Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Slipspace wrote:

gundam wrote:

 solkan wrote:
People watch golf and bowling, so I'm not willing to dismiss the idea of people watching streamed games of 40k. For that matter, people watch chess and go streaming...

As someone who doesn't honestly really care to watch a video of someone else playing a game, I don't have any idea what it would it take to make it interesting enough to be "marketable".

I'd bet someone a pot of paint that it'd be easier to mimic pro-wrestling to make wargaming interesting, than to try to recreate the commentary and analysis that gets added to other games.

You are right, it all comes down to expensive equipment and engaging commentary. People watch arguably more boring stuff

I'm not sure those are really directly comparable. Golf and bowling may both take a while to complete a game but they are easily broken down into smaller, bite-size chunks that are meaningful and impactful on their own. Golf, for example, usually covers each set of shots by the players on a hole, then jumps to a different group of players. I'm not sure there's really a suitable comparison between a golf hole and an activity in 40k.

Chess can be played in rapid or bullet formats, which are popular for streaming and only take 5-10 minutes for a complete game. For the more traditional, classical, chess format the time tends to be filled with in-depth analysis. You could do something similar in 40k, but the problem there is there isn't the same downtime in a 40k game to do the analysis. Stuff's always happening, it's just often not very exciting.

as you say it can jump from one table to another one, because golf is also terribly boring to watch.

I am not sure "40k - we're the golf of e-sports" is really a winning marketing pitch.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I am not sure "40k - we're the golf of e-sports" is really a winning marketing pitch.

"40k - we're the like the golf of e-sports but better?"

I think that is the winning pitch

gundam wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I am not sure "40k - we're the golf of e-sports" is really a winning marketing pitch.

"40k - we're the like the golf of e-sports but better?"

I think that isr the winning pitch

And/or putt?

Sorry!

Too much cheating ignored by the people who run events.

Catulle wrote:

gundam wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I am not sure "40k - we're the golf of e-sports" is really a winning marketing pitch.

"40k - we're the like the golf of e-sports but better?"

I think that isr the winning pitch

And/or putt?

Sorry!

Never apologise for greatness!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Too much cheating ignored by the people who run events.

Which is why its important to call it out.

With GW coming round to promoting their Primaris range via events/event organisers/'big time players' there is an avenue to communicate directly with Nottingham about shenanigans.

gundam wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I am not sure "40k - we're the golf of e-sports" is really a winning marketing pitch.

"40k - we're the like the golf of e-sports but better?"

I think that is the winning pitch

And we know how that goes

gundam wrote:


as you say it can jump from one table to another one, because golf is also terribly boring to watch.

Golf isn't really my thing so I agree it's not the most exciting sport to watch. There are those who clearly disagree, just as there may be for people who like watching 40k streams. However, I'm not sure what you propose is really directly analogous with golf coverage. In golf each shot is a self-contained event that you don't really need any context to understand. Yes, there might be more pressure on a specific shot due to the circumstances of the tournament, but a good shot is a good shot regardless of that. In 40k I'm not sure what discrete 30-60 second moment in time would equate to that. Even resolving the shooting for a single unit could take longer than that and a single unit shooting still probably isn't as interesting to watch or as impactful to the overall game as a single shot in golf.

I'm not quite sure how many us watched the LVO finals almost a year ago - but I don't think it was an extremely small number. To be fair I think the livestreams do suffer from the issues raised, and I think could be much improved with better camera work and commentators.
As we see, while its not quite the same as a live match, the number of 40k battle report channels on youtube seems to constantly expand - as I think do the views. Which suggests some demand is there.

Yes, it probably is more like golf - or Test cricket - than something where every second over several hours counts (or, rather, has the illusion of counting). But somehow these things do continue to exist and find their way on to TV.

I don't know whether you'll be booking out stadiums in order for people to watch 40k on big screens. But then the fact people do this for say League or Hearthstone is a bit beyond me. I think Formula 1 has to be one of the most boring sports in the world. Different people like different things.

Tyel wrote:
I think Formula 1 has to be one of the most boring sports in the world. Different people like different things.

I agree that some tracks are incredibly boring since they are badly designed but unfortunately the amount of exciting tracks are reduced each year. A bit ironic that Covid gave us one of the most memorable seasons in recent history.

Back to 40k, it seems to be growing in demand. I think once GW decides there is money to be made and invests in camera work and commentators, with TableTop Titans being the bare minimum quality threshold, Then I can see 40k live streams becoming more and more popular. Having $30,000 worth of equipment and help with the YouTube algorithm from working at Google, is not something most 40k YT channels will never get.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

gundam wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I am not sure "40k - we're the golf of e-sports" is really a winning marketing pitch.

"40k - we're the like the golf of e-sports but better?"

I think that is the winning pitch

And we know how that goes

It is not cheating, it is "alternative winning tactics"

gundam wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
And we know how that goes

It is not cheating, it is "alternative winning tactics"

Correction: the hole was fraudulently placed, away from where he wanted/wished the hole to be.

I don't think we'll see widespread live streams with massive audiences, but that's more to do with limited interest in 40K in general society. We're fairly niche. Having said that, video battle reports have taken leaps and bounds. I'm seeing two broad groups having some success on Youtube etc.

First we have the hobby room batrep with the host as one of the players, recording the battle and focusing on certain aspects. If the host is engaging and the editing is good then people will invest the time (one or two hours) to watch. Winters SEO, Hellstorm, The Glacial Geek and others give you a fun vicarious 40K experience. Very timely during the various lockdowns! Then we have the studio based BATREPs such as Tabletop Tactics, MiniWargaming (perhaps a hybrid) and 40K in 40 Minutes. These folks will have multiple camera angles, special effects and sometimes a commentator. I will admit to spending some of my free time of watching these BATREPs. Of course there are the very popular hobby channels such as Midwinter Minis, Goobertown and Squidmar. So there is an industry of sorts out there!

While I would not likely watch too many live stream tournament games, I would watch well produced studio versions of top tables if they could film it at the venue and then edit/post a few days later. I venture that there is a segment of our community that does not actually play any real games, but rather watches BATREPs, theory-hammers and posts on forums. Sometimes life gets in the way and people can't game (new kids, move to a remote area etc). The video BATREP industry gives those folks (and I've been one them from time to time) and outlet to remain connected.

As for the competitive scene, there is absolutely skill involved to place well consistently. There is scope for shenanigans, but that it true for any competitive endeavor and does not take away from the skill-level required to come out on top of a six-round tourney.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I don't think we'll see widespread live streams with massive audiences, but that's more to do with limited interest in 40K in general society. We're fairly niche. Having said that, video battle reports have taken leaps and bounds. I'm seeing two broad groups having some success on Youtube etc.

First we have the hobby room batrep with the host as one of the players, recording the battle and focusing on certain aspects. If the host is engaging and the editing is good then people will invest the time (one or two hours) to watch. Winters SEO, Hellstorm, The Glacial Geek and others give you a fun vicarious 40K experience. Very timely during the various lockdowns! Then we have the studio based BATREPs such as Tabletop Tactics, MiniWargaming (perhaps a hybrid) and 40K in 40 Minutes. These folks will have multiple camera angles, special effects and sometimes a commentator. I will admit to spending some of my free time of watching these BATREPs. Of course there are the very popular hobby channels such as Midwinter Minis, Goobertown and Squidmar. So there is an industry of sorts out there!

While I would not likely watch too many live stream tournament games, I would watch well produced studio versions of top tables if they could film it at the venue and then edit/post a few days later. I venture that there is a segment of our community that does not actually play any real games, but rather watches BATREPs, theory-hammers and posts on forums. Sometimes life gets in the way and people can't game (new kids, move to a remote area etc). The video BATREP industry gives those folks (and I've been one them from time to time) and outlet to remain connected.

As for the competitive scene, there is absolutely skill involved to place well consistently. There is scope for shenanigans, but that it true for any competitive endeavor and does not take away from the skill-level required to come out on top of a six-round tourney.

Yeah I think GW is finally seeing the potential given MetaWatch and featuring some competitive players. It reminded of how Apple let Microsoft spent hundreds of millions of dollars into introducing tablets and changing the public perception only for Apple to introduce the ipad after Microsoft had laid the ground work.

GW is letting streamers, stores and everyone else spent hundreds of thousands of combined hours/money for years to prove the viability of competitive warhammer. I dont think it is something that will compete toe to toe with LoL but given what you mentioned about 250k+ subs channels, there is certainly a big enough market to become a bigger niche than it is now.

I think the bottom line is not enough people care about little toy soldiers being pushed around a table, compared to something like Golf, or Tennis, or even Madden, where at least people know the teams being used.

In addition, watching a 2-3 hour game via stream , to me, is like watching paint dry. Dan: "And here, Jim, we have Adam getting ready to launch his assault into the ork line. Oooh! He rolls a 3, that's not gonna make it!" "
Jim: "That'll leave them out of position for sure."
Dan: "But wait! He's got a strategem! He gets to re-roll! Wow, what a surprise! He rolls a 9, he made it!"
Jim: "That'll leave a mark!"
20 minutes later.
Dan: "The chargers have moved, and the orks have counter charged, and everyone has shuffled around, now its time for the attack roll. He picks up his 60 dice... Wow! I dont know how many hit, its a carpet of poorly contrasting pips. We'll have to wait. Hold on, he's got an ability, and he's picking up his misses. He rolls another half a carpet full of dice! Oooh! Still no idea how many that is from here. Ok, its 59 hits! Let's move on to wounds.... "
Jim: zzzzzz

Yeah, that sounds like a blast. There is a reason that even with Madden, they play like 5 minute quarters. No one would tune in to watch some guy run the same exact play with specially selected bonus button ability at RB for 15 minutes a quarter as an esport.

 Cruentus wrote:
I think the bottom line is not enough people care about little toy soldiers being pushed around a table, compared to something like Golf, or Tennis, or even Madden, where at least people know the teams being used.

You can use that same argument for any non-telivisionised mass media event. I'm sure if greyhound racing got on the TV and got prime time on BBC2 and the like it would pick up in popularity and people would start to know "top dogs" and such.

Well, a big misconception is that Esports are always natural and as long as you have a good competitive game it will automatically become a big Esport.

Fact of the matter is, most of the major Esports still currently running on healthy numbers are being propped up by their parent companies with constant cash injections. Dota 2 and CSGO are the only ones in recent years to actually have somewhat organic growth and an independent scene. But, if Riot didn't put obscene amounts of money into the LoL pro-scene then there would be no LoL pro-scene, because the game just isn't that competitively viable and never has been. It's actual ratio of players to Esport watchers is embarrassingly low and that's even if those viewer numbers can be trusted (since Riot are well known to use bots to inflate numbers while also having major influence over Twitch). Same with basically every Esport Blizzard themselves have tried to cultivate and push. Overwatch's viewer and player numbers were even more shocking, even after ActiBlizz dumped $20 million into making the Overwatch League, but it at least had some viewership until it obviously became too financially unviable. The game just wasn't built for competitive play on a fundamental level and the majority of people playing the game reacted negatively to its push. CoD is much the same. You might see a massive media blitz for some random event every now and then, paid for and constructed by Activision, but outside of those the CoD pro scene is basically a joke.

Quite frankly, even if GW did pump tons of money into this sort of thing for 40k I think it would basically pan out like the above examples. The game just isn't a great competitive game to watch or play and I'm saying this as someone who plays and watches it competitively. I like it, sure, but average viewer numbers of the stuff that already goes on kind of bares this out. To be fair I think there's actually a ton of people into playing the game competitively but it doesn't work as a spectator experience even for them. Even if you sort the balance issues and unclear rules out (which honestly 9th is overall fairly good when it comes to these) you're still left with a clunky, slow-paced experience where it can be difficult to tell what's going on to anyone observing the game and not actually playing it themselves. Even the best production values in the world when it comes to livestreaming batreps with Tabletop Titans it's often just completely unclear as to the state of the table from an overhead shot. Certain games can survive and do somewhat well in terms of people watching, but they probably lose their parent company gigantic amounts of money to keep supporting; I recall this certainly being the case with Riot and LoL. With 40k I don't think it could sustain enough numbers to justify the investment.

 Bosskelot wrote:
It's actual ratio of players to Esport watchers is embarrassingly low and that's even if those viewer numbers can be trusted (since Riot are well known to use bots to inflate numbers while also having major influence over Twitch)

got sources on the bots claim


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 Cruentus wrote:
I think the bottom line is not enough people care about little toy soldiers being pushed around a table, compared to something like Golf, or Tennis, or even Madden, where at least people know the teams being used.

You can use that same argument for any non-telivisionised mass media event. I'm sure if greyhound racing got on the TV and got prime time on BBC2 and the like it would pick up in popularity and people would start to know "top dogs" and such.

or the spelling B contests. I mean there is so much garbage out there getting TV time that it is not inconceivable that 40k should get some. As the meme says, it might be trash but it is our trash lol

GW has games that would work well for streaming competitions. Underworlds and Bloodbow (maybe killteam but it seems dead) are quick with tight rule sets and relative balance. Many decision points that can wildly influence the game. Unfortunately, they have much smaller player bases then flagship games of 40k or AoS.

40k and AoS take so long, rules are sloppy, balance is worse. Game deciding decisions happen early with hours of gameplay wrap up to follow. Game streams are popular, but I wonder how many people skip around to interesting points rather then watch for a few hours.

I can't think of anything worse for 40k than reinforcing the idea that it's meant to be played 'competitively'. That's what GW supporting an eSport league would do.

I would genuinely be more interested in watching narrative scenarios with an ongoing story.
Customised armies with nice paint jobs, nice terrain, interesting custom scenarios and a sense of progression and growth through the narrative with some engaging and happy players enjoying themselves is something I would love to watch in a well edited video format.

Livestreams of people taking the game very seriously wouldn't really be entertaining for me.

MegaDombro wrote:
GW has games that would work well for streaming competitions. Underworlds and Bloodbow (maybe killteam but it seems dead) are quick with tight rule sets and relative balance.

With 9th pushing for Combat Patrol and their boxes, it really makes no sense to get people started in kill team when full blown 40k in combat patrol is the perfect gateway.

I think lastly, the hobby itself does not lend itself to be super competitive and mainstream. How long does it take to get an army "battle ready" so you dont lose 10 pts? Plus add the cost of the models itself. It would be good for them to release combat patrols with paints, and maybe some dice and a ruler.

Allow people to buy 2 boxes of whatever armies they got. They can continue releasing box sets but having combat patrols for all armies would go a long way.

Battle Ready for 40k takes a while. The more streamlined games (Underworlds, Bloodbowl, Killteam) have much less hobby time to get started.

If there is going to be a push for eSports, or streaming games, it seems like it should start from those games, not 40k/AoS, even though they have larger player bases.

If Kill Team is just a gateway into 40k, then yes Combat Patrol is better, but as it was, it played much different then a 40k game.

I do not think that live streaming of gameplay would be very exciting. However, it it were edited down, some informational graphics placed, and some witty commentary, you could easily have something that people would watch. I am sure they said the same thing about televised poker. If you don't like it, its boring. But, if you are into poker and love the nuance, it can be riveting.

Televised 40K could be the same thing. With that said, I also agree that the more narrative battles with well painted armies and terrain would be better suited to this. To REALLY make it worth watching, I would offer up Cotton McKnight and Pepper Brooks doing play by play and color would be amazing.

Suitability of the game is completely irrelevant.

It's 40K, because 40K is the biggest. Post-COVID, the most tickets sold to Front-Line-Gaming tournaments and similar events. The most clicks on strategy videos and podcasts and such to prepare for the events. The most "coaching clients" to further prepare for those events. The most paint-studio orders to get the army ready for those events.

If real-life Thanos showed up and snapped the most popular miniatures game from 40K into the Walking Dead Miniatures game or whatever, that entire gaggle of "competitive folks" around FLG/AoW, whatever would switch to that game instead. Whether the game itself (or its presentation in streams, etc..) is suited for it is completely irrelevant. What matters is doing it for the game with the biggest audience.

MegaDombro wrote:

40k and AoS take so long, rules are sloppy, balance is worse. Game deciding decisions happen early with hours of gameplay wrap up to follow. Game streams are popular, but I wonder how many people skip around to interesting points rather then watch for a few hours.

I'm quite guilty of watching intros and army breakdown/displays and either shutting it off, skipping to the end to see who won, or wandering off for a couple hours only to come back and realize they're still on the first turn....

Must resist urge to shill Titanomachina on merits of speed and competitive space...

There's room for long form content but as most have pointed out, 4 hour live streams from one camera angle aren't exactly thrilling to watch, and that's even if it's a "global" view aka wide enough to see the whole board, and often it isn't, it's a tight shaky meandering camera thats more obsessed with dice rolls than pretty miniatures, and that's the final point, people will live steam a video for 4 hours of miniatures with 0 hours of painting on boards that aren't exactly inspiring. Which speaks to the concerns about esports. As long as the hobby side doesn't lose out entirely, ie there's at least a visual reason to tune in for eye candy, possible even pre-roll clips to fill dead air showing off the beautiful models or terrain. Competition is fine but if it comes at the cost of ignoring or glossing over all the other aspects that bring people into the hobby it just seems doomed to fail. I think for me it's more about standards, like fully painted armies and terrain. I want there to be a reason someone who jet sets around the country competing at least has an army that doesn't look like crap.

Nurglitch wrote:
Must resist urge to shill Titanomachina on merits of speed and competitive space...

Shill away. Quick search revealed it took have a look and feel to Giga-Robo, a gem from my last Adepticon go around.

Speed and competitiveness don't seem to be big draws in the mini game industry. 40k is the biggest, and those are probably its weakest features.

MegaDombro wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Must resist urge to shill Titanomachina on merits of speed and competitive space...

Shill away. Quick search revealed it took have a look and feel to Giga-Robo, a gem from my last Adepticon go around.

Speed and competitiveness don't seem to be big draws in the mini game industry. 40k is the biggest, and those are probably its weakest features.

Awesome! One of my design goals was to have a multiplayer game that could be played in an hour or so, and allow players to do Warhammer-style list-building allowing for a 5-round tournament in a single day. Still trying to figure out ways to produce it as a physical hard-copy, but I figure the more people I show the Tabletop Simulator version, the better chance of developing that core of competitive players. I mean, I also prefer having a game like this be about an hour to play, but the faster it can play comfortably the better it seems. Speed and competitiveness aren't a premium, as you say, but pacing and cool moments are, and I think Titanomachina hits both notes.

I should add that I also completely removed dice, although perhaps amusingly I've used dice for buildings in both the TTS implementation and a hard-copy prototype. There's something to be said, I think, from the perspective of watching the game to see a card played and then the following action carried out without mucking around with dice.

I really struggle to see how exactly 40k can be described as an e-sport - an electronic sport, litterally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_esports_games

It's not because you make a coverage of your battle reports by streaming that it makes it an e-sport. It's just media coverage, in the end.

I feel like there is a confusion about the definition of what actually makes an e-sport. I'm not especially sure even Magic the Gathering being played IRL can be defined as such...even Wizard of the Coast talk more of a "Pro league" more than e-sport in itself. The e-sport version only applies to the digital version. We have no such thing for Warhammer 40k.

If the question is about making a "Pro-league" 40k the same way than MTG...I do believe the main obstacle is the time needed for the games. Otherwise, it's just a natural evolution of the competitive scene, to me. But aren't the international tournaments something very close to it in the end ?