|
On January 17 2015 03:03 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 20:42 Brett wrote:On January 16 2015 20:32 var username wrote:On January 16 2015 07:23 xM(Z wrote:On January 16 2015 00:25 dvorakftw wrote:On January 15 2015 17:45 xM(Z wrote:
15$ is around 5% of a monthly paycheck ...
go pirates! You are making $300 a month? Just $75 a week? Only $15 a day? How sad. On the bright side, the subscription covers roughly three months so that averages it down to under 2% each month. but, but, my kids ... be left with no bread'n shit. so now, let me help you. what you should've taken from that post is that the fee doesn't have the same weight for all people; acknowledge it and move the fuck on. don't rag on the little people. moving on now - practically, it's not 2% per month, per 30 days, but 2% for about 4 - 5 days but w/e. this is exactly why high Gini coefficients are the fact of life. the reproachable, condescending attitude on the low-income on full display here is sufficient evidence. then again, it's perfectly acceptable since the low-income shouldn't even be here on the Internet in the first place, right? /s I don't think people missing out on the ability to watch one SC2 stream in high quality for free is the appropriate vehicle for the argument you're making, bud. Re: your edit, it doesn't matter. You can't divorce your comment from the rest of the thread where the 'poor' people are indeed asking for the stream to be free. Like I said above, sure don't rag on them for their financial position, but they can be called out for unreasonable expectations. We're not talking about necessities here. you're just trying to be politically correct while giving the middle finger to the poor guy + Show Spoiler +WE SEE YOU DUDE!, be afraid, be very afraid. . there is no objective reasoning/logic that allows you to demand a non-bitching attitude from anyone because it was GOM that changed things. you could maybe get away with a 'no demands' policy(from the plebs) because ... capitalism ... democracy ... free market or whatever, but that's all you can have here. Ex: + Show Spoiler +it's like this: you give a lollypop to a kid, let him suck it for a while then take it away.
now, for him, it doesn't even matter if you stole it, if you only payed for half of it or if you want to pass it on to your other kids. he did nothing wrong but is one lollypop short; of course he is gonna bitch.
he would've been better if you didn't gave him that lpop to begin with so there, it's GOMs fault anyway for creating the demand in the first place. Edit:to make (more)clear(er): you just don't bring someone out of his ignorance for free then charge him for no longer being an ignorant...
Which is it? There's no reasoning for my position or I could maybe get away with 'capitalism... free market...' ? That's exactly my point. It is a free market. Welcome to the real world. Make your choices and get on with it. The lollipop example is pretty useless to be honest, e.g.
*in the real world, the 'Kid' was lucky to have 'sucked on the lollipop' at all,
*most viewers of SC2 are not 5 year olds and shouldn't act as such,
*you could argue the kid finished his lollipop and is now demanding another one for free
etc etc etc.
I don't see an issue with calling out such behaviour whilst choosing not to be a mean fuck about their (lack of) financial means?
|
On January 18 2015 08:46 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 03:03 xM(Z wrote:On January 16 2015 20:42 Brett wrote:On January 16 2015 20:32 var username wrote:On January 16 2015 07:23 xM(Z wrote:On January 16 2015 00:25 dvorakftw wrote:On January 15 2015 17:45 xM(Z wrote:
15$ is around 5% of a monthly paycheck ...
go pirates! You are making $300 a month? Just $75 a week? Only $15 a day? How sad. On the bright side, the subscription covers roughly three months so that averages it down to under 2% each month. but, but, my kids ... be left with no bread'n shit. so now, let me help you. what you should've taken from that post is that the fee doesn't have the same weight for all people; acknowledge it and move the fuck on. don't rag on the little people. moving on now - practically, it's not 2% per month, per 30 days, but 2% for about 4 - 5 days but w/e. this is exactly why high Gini coefficients are the fact of life. the reproachable, condescending attitude on the low-income on full display here is sufficient evidence. then again, it's perfectly acceptable since the low-income shouldn't even be here on the Internet in the first place, right? /s I don't think people missing out on the ability to watch one SC2 stream in high quality for free is the appropriate vehicle for the argument you're making, bud. Re: your edit, it doesn't matter. You can't divorce your comment from the rest of the thread where the 'poor' people are indeed asking for the stream to be free. Like I said above, sure don't rag on them for their financial position, but they can be called out for unreasonable expectations. We're not talking about necessities here. you're just trying to be politically correct while giving the middle finger to the poor guy + Show Spoiler +WE SEE YOU DUDE!, be afraid, be very afraid. . there is no objective reasoning/logic that allows you to demand a non-bitching attitude from anyone because it was GOM that changed things. you could maybe get away with a 'no demands' policy(from the plebs) because ... capitalism ... democracy ... free market or whatever, but that's all you can have here. Ex: + Show Spoiler +it's like this: you give a lollypop to a kid, let him suck it for a while then take it away.
now, for him, it doesn't even matter if you stole it, if you only payed for half of it or if you want to pass it on to your other kids. he did nothing wrong but is one lollypop short; of course he is gonna bitch.
he would've been better if you didn't gave him that lpop to begin with so there, it's GOMs fault anyway for creating the demand in the first place. Edit:to make (more)clear(er): you just don't bring someone out of his ignorance for free then charge him for no longer being an ignorant... Which is it? There's no reasoning for my position or I could maybe get away with 'capitalism... free market...' ? That's exactly my point. It is a free market. Welcome to the real world. Make your choices and get on with it. The lollipop example is pretty useless to be honest, e.g. *in the real world, the 'Kid' was lucky to have 'sucked on the lollipop' at all, *most viewers of SC2 are not 5 year olds and shouldn't act as such, *you could argue the kid finished his lollipop and is now demanding another one for free etc etc etc. I don't see an issue with calling out such behaviour whilst choosing not to be a mean fuck about their (lack of) financial means?
You guys are arguing about pointless topics. The main reason people are having issues with Gom's decision, is that every other Esport organization on twitch is providing free med to high quality, while having around 10x the viewership than Starcraft 2.
Has nothing to do with people unable to pay or not wanting to, it's just bad business to do what Gom is doing in the long run. Gom no longer provides premium content since they came to twitch. GOM is making money off a quick cash grab with quick subs.
Gom's payment system is pretty bad, they charge for "high" separate from "source" quality. With Starcraft 2 viewership going down, this is not a good paywall system to increase viewership.
We want starcraft 2 to gain viewership and be successful, Gom's model is a terrible way to achieve that goal IMO.
|
Will sub for hitpoint bars.
|
On January 18 2015 10:00 LingBlingBling wrote:
We want starcraft 2 to gain viewership and be successful, Gom's model is a terrible way to achieve that goal IMO.
Did anyone disagree on that the previous 31 pages?
|
On January 19 2015 01:14 anessie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2015 10:00 LingBlingBling wrote:
We want starcraft 2 to gain viewership and be successful, Gom's model is a terrible way to achieve that goal IMO. Did anyone disagree on that the previous 31 pages?
A lot of people in fact.
- not me
|
my main issue is that wcs events require 720p or better. gsl is giving out wcs points and should not be permitted by blizzard to loophole this rule.
|
On January 19 2015 17:15 BlueStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2015 01:14 anessie wrote:On January 18 2015 10:00 LingBlingBling wrote:
We want starcraft 2 to gain viewership and be successful, Gom's model is a terrible way to achieve that goal IMO. Did anyone disagree on that the previous 31 pages? A lot of people in fact. - not me
Those who have accepted that SC2 isn't going to gain any viewers just because GOM offers free HD.
"Hey, get off work, watch this Swarm Host vs Mech game with me! What do you mean it's boring? BUT THEY HAVE FREE HD!!!"
Sorry to be cynical about it, but if you are really just worried about SC2 viewership, I've got bad news for you:
GOM is not the problem.
|
GOM is definitely the problem.
|
GOM is the problem, I agree. If I want to introduce a friend I'll show him the highest level of play - this happens in every sport. What will he say when you can barely understand what is going on? I think he would ask 'how comes LOL proleague is free at source quality?'
|
On January 19 2015 17:21 y0su wrote:
my main issue is that wcs events require 720p or better. gsl is giving out wcs points and should not be permitted by blizzard to loophole this rule.
WHERE is the textbook that WCS NA/EU and GSL/SSL requires 720p for free? OP textbook isn't.
|
On January 19 2015 17:15 BlueStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2015 01:14 anessie wrote:On January 18 2015 10:00 LingBlingBling wrote:
We want starcraft 2 to gain viewership and be successful, Gom's model is a terrible way to achieve that goal IMO. Did anyone disagree on that the previous 31 pages? A lot of people in fact. - not me
and by a lot of people he mean keksx.
|
Didnt they have High quality last season, why this season they decide to change?
|
I vote to rename low quality evil quality.
|
On January 23 2015 20:16 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2015 17:15 BlueStar wrote:On January 19 2015 01:14 anessie wrote:On January 18 2015 10:00 LingBlingBling wrote:
We want starcraft 2 to gain viewership and be successful, Gom's model is a terrible way to achieve that goal IMO. Did anyone disagree on that the previous 31 pages? A lot of people in fact. - not me and by a lot of people he mean keksx.
To be fair: He posted in this thread A LOT 
On January 23 2015 20:23 Lumi wrote:
I vote to rename low quality evil quality.
Or greedy quality. Hmm.. Or desperate quality..
|
On January 23 2015 19:54 SoSexy wrote:
GOM is the problem, I agree. If I want to introduce a friend I'll show him the highest level of play - this happens in every sport. What will he say when you can barely understand what is going on? I think he would ask 'how comes LOL proleague is free at source quality?'
Proleague is free at high on twitch and source on azubu. It's just gom that is low
|
China6330 Posts
On January 19 2015 17:21 y0su wrote:
my main issue is that wcs events require 720p or better. gsl is giving out wcs points and should not be permitted by blizzard to loophole this rule.
Blizzard allows GSL to have a paywall since 2014. GSL has free 720p in 2013 iirc, I imagine gom pushed Blizzard to allow them having a different business model.
|
On January 23 2015 20:52 Rocket-Bear wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 19:54 SoSexy wrote:
GOM is the problem, I agree. If I want to introduce a friend I'll show him the highest level of play - this happens in every sport. What will he say when you can barely understand what is going on? I think he would ask 'how comes LOL proleague is free at source quality?' Proleague is free at high on twitch and source on azubu. It's just gom that is low
its not called slow any more. this is backwards.
|
On January 23 2015 19:54 SoSexy wrote:
GOM is the problem, I agree. If I want to introduce a friend I'll show him the highest level of play - this happens in every sport. What will he say when you can barely understand what is going on? I think he would ask 'how comes LOL proleague is free at source quality?'
Precisely. It is Blizzard's product GOM is presenting. As of now, that product looks like complete shit. It hurts the SC2 brand, so it is difficult to understand why Blizzard would allow it.
|
On January 23 2015 20:52 Rocket-Bear wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 19:54 SoSexy wrote:
GOM is the problem, I agree. If I want to introduce a friend I'll show him the highest level of play - this happens in every sport. What will he say when you can barely understand what is going on? I think he would ask 'how comes LOL proleague is free at source quality?' Proleague is free at high on twitch and source on azubu. It's just gom that is low
I was making a comparison between two high quality tournaments, I'm sure you got my point.
|
On January 23 2015 21:22 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 20:52 Rocket-Bear wrote:On January 23 2015 19:54 SoSexy wrote:
GOM is the problem, I agree. If I want to introduce a friend I'll show him the highest level of play - this happens in every sport. What will he say when you can barely understand what is going on? I think he would ask 'how comes LOL proleague is free at source quality?' Proleague is free at high on twitch and source on azubu. It's just gom that is low I was making a comparison between two high quality tournaments, I'm sure you got my point.
I'm just saying that you could instead just show them Proleague or Starleague as in introduction instead of GSL. That's what I would do if I had any friends
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
