exciting game to watch and play than SC2

a big reason why is the process of snowballing or eventually winning the game

in LoL, one team might need 3 to 4 more positive engagements (random estimate) than the other team to get so far ahead that it is unlikely for the other team to get back into the game. so if one team needs 3 to 4 more positive engagements than the other team then that leaves more room for back and forth gameplay and the possibility to still be in the game.

in SC2, many many games are decided by 1 decisive engagement which either ends the game or gets 1 player so far ahead that the other player never catches up. a lot of this is due to SC2's mechanics. unlimited unit selection produces many engagements that are ball versus ball and SC2's easier macro mechanics allows a player to more easily maintain a lead.

I'd also love to see the Colossus replaced by the Reaver and the Lurker to replace the Lurker to promote more positioning and micro, but Blizzard's SC2 team has shown they want to put their own mark on the Starcraft series even if it makes the game less exciting to watch.

occasionally, SC2 produces some damn amazing games but more often than not, games are decided by 1 engagement which is boring to me.

On May 29 2013 02:14 Power[Xp] wrote:


I have not played Dota myself and I have hardly seen any games of it. My old Brood War friends introduced me to LoL and for me it at least resembles a little of the feeling I had while playing Brood War. Of course I still love Brood War more. I can't really say anything about dota, sorry I was just pointing out the differences I see in Brood War, LoL and Starcraft 2. But I would be happy to get to know more about Dota in comparison to those games.

On May 29 2013 13:01 milkywaywu wrote:


Not the person you're talking to but if you ever want to try out Dota 2, send me a PM on Teamliquid. I have about 6 keys that I really don't have use for so if you want to try it out with your friends they are yours!

On May 29 2013 12:35 udgnim wrote:
ignoring mechanic requirements

LoL is a more exciting game to watch and play than SC2

a big reason why is the process of snowballing or eventually winning the game

in LoL, one team might need 3 to 4 more positive engagements (random estimate) than the other team to get so far ahead that it is unlikely for the other team to get back into the game. so if one team needs 3 to 4 more positive engagements than the other team then that leaves more room for back and forth gameplay and the possibility to still be in the game.

in SC2, many many games are decided by 1 decisive engagement which either ends the game or gets 1 player so far ahead that the other player never catches up. a lot of this is due to SC2's mechanics. unlimited unit selection produces many engagements that are ball versus ball and SC2's easier macro mechanics allows a player to more easily maintain a lead.

I'd also love to see the Colossus replaced by the Reaver and the Lurker to replace the Lurker to promote more positioning and micro, but Blizzard's SC2 team has shown they want to put their own mark on the Starcraft series even if it makes the game less exciting to watch.

occasionally, SC2 produces some damn amazing games but more often than not, games are decided by 1 engagement which is boring to me.

On May 29 2013 13:11 StarStruck wrote:


I thought it was free to play. ._.

On May 29 2013 19:43 rasers wrote:
i fail 2 see how ganks and Hero ban/pick is luck.

On May 29 2013 19:56 iky43210 wrote:
There is a chance you end up with a inferior comp overall than your opponents

On May 29 2013 19:35 iky43210 wrote:
LoL is exciting to play, but not anywhere exciting to watch. Would rather watch paint dry than to spend an hour per game watching mostly creeps farming and fail ganking

A bo3 sc2 series also only take 30 minute total on average, while any single lol match is 40 minute minimum + champion selections. There is also huge luck factor in LoL when it comes to ganks and comp overall

On May 27 2013 22:11 xsnac wrote:
thanks khaldor . finaly im not the only one saying the problem is money anymore . thank you sir !
You are soo right !
+ Show Spoiler +
thanks again khaldor . + Show Spoiler +

On May 29 2013 21:13 Entropia wrote:
Man I think you have a quite distorted image of the world, "poor people" are not only the one living in rich countries and profiting on social welfare, there are countries in which 50eur are one month savings. Also, having more money don't make you more intelligent, so a higher price to have a better community is a non sense to me.

Blizzard failed in spreading the game in those countries apparently, and those are often the rising economies so definitely a marketing fail in my opinion.

On May 29 2013 22:26 CreationSoul wrote:
I don't understand we there is such a big deal about korea not liking SC2. SC2 is big in the western world. As long as koreans pros play and we as westerns can watch high quality games, I could care less if the korean public likes it.

I would rather have things as they are today, than the way things were in the BW days (BW popular in korea, but almost dead everywhere else)

On May 29 2013 22:26 CreationSoul wrote:
I don't understand we there is such a big deal about korea not liking SC2. SC2 is big in the western world. As long as koreans pros play and we as westerns can watch high quality games, I could care less if the korean public likes it.

I would rather have things as they are today, than the way things were in the BW days (BW popular in korea, but almost dead everywhere else)

On May 29 2013 21:53 tomatriedes wrote:
There seems to still no no buzz in SC2 about custom maps which were such a huge feature of casual play in BW. Blizzard really didn't do a good job of implementing this aspect of the game. It's been said a million times, but the way the battlenet UI was changed from BW to SC2 was a big culprit in ruining the custom scene and making the game feel less social.

But if the proleagues can sustain themselves with enough spectators despite low number of casuals playing in Korea I guess it doesn't really matter.

On May 28 2013 11:27 Cele wrote:

no, not really. People play 1v1 in BW the most. But there are less people with ladder anxiety. Because you can smurf.

On May 29 2013 12:59 wptlzkwjd wrote:
Here's a question:

Back before SC2 was released, did the PC Bangs actually buy individual copies of BW for their computers?

Or did they just buy one copy?

Or did they just install a cracked version and patched it offline and just allowed everyone to LAN?

I'm thinking the latter because my friends and I used to just copy BW on a USB and you can play LAN straight from that.

On May 29 2013 20:50 DMaster wrote:



Khaldor isn't saying that it is a problem that SC2 isn't as popular as the others, he is just presenting reasons why that is,
also Blizzard shouldn't be blamed for trying to make money ... they are every right to do so and in their position i would probably ask for more than 50E ... its totally worth it ... i think i've spent 200 E so far on WoT bshit stuff and only 80E on SC2 ... and am still playing only SC2.

In any case ... kids shouldn't be playing SC2 anyways ( this includes you Destiny - u spoiled brat - rest in pieces ) ... SC2 is too hard for the young and fragile mind of a teen, they can suffer irreparable brain damage since the metagame can only be described in full in a number pages that would exceed that of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and it is still evolving like a living organism does. The kiddies should be in school anyways if for no other reason than that only following this path and this path alone will they mature to a real scholar able to begin grasping the depths of the metagame, only then may they aspire to be as Artosis, TLO or the mighty Nestea ( respectfully bowing while i write this ).

I actually don't want the crowd from LoL, Dota or WoT ... let them be ... i want the cool people and only the cool people playing this game, i want to be part of the exclusive club that is the SC2 community and 50 bucks is way too cheap for this ... if you're reading this Blizzard increase the price ... trust me ... make it 500 E for all i care ( am not j/k actually ) ... Blizzard can have his revenue to maintain the quality of the games it produces ( i actually care about SC2 alone ) and we can have our select group of Zerg Cerebrates, Brotoss'es and Terran Scumbags ( u heard me ).

Driving my point forward - we have a premium product with a premium price tag - no need to change that, if anything please go out of your way and keep the kiddies outta this ... forget LoL Dota and WoT scene ... think of that scene as being kindergarden and think of the SC2 scene as being college ... makes sense now ?

PS: poor people shouldn't be playing games anyways, finding a job comes to mind as being #1 priority ( so Blizzard again do the community a service and don't make free games that would encourage people to live on social welfare )

On May 30 2013 07:57 Genetic wrote:
I didn't watch the video, I'm just taking this opportunity to ask you to stop casting GSL. I'm sure you're a really nice guy, but casting is not your thing. For the love of god please stop. I'll likely be banned for this, but it's worth it if you read it. If you insist on casting, you need to stop saying what HAS happened, and start talking about what WILL happen. Sometimes you harp on an event which has occurred for 2 minutes after it has happened.

Also, if you and Wolf say "GG" together at the end of a game one more time you may as well bend him over after the match and get it over with. Sometimes I watch the GSTL on mute... I don't what what the hell else to say here. PLEASE STOP CASTING. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Probs my final post on TL.net via this account. GG.
Genetic

User was temp banned for this post.