gr4vity wrote:QUOTE (gr4vity @ Oct 27 2010, 08:23 AM) Live stream is unacceptable for obvious reasons.
Besides everybody will know the outcome of the game before the delayed stream is over anyway. So what makes it so much better than a proper post-game match summary?
Hey Grav. This is a tool to bring in new players and let existing players watch in (close to) real time. Lots and lots and lots of ppl watch these "live" sites. Even if we're delaying an hour (which is fine by me if I can make it work) it's a huge deal in possible player retention. Even with the horrible audio problems I had when doing this last gig with spidey a while back on ustream, it brought us 3-4 players. If we can get an active channel, it will attract more people. The commentating does that more than the videos. And, we aren't limited to 10 mins like on youtube, etc etc. Its MUCH better than a post game match summary that's written by one of the teams . .trust me. That's why ppl love to listen to Eli Gold call an Alabama football game rather than the crappy network sportscasters. Eli KNOWS the players and doesn't accidentally say that the offensive coordinator is the quarter back (sorry for the American specific references, but it's the best for me).
gr4vity wrote:QUOTE (gr4vity @ Oct 27 2010, 08:23 AM) In addition to that:
- You can't really predict the length of the game (Might be too long for the commentary to stay exciting or too short to justify all the fuzz about it)
- Stream will mostly be low quality
- Hard to estimate the demanded bandwidth
- Commentators might miss out on interesting details in "the middle of action"
- Stream might compromise the personal privacy of squad members
- Preparing a permanent download of the stream with improved editing is extra work you'd save by skipping the stream
Commentary may not stay super exciting, but you're broadcasting LIVE (even if I introduce a delay of 60 minutes. .. the website sees it as "live" from my PC) and you get on the "now playing lists" that appear on the front pages of these sites and the chat functions are "live" so that all current and possible future allegiance players can comment on the broadcast as well. You're considered "live" by the site the entire time, so a long 'cast isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing.
gr4vity wrote:QUOTE (gr4vity @ Oct 27 2010, 08:23 AM) So I think the long term advantage of a nicely cut-together match report out-weight those of the delayed stream.
(IN PARTICULAR when it comes to the promotional effect of such a video!)
+ You can cut out boring/unimportant scenes and limit the video to an acceptable length
+ Much better quality (so you can actually see what's going on and not a bunch of blurry dots exploding)
+ Easier to provide as permanent download amongst the viewer-ship (Could link it to the front page)
+ Commentators can prepare even more exciting comments!
+ No chance of cheating whatsoever or anybody claiming it has been done
I agree completely, but I do not have the time and I haven't seen anyone else cut a squad game up except me. That one game I did (it's in the Alleg Sports feed . .one of the earlier episodes) took me about 5-6 hours . .not counting the time I had to dedicate (yes, completely dedicate) my PC (a quad core 4G ram box . .not super, but not slow either) to rendering the video . . .which took about 5-6 hours iirc. I know what you may be thinking, the rendering time doesn't really count . .you can do that before you go to bed . .alrighty, you do that. I have a family and lots of need for family time. I don't spend my evenings before bed working on allegiance. I'm working my second job or trying to spend time with my wife or working on my grad school work.. . .so that means it might take me 3-4 weeks to put together a highlight video. Can others do it quicker? I'm sure. I'd welcome them to do it and I continue to extend the offer to add videos that anyone wants to the Allegiance Sports feed IF they are up to my standards of quality.