Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How and Why the U-Pick Game Marathon Raises Money With Non-Stop Gaming (Video)

Posted by timothy on from the don't-tase-me-bro-it's-only-a-game dept.

On June 12 through 14th of this year, the fourth (not "fourth annual," but close) iteration of the U-Pick Video Game Marathon for Charity --“UPickVG IV” for short --will be streaming on an Internet connection near you. The U-Pick crew's volunteers will be playing and broadcasting video games, non-stop, as a fundraiser for Charity Water, a cause they've supported since the beginning. I talked with organizers Stephanie and Grant Kibler from their video-game lounge of a living room about what it takes to broadcast an online gathering like this, and why they've adopted this as an annual event. Hint: some esoteric video-capture hardware helps, and so does a beefy network connection, for high-quality streaming of games that pre-date today's multiplayer, network-oriented options. That's significant, because U-Pick's stable of titles isn't limited to modern ones, and observers are encouraged to suggest appropriate games (hence "U-Pick").The remote viewers' choices and donations influence the event by deciding which games are represented on the Wheel of Destiny that the team spins to decide which games get played.The play itself, though,*is* limited to the players who'll be on hand at a Northern Virginia co-working space that will serve as this year's venue. It turns out to be easier to stream the output of old consoles than it is to control them from remote (never mind the latency that would mean), but maybe one day participants will be able to play as well as shoulder-surf and laugh at the players' running commentary. You can check out the Upick page on Facebook, too, and watch one of their practice runs each Sunday. (Note: Video #1 talks mostly about the game play and how you can join. Video #2 - below - talks more about hardware and behind-the-scenes work.)

18 of 34 comments (clear)

  1. Games Done Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow, this is just like Awesome Games Done Quick (AGDQ) and Summer Games Done Quick (SGDQ)
    https://gamesdonequick.com/

    1. Re:Games Done Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This. Fuck you timothy for choosing to promote some group nobody has ever heard of. AGDQ/SGDQ have been going for years, raising funds for Doctor's Without Borders and the Prevent Cancer Foundation. They run for 24 hours for an entire week, twice a year.

    2. Re:Games Done Quick by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      Every "charity" that I've looked into was actually a money-making enterprise disguised as a benevolent one. Some of them have exposed publically, like Easter Seals, Boy's Home, and the Clinton Foundation. In these organizations, a small proportion of the collected money actually goes to the advertised cause, but that's just for show.

      To add to the list, a guy was staying at my house for a while who previously worked for Make A Wish Foundation. He talked like almost 100% of the money went to those who collect it. In fact, while he was at the house, he was collecting for the Fire Department's book on fire safety for children. In reality, there was no such book.

      Thus, anytime I hear the word "charity", I think "rip-off".

      If you want to give money, find the recipient yourself and give directly. If you must use a big organization to move your funds, make sure it's ran by someone you trust.

      Regarding the charity the article is about, I don't know anything. But, to me, it smells funny.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
  2. And no one cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not that I can blame anyone.

    First off, not watching video, Slashdot. Not now, not ever. Stop doing video content. You're a news aggregator. You aren't a content creator. Accept it. Live with it.

    Secondly, who wants to watch people play video games over the Internet, even if it is "for charity"? I can think of better things to do than watch a bunch of neckbeards slowly sit themselves to death in front of a flickering screen. Like watch golf, or paint dry. I will never understand why "streaming people playing video games" is a thing. Why does anyone watch?! Do you want to watch me playing Solitaire by myself? What the hell is WRONG with people?!

    1. Re:And no one cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Secondly, who wants to watch people play video games over the Internet

      Millions of people that aren't you.

    2. Re:And no one cares by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      First off, not watching video, Slashdot. Not now, not ever. Stop doing video content. You're a news aggregator. You aren't a content creator. Accept it. Live with it.

      I couldn't agree more.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    3. Re:And no one cares by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Secondly, who wants to watch people play video games over the Internet, even if it is "for charity"?

      Other people who are not you. Take a look around you some time - there are a lot of them in the world.

      I can think of better things to do than watch a bunch of neckbeards slowly sit themselves to death in front of a flickering screen.

      But you can't think of something better to do than complain about what other people like to do?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:And no one cares by neminem · · Score: 1

      Now I'm imagining "competitive Comcast customer support calling", where teams compete to see who can get Comcast to actually fix their problem fastest.

      I would totally watch that over football.

    5. Re: And no one cares by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to watch Slashdot videos, don't. If you want the *information* in them, read the verbatim transcripts we include with almost every one. And if you don't like the info in our videos, Don't click on them.

        Believe it or not, many different people look at Slashdot every day. Some want to read about *BSD, some want science news. Some -- usually many thousands -- watch the videos, while 10 (on average) complain about them. I learned long ago that not every story on Slashdot is going to please everyone. Such is life.

      AND if you think you can do better or more informative videos than we do, XLNT! Submit a video -- or maybe an idea for one, along with links to videos you've done elsewhere. We stay simple on purpose, because our job in these videos is to introduce you to the people in them, often with a "you are there" feel at conferences and shows where background noise is part of the environment. Remember that we are not looking for star wipes and such. We can do them as well as anyone else, but we know that just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should*.

      Something that happened all the way back in 2000: We did a reader-generated questions interview with Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich. He'd been complaining that nobody was ever fair to him; that they edited his words to twist their meanings. So, being us, Timothy talked to Lars for hours because Lars said it would have to be verbal, that he wasn't going to do all that typing. So Timothy transcribed every word of that interview verbatim, including every "uh" and mumble and obscenity.

      Lars was not thrilled to be quoted verbatim even though that's what he said he wanted. But that interview gave Slashdot people a better sense of who Lars was as a person than all the laundered interviews in the world.

      So we do video interviews with people a Slashdot editor considers interesting, often after a reader suggests interviewing that person (and includes contact information). Or they're people Timothy meets at conferences and trade shows. Some interviewees are making major contributions in one field or another. Some think they are, but aren't. Some are well-known. Some aren't - - but should be. And some live in obscurity and should stay there.

      It's a mixed bag. I say again: if you want to suggest video interview subjects *or* want to be interviewed yourself *or* do an interview, let's go!

      - Rob

      PS - Slashdot has always done a little original content, and for many years was associated with original content sites NewsForge and Linux.com. If you dip into the pool of internet content every day, shouldn't you be obliged to add to it? :)

    6. Re:And no one cares by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      This is a "don't give me any ideas" idea. I don't live in Comcast territory myself, but could moderate/narrate. Get some people who have webcams and speaker phones *and* have Comcast, and.... email robin at roblimodotcom and we'll see if we can make it happen

    7. Re: And no one cares by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Our problem is those of us who have set our preferences to now show images or video links still get this.

      Which means the editors are by-passing our selected preferences to hawk their own crap.

      We don't care if you post videos. But having them forcibly show up in our news feed against the settings we've selected?

      That's just plain annoying.

      In no other story this week do I see images or embedded video. And yet when timothy posts something, there it is.

      So how about you guys stop making your own posts extra special and obey the rules of the user settings instead of just bypassing them and deciding to show it to us anyway?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re: And no one cares by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      If you submit a video and we run it, it would show up in the feed, too. I haven't seen this behavior myself, but I'll try to replicate it. Thanks for the heads-up.

    9. Re:And no one cares by linkdude64 · · Score: 1

      STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE

      "Get off my lawn you selfless charitable bastards!", "Misogyny!" , etc., etc.

    10. Re:And no one cares by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      Speedruns. That is the keyword.
      That said, lets plays are generally awful.

  3. It's good to be the charity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    in 2013, the selected charity siphoned (heh) off about $10M from a $35M cash flow for "operations", of which 70% went for the salaries of 67 people. That's about $100K per person...not bad for a...er..."nonprofit."

    Annual report: http://www.charitywater.org/about/cw_13_annual_report.pdf

    1. Re:It's good to be the charity by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      in 2013, the selected charity siphoned (heh) off about $10M from a $35M cash flow for "operations", of which 70% went for the salaries of 67 people. That's about $100K per person...not bad for a...er..."nonprofit."

      Where did you get the idea that "nonprofit" means, "we don't pay our employees"? Or, "we pay our employees shit"?

      It's as dumb as thinking "for-profit" means, "we pay all of our employees well".

      Harvard University is a non-profit, and last I checked, they're paying their professors pretty well. Rush Presbyterian hospital is a non-profit, but the head of surgery probably makes more than minimum wage.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. You Would Think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...that San Fran, the fucking center of the Liberal Universe, would spend its own fucking money to clean up its own fucking bay.

  5. Re:Desert Bus for Hope by Roblimo · · Score: 2

    I've had problems logging in and sometimes can't post as other than AC even when logged it, too. Try emailing feedback@slashdot.org. That should bring your comment to the attention of people who can help. (I'm can't help because I'm an old retired guy now, and do a little work on Slashdot videos as a contractor.)