Slashdot Mirror
eSports and Livestreaming Buoy PC Gaming (hopesandfears.com)
An anonymous reader writes: PC gaming seems to have fended off the threat from consoles, and it's due in no small part to livestreaming services and eSports. The PC gaming hardware industry is undergoing a resurgence, contrary to the predictions of even five years ago. The community that has sprung up around livestreaming self-promotes far better than any individual gaming company could hope. It's gotten to the point where developers are starting to think about the "streamability" of their game as they're building it. "There are plenty of things to avoid when building a game for livestreaming as well—specifically, anything that slows down the action. ... A good streaming game can't waste too much time in confusing menus or with difficult setup, either." One of the big questions now is whether VR technology will fit into this growing niche. A spectator mode that uses VR could be as much of a killer app as a great VR game.
Dam rights PC Master Race.
I interviewed for a "Competitive" QA position at a AAA developer recently, and they were very interested in live-streaming expertise going into it. They were specifically looking to make this game an 'esport' from the ground up. It seemed as if they were trying to capitalize on a growing trend, instead of making a great multiplayer game. An indication of the direction the AAA gaming industry is headed, I suppose.
Because when I'm up late at night "working" in my office, I'm often really fragging noobs. This way the wife and kids stay asleep...
> A good streaming game can't waste too much time in confusing menus or with difficult setup
Lies. A good game will be enjoyable to watch streaming.
It might not get millions of viewers, but I still enjoy factorio, dwarf fortress, and EU4 streams.
In an effort to capture a wider audiences the consoles became very risk averse and bland. Anything remotely interesting or new now happens in the PC space.
Indy games, esports, streaming are all very community driven. Consoles are anything but community oriented because you have to be very "hands off" with a community or you'll choke it to death. Consoles are about controlled environments and communities don't work there.
PC gaming does not need to be propped up and it never has needed it. Consoles are still limited special-purpose devices that do not do most things a PC or do them badly. PCs can not only be gaming machines, they are still general-purpose computers with general-purpose OSes. And they can be much more powerful than consoles, just as desired by the owner. They have a far better user interface. And the time where consoles have been programmed to fit the raw hardware are long over. It does make sense these days to develop for Console and PC at the same time. It can also make sense to develop PC-only to get around the limitations consoles have and always will have. But it makes no sense at all with regards to technology to develop console-only.
The nature of the PC appeals to enough people that PC gaming will stay around until some really fundamental change (not what the press calls "fundamental" these days, but a real game-changer), and consoles will not be what replaces the PC.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Imagine a skater game where you get points from your spectators when they like your tricks (they get an "applause" button to click or something). Where the spectators are represented in-world as some sort of camera drone that you can grab, throw, etc. Make it competitive, and let you steal your competitor's spectator drones and force them to cheer for you instead.
Or all these people watching these games (streams, esports) instead of buying them? And what does it mean for social gaming when all the community aspects of it have been co-opted by third parties like Twitch and Youtube?
Streaming and eSports have little to do with it, the resurgence is due to the broad availability of games at reasonable prices from services like Steam & GOG.
Wow real QA that is big some places don't do a good job with that. I know one place (withheld) that makes (withheld) and there software testing part of seems to be let the end users be the testers and they seem have the release now (some times with features that is not complete at the time) update later idea.
I think they do some testing but may be lacking the out of box thinking type of QA testing. In gaming you just don't the TOP players to be your testers and you also need people that are more of a QA tester / out of box thinking / people who do / try stuff that the top players don't use.
I see we are still equating gaming with group games that require physical exercise and skill that is observed by the masses
Consoles suck in many ways long term pc guy / gamer.
Lack of mods
Lack of / limited user maps
To many things censored
Judging by the reaction of my dog when she watches me play video games, I really don't get livestreaming video games. I do a speed run through Shadow of Mordor and she's over there on her back, sleeping and passing wind.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Here's why eSports is coming soon to a TV near you.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
What?
I don't think English is his native language. I've seen other posts from him. I really hope that English is not his native language.
I think it can be both. Also that PC hardware is viable longer (if you don't buy something shitty to start with) than it used to be and also probably longer than the life cycle of current consoles that want you to re-buy your entire library of games every few years while billing you for online play which is free on PC (still has the cost for the net connection but that's the same for the console). There are also a shit ton of decent indie games, I regularly check indiegala/indieroyale/groupees/bundlestars/humblebundle I'm sure there are others.
For me the bigger problem is the one pointed out by GabeN in that Microsoft has shot the golden goose and is insisting on continuously backing over said goose until it stops shaking, so for me, I'm in the Windows 7 life raft waiting for Linux/SteamOS to support more than ~10% of my gaming library before I jump ship. Fuck Windows 8/10 - the problem is a lack of good alternatives, Apple is just as bad as MS and maybe worse. I have nothing to recommend to people any more other than don't touch Windows 10; ever.
the ONLY publisher that doesn't really get streaming or online gaming in general is Nintendo
The article I linked also mentions Capcom, and another article mentions Activision Blizzard.
Stream Gaming is not going to be that good. Not in most places with Data caps anyways. Running a 1080p game
for hours on end every day on a std 300gb month cap.. someones parents aren't gonna be happy. Sadly, many
parents are gonna get these next gen streaming console/pc's for their kids not thinking of whats about to happen.
This will show its ugly face on summer break when that's all they do. Sorry, Ill dl my 60gb game and play it for the next year
w/o worrying too much about hitting a data cap.
My point is that copyright law gives video game publishers the power to set restrictive policies. Your point appears to be that most relevant publishers have not chosen to assert restrictive policies, and that their policies can change and have changed. But they can change in both directions.
It turns out Blizzard has a video policy that as of today grants essentially blanket noncommercial rights and specifies when a "content use license" must be negotiated. But it doesn't give any examples of how much such a license is likely to cost or whether the conditions that Blizzard imposes on licensees qualify as a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) regime. Another page implies that a commercial license is not available to individuals: "Blizzard Entertainment® does not enter into licensing agreements with individuals." It also supports the point that policies can change: "we reserve the right to revoke this limited use license at any time, for any reason, and at the sole discretion of Blizzard Entertainment®." And here's a story from 2015 about Blizzard takedowns. Finally, Blizzard's parent company also publishes Guitar Hero, which contains third-party music to which more restrictive policies have been applied.
A post by a moderator implies that Capcom also grants blanket noncommercial rights. In fact, both Blizzard and Capcom have announced that they are working with the noncommercial YouTube community to resolve copyright strikes.
But to me, the "sports" ecosystem includes broadcasting the events on subscription or ad-supported television. A blanket noncommercial license does not cover such commercial use. So I'm still confused as to how much an organizer of a video game tournament shown on TV should expect to have to pay for a nonexclusive license to stream each event or what other conditions a promoter will be expected to follow.
My point is that copyright law gives video game publishers the power to set restrictive policies.
Yes, their sandbox, their rules.
But to me, the "sports" ecosystem includes broadcasting the events on subscription or ad-supported television. A blanket noncommercial license does not cover such commercial use. So I'm still confused as to how much an organizer of a video game tournament shown on TV should expect to have to pay for a nonexclusive license to stream each event or what other conditions a promoter will be expected to follow.
That is NOT your concern. It is the concern of the professionals in broadcasting since if an esport was to be broadcast on "regular tv" and not just the internet, professionals would be involved not just some internet fanboys who want to do a tournament. There would be production companies and contracts and lawyers.
Again....Not...Your....Concern. Why the hell you let issues like this distract you is beyond me.
if an esport was to be broadcast on "regular tv" and not just the internet, professionals would be involved
As I understand Blizzard's policy document, if you're running a subscription stream over the Internet or even including ads over the Internet (other than through YouTube, Twitch, Blip, Own3d, or Ustream), you still need to negotiate a license.
Not...Your....Concern.
"First they came..."
if you're running a subscription stream over the Internet(other than through YouTube, Twitch, Blip, Own3d, or Ustream), you still need to negotiate a license.
And who does that? Really, who does that?
"First they came..."
You did NOT go there. Totally not comparable! Apples and oranges. This is why I sometimes have uncharitable thoughts about autistic spectrum people. And sometimes think that they should be forbidden from using the internet. You simply don't understand WHY you shouldn't use such comparisons.
Now you're probably thinking: "I do not understand the feelings of neurotypicals, and why he is upset/annoyed with me for comparing publishers rules about streaming with Nazis"
And who [places ads on a stream of a Blizzard game other than through Blizzard's approved streaming providers]? Really, who does that?
Nobody I'm aware of, because it would infringe Blizzard's copyright. Perhaps you meant "Really, what reason would there be to do that even if a license to do so were available?"
Apples and oranges.
I'll rephrase without unfortunate implications.
It is possible to discuss who is harmed by a particular policy even if one's own day job is not directly harmed. For example: