|
My humble opinion here in all this "SC2 is dying" trend, is that SC2 was the lead of the pack in 2010 and 2011. And a big chunck of the community became proud of it, even to the point of being elitist. I can remember one interview in the MLG where they asked a random viewer from each of the games their thoughts about their community and the other games ones.
Each one of them (except the guy from SC2) said that the SC2 community was elitist, and that we thought we were the center of the E-sport universe.
Now that we are not the center anymore, just another game like Halo, CoD, CSGO or SSFIV, suddenly SC2 is dying blah blah blah.
Maybe I don't play as much as I played before, maybe I don't watch tournaments as much as before. But SC2 is the ONLY game I have that I have played since I bought it at least once in a week. And I will keep playing.
PS: please, 10.000 average games at any time in B.net.... compare that with the mere 50 or 60 games you can find to other RTS titles... at prime time!!
|
I dunno about elitist, some people hold too high regards to StarCraft and such, but I dunno if said elitism played a role in the overall feeling of StarCraft's pace of decline.
|
I wouldn’t use the word elitism either. But I think there is an argument to be made that the reverence for BW does have a habit of derailing all balance discussions and generally overtaking most talks about the game. It also provides a lot of unearned authority to argument that normally might not gain a lot of traction. Most debates about how to update or change the game degrade into a debate about which aspects of BW should be copied and why those aspects are the best. The focus is never around SC2 itself, except that it is inferior to BW. Its leads to a lot of the same ideas being thrown around all the time. It also brings the cloud of negativity, since everyone looks to the BW “glory days” with rose colored glasses. I think a lot of discussions would be more positive and productive if they were not done while constantly referencing shadow of BW.
|
On September 04 2013 13:10 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 06:36 BronzeKnee wrote:On September 04 2013 06:22 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2013 06:15 BronzeKnee wrote:This article was interesting and a good read. On September 04 2013 03:52 Torte de Lini wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nIdi2FV.png) “What we can say is that SC2 is not dying. The numbers are not going up, clearly, but they are largely stable. Interest in player streams seems to be getting lower, but WCS and other tournaments seem to easily take up the slack to keep the people watching their favorite game.” – courtesy of Conti and his tremendous work regarding Livestream and StarCraft II! I suggest you read all of the topic as there are showings of StarCraft event viewership declining. I do however have a question about this chart. How can you compare stream viewership from WOL to HOTS by month with that chart that says right on the top that pre WOL data is incomplete? In fact, Conti says "So I created the same graph as above, just with all SC2 related streams. But, again, note that all pre-HotS numbers are incomplete and are missing most big tournaments. So do not compare these with anything." There isn't much else to say. If you only look at HOTS, as Conti suggests we do, we've seen a pretty dramatic viewership decline. That is literally the exact opposite of what he says. As Conti is the guy who put together the numbers, I think we can take his interpretation at face value. I know you want all the numbers, but he may simply not have all the data and worked with what he had. We can ask him for more numbers or to provide more details, but I don't' think contradicting is really in order just because there is some missing data. I don't want to go too deep into this, but Conti compared the last months of WOL to HOTS and concludes the game isn't shrinking. Which may be true over that period, even though his data is incomplete. But in April 2012, SC2 already had shrunk so much from it's peek in 2011. So is SC2 in decline? In terms of viewership, who knows? But what matters is if companies can make a buck with E-Sports. MLG just told us they could not. And Blizzard taking a lead role investing in tournaments is also telling. So while viewership may not be decreasing, the content is. That signals decline, at least for the moment. And thus, we are left with the issue that if SC2 isn't growing, is it self sufficient? Does SC2 bring in enough money to pay all the involved parties (players, coaches, leagues, ect) and still attract talented people to the sport? That is the real question. No eSport title is self-sufficient.
And right there I think is the big thing that people have been forgetting for a long time. It was easy to think in 2011/early 2012 that SC2 must be profitable for people since everyone and their grandma was starting a show/tournament/team. People were trying to outdo each other all on the promise or hope of a financial return. I'm sure not everyone was so optimistic and those who have lasted probably were very shrewd and careful in their planning, but I think a lot of people saw growth as profit and made some very bad decisions. (At least from my very-far outsider perspective that is what it has seemed like to me).
As a result, some decline is inevitable and probably much needed. I do worry that the talk of the 'death' of SC2 starts to become a self fulfilling prophesy (at least to a limited extent). For a small number of people it will rally their support to the game they love, but to new viewers they may not think to give SC2 a chance because why jump on board a ship people tell you is sinking? It doesn't matter if it is really sinking or not, but perceptions can really rule the day.
Anyways - I really appreciate the level-headed thought out post Torte. Your articles are always a pleasure to read and bring some good insight.
|
On September 04 2013 22:50 jakethesnake wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 13:10 Torte de Lini wrote:On September 04 2013 06:36 BronzeKnee wrote:On September 04 2013 06:22 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2013 06:15 BronzeKnee wrote:This article was interesting and a good read. On September 04 2013 03:52 Torte de Lini wrote:“What we can say is that SC2 is not dying. The numbers are not going up, clearly, but they are largely stable. Interest in player streams seems to be getting lower, but WCS and other tournaments seem to easily take up the slack to keep the people watching their favorite game.” – courtesy of Conti and his tremendous work regarding Livestream and StarCraft II! I suggest you read all of the topic as there are showings of StarCraft event viewership declining. I do however have a question about this chart. How can you compare stream viewership from WOL to HOTS by month with that chart that says right on the top that pre WOL data is incomplete? In fact, Conti says "So I created the same graph as above, just with all SC2 related streams. But, again, note that all pre-HotS numbers are incomplete and are missing most big tournaments. So do not compare these with anything." There isn't much else to say. If you only look at HOTS, as Conti suggests we do, we've seen a pretty dramatic viewership decline. That is literally the exact opposite of what he says. As Conti is the guy who put together the numbers, I think we can take his interpretation at face value. I know you want all the numbers, but he may simply not have all the data and worked with what he had. We can ask him for more numbers or to provide more details, but I don't' think contradicting is really in order just because there is some missing data. I don't want to go too deep into this, but Conti compared the last months of WOL to HOTS and concludes the game isn't shrinking. Which may be true over that period, even though his data is incomplete. But in April 2012, SC2 already had shrunk so much from it's peek in 2011. So is SC2 in decline? In terms of viewership, who knows? But what matters is if companies can make a buck with E-Sports. MLG just told us they could not. And Blizzard taking a lead role investing in tournaments is also telling. So while viewership may not be decreasing, the content is. That signals decline, at least for the moment. And thus, we are left with the issue that if SC2 isn't growing, is it self sufficient? Does SC2 bring in enough money to pay all the involved parties (players, coaches, leagues, ect) and still attract talented people to the sport? That is the real question. No eSport title is self-sufficient. And right there I think is the big thing that people have been forgetting for a long time. It was easy to think in 2011/early 2012 that SC2 must be profitable for people since everyone and their grandma was starting a show/tournament/team. People were trying to outdo each other all on the promise or hope of a financial return. I'm sure not everyone was so optimistic and those who have lasted probably were very shrewd and careful in their planning, but I think a lot of people saw growth as profit and made some very bad decisions. (At least from my very-far outsider perspective that is what it has seemed like to me). As a result, some decline is inevitable and probably much needed. I do worry that the talk of the 'death' of SC2 starts to become a self fulfilling prophesy (at least to a limited extent). For a small number of people it will rally their support to the game they love, but to new viewers they may not think to give SC2 a chance because why jump on board a ship people tell you is sinking? It doesn't matter if it is really sinking or not, but perceptions can really rule the day. Anyways - I really appreciate the level-headed thought out post Torte. Your articles are always a pleasure to read and bring some good insight.
Very, very true sir.
|
You pretty much said what most of us have been saying in those threads about SC II dying. It isn't dying. It is just at it's normal viewership levels. There is always going to be hype at the start. But that dies down. People get busy with other things, or bored with what is being shown. The market for esports is tough, because for the most part your viewers are going to be the people who play it. But that isn't always the case. CoD black ops 2 has tons of players and CoD streams don't reflect the number of players. I think as we move forward. Just working on refining tournament broadcasts, and hyping up players and conveying to the viewer why we should care will get more growth.
|
On September 04 2013 23:24 HeeroFX wrote:
You pretty much said what most of us have been saying in those threads about SC II dying. It isn't dying. It is just at it's normal viewership levels. There is always going to be hype at the start. But that dies down. People get busy with other things, or bored with what is being shown. The market for esports is tough, because for the most part your viewers are going to be the people who play it. But that isn't always the case. CoD black ops 2 has tons of players and CoD streams don't reflect the number of players. I think as we move forward. Just working on refining tournament broadcasts, and hyping up players and conveying to the viewer why we should care will get more growth.
yes agreed (:
|
On September 04 2013 13:10 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 06:36 BronzeKnee wrote:On September 04 2013 06:22 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2013 06:15 BronzeKnee wrote:This article was interesting and a good read. On September 04 2013 03:52 Torte de Lini wrote:“What we can say is that SC2 is not dying. The numbers are not going up, clearly, but they are largely stable. Interest in player streams seems to be getting lower, but WCS and other tournaments seem to easily take up the slack to keep the people watching their favorite game.” – courtesy of Conti and his tremendous work regarding Livestream and StarCraft II! I suggest you read all of the topic as there are showings of StarCraft event viewership declining. I do however have a question about this chart. How can you compare stream viewership from WOL to HOTS by month with that chart that says right on the top that pre WOL data is incomplete? In fact, Conti says "So I created the same graph as above, just with all SC2 related streams. But, again, note that all pre-HotS numbers are incomplete and are missing most big tournaments. So do not compare these with anything." There isn't much else to say. If you only look at HOTS, as Conti suggests we do, we've seen a pretty dramatic viewership decline. That is literally the exact opposite of what he says. As Conti is the guy who put together the numbers, I think we can take his interpretation at face value. I know you want all the numbers, but he may simply not have all the data and worked with what he had. We can ask him for more numbers or to provide more details, but I don't' think contradicting is really in order just because there is some missing data. I don't want to go too deep into this, but Conti compared the last months of WOL to HOTS and concludes the game isn't shrinking. Which may be true over that period, even though his data is incomplete. But in April 2012, SC2 already had shrunk so much from it's peek in 2011. So is SC2 in decline? In terms of viewership, who knows? But what matters is if companies can make a buck with E-Sports. MLG just told us they could not. And Blizzard taking a lead role investing in tournaments is also telling. So while viewership may not be decreasing, the content is. That signals decline, at least for the moment. And thus, we are left with the issue that if SC2 isn't growing, is it self sufficient? Does SC2 bring in enough money to pay all the involved parties (players, coaches, leagues, ect) and still attract talented people to the sport? That is the real question. No eSport title is self-sufficient.
sour grapes?
eSports is continuing to grow like crazy while the SC2 scene stagnates and/or regresses.
Live events a la WWE, UFC, and Boxing are the solution.
The future of esports is in the far east and MAYBE the west coast of NA on the shore of the pacific ocean.
With any other "fringe sport" a Vince Mcmahon/Don King type of genius promoter takes it to the next level.
It will happen in a country like China, Japan or Korea. and an esports title will become self sufficient.
in the future it is possible, but not in North America. North America is irrelevant. Blizzcon is not an esports event.
Do not try to sell hockey in Trinidad.
The home base of esports will always be somewhere in the far east due to cultural tendencies.
It will take a game publisher with the balls bigger than Andy Kaufman to hand over the promotion of their esport game to one of these types of promoters.
Eventually it will happen because there will be profits to be made as eSports as an industry continues on its inevitable path of growth.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=427990
|
no, reality of spending and return (short-term and long-term).
WWE, UFC work on a different earnings system than eSports, especially through traditional media.
|
On September 04 2013 23:52 Torte de Lini wrote:
no, reality of spending and return (short-term and long-term).
WWE, UFC work on a different earnings system than eSports, especially through traditional media.
Self sufficient is a weird phrase when it comes to entertainment based industries, since they are creating a product with the intention of providing ad space. They can be profitable, but they are always working with third parties to obtain income. Its not like manufacturing or running a corner store, where spending vs income equation is less complex.
|
Even via sponsors, it's very rare that it is self-sufficient beyond either breaking even (of that particular event), especially for PC games (consoles are generally what advertisers like).
but now we're getting an area I'm becoming less familiar with
|
On September 04 2013 23:52 Torte de Lini wrote:
no, reality of spending and return (short-term and long-term).
WWE, UFC work on a different earnings system than eSports, especially through traditional media.
lots of live events are profitable.
and an esports event is just another form of live event.
esports is continuing to grow by leaps and bounds so it'll happen.
an esport will become self sufficient due to live event sales in the same way the NHL, UFC and WWE are right now.
|
On September 05 2013 00:11 Torte de Lini wrote:
Even via sponsors, it's very rare that it is self-sufficient beyond either breaking even (of that particular event), especially for PC games (consoles are generally what advertisers like).
but now we're getting an area I'm becoming less familiar with
I think it is why a lot of sports work on a revenue sharing system for team sports and individual sports work with a deep prize pool. Team sports keep the lights on with stadiums, with high priced beer, drinks and food. Golf and tennis are highly sustainable with ads revenue and basic income from their venues(major golf courses cost a mint to play on). Its why I think the global nature of SC2 and our obsession with live events has really hurt the scenes growth. At least in EU they focused on Germany and Sweden for large events. But in NA, we never doubled down and got a studio or made an Esports City that everyone needed to move to. But without a way for the leagues to directly make money off of the people viewing, they will always be dependent on ads and sponsors. I would love to get away from that and focus more on making money directly from the people who want to see the events(live, not through PPV)
|
It does feel like things have leveled out. I feel like the upcoming blizzcon tournament is of huge importance to the SC2 scene. It really needs to be a big success, SC2 needs a massive tournament like that again. I'm a little concerned how having 16 Koreans there would impact things (Naniwa looked like the most likely foreigner to make it but now he's probably out of the running).
I think the scene still has a lot of room for growth but changes need to be made. This first year of WCS was always going to cause problems within the scene. It was very rushed and completely changed how things ran in the SC2 world. Firstly because it started so late everything had to be rushed. As a result we have had almost complete saturation with WCS since it started. This has caused less people to tune into players streams but it has also limited how much other SC2 content we get. Basically there is just no room to run other tournaments.
Going forward these tournaments need to be spaced out more and we need to know WAY in advance when other tournaments can be run. Blizzard need to go to MLG, dreamhack, redbull, IEM and all the big players and find out what suits them. If we're going to have a WCS format where other tournaments can't overlap then there needs to be more organization to let other tournaments a chance to run.
WCS style formats are cool for creating an ongoing narrative but i feel like the SC2 scene was built on the back of big LAN tournaments and fans are craving that. I having nothing against the WCS format so long as there is room for the big LANs we are used to. The NA scene imo either needs the WCS to be region locked or it needs more big and small tournaments outside of WCS. A WCS filled with Koreans simply won't grow the scene.
As for the Korean scene i've thought from the start that this whole swapping thing with GSL/OSL is a terrible idea. Basically SC2 is already tiny compared to LoL and then we make it so they can only run every 2nd tournament. It just feels like this gives so little incentive for either of them to really push the game. They both need regular income and this just won't cut it. Honestly we need to find a way for them both to be able to run their own content. I just don't see this being a long term solution. It has also really cut into the total prize pool on offer in Korea which i really doubt is helping.
Beyond this the WCS needs to expand. Personally i think there needs to be either an SEA or Chinese region (makes sense anyway 4 players from each region for finals). I think we also need to find a way to get smaller regions involved. That was one of the great things about the first WCS.
Then of course there is the game itself. This is a complex issue and i'm not sure anyone agrees on what needs to be done but i'll give my thoughts.
-Variety. Games like LoL and dota2 have a huge number of characters and potential strategies. They are also constantly changing and this helps keep people interested. Right now SC2 lacks here, the number of strategies is seriously limited and this is something that needs to change (like making mech viable, come on blizzard!). I feel like they are TOO cautious and are afraid to make big changes or add too many new things. I'd rather see them go a little crazy (even if it's just on ptr) and see what happens. Bring back reavers and lurkers, buff some units completely change certain units or mechanics. Despite all the balance whining that will happen it will create more interest amongst the fans simply because things are actually changing.
Map pools are another important point here and one of the areas where we can change things up where for example MOBA's can't (they don't need to). In those games the huge variety of characters provides the variation we need. In SC2 changing maps can completely change the game. When KESPA first came over they tried some crazy things, sure they may not have worked that well but at least it was different. I really feel like we need to make some COMPLETELY different maps, encourage the community to get involved even. Right now they are all so similar and they rarely change. I feel like if the map pool was constantly changing a lot of the complaints about the game being stagnant would go away.
-Focus on the arcade and the community. We need a built in stream in the game, similar to what DOTA2 has. We need to have a way of holding custom tournaments online. People love running their own tournaments and i feel like this has SO much potential. You could even add the betting features like in the OBS custom games. Make the arcade more accessible and try to bring back the community feel of BW. BW was never played so long because of its 1v1 (as good as it was). It was the custom games that kept everything so strong.
-F2P. Many will disagree and say it's either too late or won't work, they may be right too. I just think that this is the way forward for any game hoping to be an esport (in general in the PC environment i feel like it's going to become more standard). They could still sell the SP campaign on it's own, just make the MP free. Let people pay to make custom tournaments or ladders (i would kill for a macro/micro ladder). Let people buy outfits for their units, i'd pay a high price to have zealots with chefs hats. In team games you could go a bit more crazy and give them really weird outfits.
Personally one thing that i would love to see is something similar to what DOTA2 did with the international. The compendium was a brilliant idea. It's a simple way to really expand the prize pool and it really got the fans involved (i know people who tuned in just because of that reason and they don't really like DOTA2). I think blizzard could do something similar with WCS and it would be a nice way to increase the prize pools (which lets face it are pretty modest).
I hope blizzard eventually starts making the required changes. The game will never be as big as LoL but that doesn't mean we can't see more growth. I'm just not sure blizzard is up to it or even values SC2 enough as a franchise to put in the effort.
On September 05 2013 00:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 00:11 Torte de Lini wrote:
Even via sponsors, it's very rare that it is self-sufficient beyond either breaking even (of that particular event), especially for PC games (consoles are generally what advertisers like).
but now we're getting an area I'm becoming less familiar with I think it is why a lot of sports work on a revenue sharing system for team sports and individual sports work with a deep prize pool. Team sports keep the lights on with stadiums, with high priced beer, drinks and food. Golf and tennis are highly sustainable with ads revenue and basic income from their venues(major golf courses cost a mint to play on). Its why I think the global nature of SC2 and our obsession with live events has really hurt the scenes growth. At least in EU they focused on Germany and Sweden for large events. But in NA, we never doubled down and got a studio or made an Esports City that everyone needed to move to. But without a way for the leagues to directly make money off of the people viewing, they will always be dependent on ads and sponsors. I would love to get away from that and focus more on making money directly from the people who want to see the events(live, not through PPV)
This would be really cool to focus on an area and have a GSL style studio. With the NASL involved and blizzard buying up the IPL infrastructure i feel like they could make it happen.
|
Blizzard needs to realize that them running the "esports side of SC2" is like James Naismith running the NBA.
Blizzard is great at being James Naismith and they are abysmal at being David Stern.
|
I don't know Basketball so that went right over my head ):
On September 05 2013 00:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 00:11 Torte de Lini wrote:
Even via sponsors, it's very rare that it is self-sufficient beyond either breaking even (of that particular event), especially for PC games (consoles are generally what advertisers like).
but now we're getting an area I'm becoming less familiar with I think it is why a lot of sports work on a revenue sharing system for team sports and individual sports work with a deep prize pool. Team sports keep the lights on with stadiums, with high priced beer, drinks and food. Golf and tennis are highly sustainable with ads revenue and basic income from their venues(major golf courses cost a mint to play on). Its why I think the global nature of SC2 and our obsession with live events has really hurt the scenes growth. At least in EU they focused on Germany and Sweden for large events. But in NA, we never doubled down and got a studio or made an Esports City that everyone needed to move to. But without a way for the leagues to directly make money off of the people viewing, they will always be dependent on ads and sponsors. I would love to get away from that and focus more on making money directly from the people who want to see the events(live, not through PPV)
Without live events, there wouldn't be as much appeal for eSports than there would. Despite the game being online, the offline portion is definitely the most extravageant and endearing part for dedicated fans and probably players as well. I never thought too much about it beyond using it as a medium to convince the general audience how serious the scene is and to bring out the socialistic tendency of an otherwise stigmatized anti-social group, but now that you think about it; without the component of an offline event: the prominence of progaming as told in a story-form wouldn't sound as enthralling (players travel from around all the world to play at a packed stadium in bla bla bla bla)
I'd call SF the closest eSports city 
|
This is what happens when you only focus on the 1v1 aspect of the game, as a community, and trivialize the team component and what it means for a game that wants to compete with budding team vs team eSports.
People are easily bored and even more easily discouraged by hitting a ceiling, nowadays. The moment the game feels boring they move on to something else (even a game that is shit by comparison - or even a game that is a completely different genre). I don't feel like Blizzard has done much to improve the player experience from a longevity standpoint for SC2. This is what happens when single-player is like pulling off a band-aid, and in today's market, it's what happens when you focus all of your support purely on balance and bug-fix.
SC2 suffers from a lack of fresh content, and the expansion really didn't bring that much to the table for people who aren't interested in 1v1 online ladder. Spawning caused an influx of new people for a little while, but what it gives for free is just a tease, and people feel like they're entitled to a whole lot more for nothing these days. You need to deliver magic if you're going to charge 40-60 bucks an expansion, and new players will dry up eventually. Potential players will also stop following something that they've given up on for whatever reason, so adding shit after a game has been out for a few years is hit / miss.
EDIT: All games are dying once they stop growing. That is what we face right now.
|
On September 04 2013 22:43 Plansix wrote:
I wouldn’t use the word elitism either. But I think there is an argument to be made that the reverence for BW does have a habit of derailing all balance discussions and generally overtaking most talks about the game. It also provides a lot of unearned authority to argument that normally might not gain a lot of traction. Most debates about how to update or change the game degrade into a debate about which aspects of BW should be copied and why those aspects are the best. The focus is never around SC2 itself, except that it is inferior to BW. Its leads to a lot of the same ideas being thrown around all the time. It also brings the cloud of negativity, since everyone looks to the BW “glory days” with rose colored glasses. I think a lot of discussions would be more positive and productive if they were not done while constantly referencing shadow of BW.
Yes, that is true. What is even more interesting is that many of the people who talk about BW don't appear to have played it or really watched it - if their comments are anything to go by. Now, I only played SC1 and BW between 1998 - 1999/2000 on LANS and had no idea of what became of the game after that - both in terms of development of play and as a spectator sport. But, I have read comments from people who obviously did play BW and did follow the scene and I think it puts the lie to many other comments about BW from other people. In this sense, BW has become the ultimate footnote in design discussion on TL.
Edit/ Love your work, Torte. I'm reading it now and will finish reading the rest before I start work.
|
Thank you very much (: Have a great day at work!
I played WarCraft III during Brood War and DotA, so I try to avoid using BW under any arguments given the lack of personal experience and understanding.
|
On September 05 2013 03:52 dUTtrOACh wrote:
EDIT: All games are dying once they stop growing. That is what we face right now.
that has always been true.
SC2 is a great game in a very narrow niche... people got a little wide eyed in 2011 when IPL and all these other start ups took a run at running an SC2 event.
the good news is guys like Mike Morhaime and Jon van Caneghem, and Randy Patchford..
i mean.. some real industry giants still believe in investing in RTS.
as long as guys like that are investing their time, money and energy into the genre everything is fine.
if we start to see these types of guys pulling out then its panic time.
No offense to David Ting and Sundance and guys like that ... but really they are irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
