Seems like Wizards is trying to hand off GP coverage to TO's when possible. If SCG is running the GP, their team does the coverage. GP Sacramento was covered by CFB, and they did a really solid job with it (Ben Stark is outstanding on commentary).
Some of these ideas for improving coverage sound as if they would be equally detrimental to the actual players at the tournaments. These events are huge enough already without having to deal with the inevitable technical difficulties that would come along with some sort of multi-stream, multi-commentator setup. I really don't want to see what SCG would have to do with their already dubious pricing to actually make any of it realistic, either.
I'm finding SCG premium to be pretty sparse these days. In the past 7 days their content that I've liked:
2-12
Aj Sacher article
Brad vs Todd (not useful, but Brad is very entertaining)
2-10
Brad vs Todd
2-07
Brad article
BBD article
Considering they used to put out 1-3 articles or videos per day that interested me, that's a pretty major decline.
I'm finding SCG premium to be pretty sparse these days. In the past 7 days their content that I've liked:
2-12
Aj Sacher article
Brad vs Todd (not useful, but Brad is very entertaining)
2-10
Brad vs Todd
2-07
Brad article
BBD article
Considering they used to put out 1-3 articles or videos per day that interested me, that's a pretty major decline.
They really are starting to run low on content. The main draw for me are the videos and now it seems like there's 2 versus videos and maybe 1 more a week worth watching. A few of the articles are solid, but most of them are just not worth it. I hate to say it because I'll actually miss watching Brad, but I don't think I'll be renewing after this month.
I still get the old subscription price, that's the only reason I haven't canceled yet. My subscription renews on March 2nd, right now I'm leaning towards canceling but we'll see. I noticed they brought MJ over to start writing articles on premium but going by the one he has put out so far they don't seem to be what interests me.
I'm finding SCG premium to be pretty sparse these days. In the past 7 days their content that I've liked:
2-12
Aj Sacher article
Brad vs Todd (not useful, but Brad is very entertaining)
2-10
Brad vs Todd
2-07
Brad article
BBD article
Considering they used to put out 1-3 articles or videos per day that interested me, that's a pretty major decline.
I am feeling this, too. And I am even more bummed as I tried Premium for a month to start to see if I liked it...and I did so I just went the full year's worth...then about 2 weeks after that GerryT (my favorite) left and it's been a slow, steady decline since. There are a few articles each week I do enjoy on the Premium side but is it worth the cost? The Versus videos are fine, although I'm not playing Standard anymore so they've become less useful to me...and again, not having GerryT in there to mix it up is a bummer. I think they need to bring in another guy or two for the versus w/ Brad and Todd. I do like the BBD v CVM side on Select (isn't it strange how Brad and Todd's videos are usualy 30-35 minutes, while BBD/CVM usually double that time?)
The Legacy streams from Levin have been nice...I'm not a big Ari Lax fan, but I do occasionally enjoy those as well.
- SC2 is always going to be better because the people playing are all elite; at SCG's most players are not good.
- SC2 commentators are high level players; MTG commentators frequently are not
- When high level players do commentate (Kibler, LSV, Ben Stark or the European coverage team) the coverage is excellent
Make of that what you will.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I write for Channel Fireball now! Read my CFB articles here. Read my Dies to Removal articles here. Read the definitive Red Deck Wins Primer here.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
- SC2 is always going to be better because the people playing are all elite; at SCG's most players are not good.
- SC2 commentators are high level players; MTG commentators frequently are not
- When high level players do commentate (Kibler, LSV, Ben Stark or the European coverage team) the coverage is excellent
Make of that what you will.
Add on that SC2 and such games the commentators don't talk about their hayday of playing the game Unless there is a MAJOR down time (tech issues preventing a match from playing). Magic you get a lot of useless banter that isn't even entertaining and the overall thrill of casting is not even on the same level.
I have to say, in general I'm a little underwhelmed by SCG's production/coverage of their own Magic tournaments. They have a real shot at taking over the market when it comes to Magic the Gathering tournament coverage because they are really the only player in the game right now, and if they keep resting on their laurels, someone is eventually going to figure out there is potentially money in tournament coverage.
Someone got me into watching Starcraft tournaments, enough to know that that eSport completely outclasses Magic when the two games are actually pretty similar in regards to the tournament scene, game history and the production issues they would have to solve...
I actually have to agree here. LoL, SC2, etc have a full "show" to watch. SCG at its best doesn't come close. However, there are some caveats to point out:
1 - Magic has a trillion variables such as the cards within a deck, matchup type, and "the stack". eSports the variables are more contained. Like there are only X units in a videogame, so viewers understand the limits and permutations. Magic has a lot more in scope/volume the viewer needs to learn. Not a bad thing, and certainly makes Magic "deep", but for viewing you have to work to mitigate this. Without it, you speak gibberish. And the appeal of eSports is for casuals/new people to enjoy.
2 - Magic players at the event are too busy playing their own games to have a side "show" taking place. Those who scrub out look for additional side events to play in. So the "I'll watch stuff all day" factor isn't there. The viewers tend to be those who are not at the event (ie; east coast watching west coast event, vice versa).
3 - eSports is a big production. Honestly, the production values make it almost like an ESPN for nerdy competitive gaming.
4 - Because it's a card game, you should take some production cues from WSOP. They make Poker have tension (to some degree). Unless you're really into MTG I don't get that vibe from watching games unless the commentary is amazing. I miss Reuben for that. He added a lot of the human "why should I care" color-commentary factor.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I actually have to agree here. LoL, SC2, etc have a full "show" to watch. SCG at its best doesn't come close. However, there are some caveats to point out:
1 - Magic has a trillion variables such as the cards within a deck, matchup type, and "the stack". eSports the variables are more contained. Like there are only X units in a videogame, so viewers understand the limits and permutations. Magic has a lot more in scope/volume the viewer needs to learn. Not a bad thing, and certainly makes Magic "deep", but for viewing you have to work to mitigate this. Without it, you speak gibberish. And the appeal of eSports is for casuals/new people to enjoy.
I don't know if I would agree with that. Each of these games has it's nuances. Starcraft 2 there's the thing about what each unit can attack (air or ground), and what units are good at dealing with others. In LoL I actually caught a few games of that. Each of the individual characters has it's own unique things it can do. I still don't know what any of the characters do but I can watch the game and see them use a move and I'm not to confused about what happened.
Magic is very complicated from a rules perspective, but as the game plays out it's not hard to follow. In a game if you cast Restoration Angel on Thragtusk after your opponent tries to kill it, there's a lot of complicated things going on there but as a viewer even if you don't know what the stack is, at the very least you see the result of the play and use context clues to think "ok, Restoration Angel was used to save his creature".
I will say that one of the things that Magic has going against it entertainment wise is the games aren't usually climactic. I would actually say the same about LoL from the few games I've seen, seems like when a team wins it was obvious they would win like 5 minutes ago. Starcraft is usually more dramatic because of the custom of conceding a game that is obviously out of reach. Sometimes you get a one sided game and it takes them a while to leave, but often you see a rush or timing attack or huge final battle at the end and usually if one player wins a battle decidedly, the other guy will usually just concede right there.
3 - eSports is a big production. Honestly, the production values make it almost like an ESPN for nerdy competitive gaming.
This is the one big thing that makes me think that they could make it happen with Magic like they do for eSports. Because with eSports, the way they make money is through advertising (and entry fees I guess?). With Magic, specifically SCG Opens, SCG has another revenue stream they can use to help "fund" this production until it can get running on it's own feet. And this revenue stream would be directly effected by putting more money into their events. They sell cards and have a website with articles. So the more popular the game is, the more people potentially buy cards or read articles, and in general the bigger SCG is as a Magic brand.
It's possible I'm a unique demographic, so maybe it doesn't make financial sense to go bigger with their events because they don't feel like enough people will watch. But all I know is that I would be more into watching SCGs if they put more into the production. Currently I don't have cable TV, I watch A LOT of twitch steams. A lot of said streams are either Starcraft or Magic. And I can tell you if I watch a stream, it's because before I click on it I know what I'm getting into and I don't have to hunt for a specific matchup or a specific player. For example, right now I've watching one of Joe Losset's past streams. He does a lot of Legacy (which I don't even play the format, I'm a Standard player). But if he's streaming an interesting deck, I'll watch.
The official Wizards coverage for Grand Prixs is so bad compared to SCGs coverage it's not funny. They have set the bar pretty high already I think.
2-12
Aj Sacher article
Brad vs Todd (not useful, but Brad is very entertaining)
2-10
Brad vs Todd
2-07
Brad article
BBD article
Considering they used to put out 1-3 articles or videos per day that interested me, that's a pretty major decline.
Link to cubetutor:
http://cubetutor.com/cubeblog/10113
They really are starting to run low on content. The main draw for me are the videos and now it seems like there's 2 versus videos and maybe 1 more a week worth watching. A few of the articles are solid, but most of them are just not worth it. I hate to say it because I'll actually miss watching Brad, but I don't think I'll be renewing after this month.
I am feeling this, too. And I am even more bummed as I tried Premium for a month to start to see if I liked it...and I did so I just went the full year's worth...then about 2 weeks after that GerryT (my favorite) left and it's been a slow, steady decline since. There are a few articles each week I do enjoy on the Premium side but is it worth the cost? The Versus videos are fine, although I'm not playing Standard anymore so they've become less useful to me...and again, not having GerryT in there to mix it up is a bummer. I think they need to bring in another guy or two for the versus w/ Brad and Todd. I do like the BBD v CVM side on Select (isn't it strange how Brad and Todd's videos are usualy 30-35 minutes, while BBD/CVM usually double that time?)
The Legacy streams from Levin have been nice...I'm not a big Ari Lax fan, but I do occasionally enjoy those as well.
- SC2 is always going to be better because the people playing are all elite; at SCG's most players are not good.
- SC2 commentators are high level players; MTG commentators frequently are not
- When high level players do commentate (Kibler, LSV, Ben Stark or the European coverage team) the coverage is excellent
Make of that what you will.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
Add on that SC2 and such games the commentators don't talk about their hayday of playing the game Unless there is a MAJOR down time (tech issues preventing a match from playing). Magic you get a lot of useless banter that isn't even entertaining and the overall thrill of casting is not even on the same level.
Deck techs should be free running and full of anecdotes about how cards have been used in past games.
I know what the cards are and what they do. I want to hear a funny story about when they were played to good effect.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
I actually have to agree here. LoL, SC2, etc have a full "show" to watch. SCG at its best doesn't come close. However, there are some caveats to point out:
1 - Magic has a trillion variables such as the cards within a deck, matchup type, and "the stack". eSports the variables are more contained. Like there are only X units in a videogame, so viewers understand the limits and permutations. Magic has a lot more in scope/volume the viewer needs to learn. Not a bad thing, and certainly makes Magic "deep", but for viewing you have to work to mitigate this. Without it, you speak gibberish. And the appeal of eSports is for casuals/new people to enjoy.
2 - Magic players at the event are too busy playing their own games to have a side "show" taking place. Those who scrub out look for additional side events to play in. So the "I'll watch stuff all day" factor isn't there. The viewers tend to be those who are not at the event (ie; east coast watching west coast event, vice versa).
3 - eSports is a big production. Honestly, the production values make it almost like an ESPN for nerdy competitive gaming.
4 - Because it's a card game, you should take some production cues from WSOP. They make Poker have tension (to some degree). Unless you're really into MTG I don't get that vibe from watching games unless the commentary is amazing. I miss Reuben for that. He added a lot of the human "why should I care" color-commentary factor.
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I don't know if I would agree with that. Each of these games has it's nuances. Starcraft 2 there's the thing about what each unit can attack (air or ground), and what units are good at dealing with others. In LoL I actually caught a few games of that. Each of the individual characters has it's own unique things it can do. I still don't know what any of the characters do but I can watch the game and see them use a move and I'm not to confused about what happened.
Magic is very complicated from a rules perspective, but as the game plays out it's not hard to follow. In a game if you cast Restoration Angel on Thragtusk after your opponent tries to kill it, there's a lot of complicated things going on there but as a viewer even if you don't know what the stack is, at the very least you see the result of the play and use context clues to think "ok, Restoration Angel was used to save his creature".
I will say that one of the things that Magic has going against it entertainment wise is the games aren't usually climactic. I would actually say the same about LoL from the few games I've seen, seems like when a team wins it was obvious they would win like 5 minutes ago. Starcraft is usually more dramatic because of the custom of conceding a game that is obviously out of reach. Sometimes you get a one sided game and it takes them a while to leave, but often you see a rush or timing attack or huge final battle at the end and usually if one player wins a battle decidedly, the other guy will usually just concede right there.
This is the one big thing that makes me think that they could make it happen with Magic like they do for eSports. Because with eSports, the way they make money is through advertising (and entry fees I guess?). With Magic, specifically SCG Opens, SCG has another revenue stream they can use to help "fund" this production until it can get running on it's own feet. And this revenue stream would be directly effected by putting more money into their events. They sell cards and have a website with articles. So the more popular the game is, the more people potentially buy cards or read articles, and in general the bigger SCG is as a Magic brand.
It's possible I'm a unique demographic, so maybe it doesn't make financial sense to go bigger with their events because they don't feel like enough people will watch. But all I know is that I would be more into watching SCGs if they put more into the production. Currently I don't have cable TV, I watch A LOT of twitch steams. A lot of said streams are either Starcraft or Magic. And I can tell you if I watch a stream, it's because before I click on it I know what I'm getting into and I don't have to hunt for a specific matchup or a specific player. For example, right now I've watching one of Joe Losset's past streams. He does a lot of Legacy (which I don't even play the format, I'm a Standard player). But if he's streaming an interesting deck, I'll watch.