Is paying for pool streams online safe?
- Thread starter PoolBoy1
- Start date
I don't think that paying for a stream is a good idea.
Firstly, I was shocked to see the prices for the US Open stream. As far as I remember it was something like $70 for the full event. This, in my opinion, was laughable to say the least. Absolutely ridiculous. $70 for a stream that had problems (if not the last event the previous one), only one tv table and no playback!! Ridiculous.
Just for comparison, Kozoom offers a year long subscription for 99€. In one year there are at least 6 Eurotour events. In each event EVERY table is TV table. You can watch literally every match you wish. AND on top of that, you can browse and playback every match played.
But for smaller events I don't think that paying for a stream is the way to go. In my eyes, streams should be for free. If we want pool to grow we should spread it to the world as much as we can, and forcing someone to pay for it isn't ideal. A free stream has the potential to be viewed by someone who doesn't follow pool, and maybe the stream catches their attention and make them watch again someday or even inspire them to play themselves.
Now, I realize that streaming a tournament is not an easy job, someone has to do it and that someone deserves to be payed. I believe that. But I think that the money should come from sponsors at this time. I believe that it's on the companies to give money for the streams in order for the audience to grow and the pool industry to become bigger and bigger. I think that the perfect stream is free but with ads between racks, maybe banners on the corners of the screen or something.
Sorry if this was off topic.
Firstly, I was shocked to see the prices for the US Open stream. As far as I remember it was something like $70 for the full event. This, in my opinion, was laughable to say the least. Absolutely ridiculous. $70 for a stream that had problems (if not the last event the previous one), only one tv table and no playback!! Ridiculous.
Just for comparison, Kozoom offers a year long subscription for 99€. In one year there are at least 6 Eurotour events. In each event EVERY table is TV table. You can watch literally every match you wish. AND on top of that, you can browse and playback every match played.
But for smaller events I don't think that paying for a stream is the way to go. In my eyes, streams should be for free. If we want pool to grow we should spread it to the world as much as we can, and forcing someone to pay for it isn't ideal. A free stream has the potential to be viewed by someone who doesn't follow pool, and maybe the stream catches their attention and make them watch again someday or even inspire them to play themselves.
Now, I realize that streaming a tournament is not an easy job, someone has to do it and that someone deserves to be payed. I believe that. But I think that the money should come from sponsors at this time. I believe that it's on the companies to give money for the streams in order for the audience to grow and the pool industry to become bigger and bigger. I think that the perfect stream is free but with ads between racks, maybe banners on the corners of the screen or something.
Sorry if this was off topic.
to answer the op
paypal is the safest way to pay for a stream
as for the above
there is alot of work involved and the people responsible should get paid as should the commentators
there is not enough money in sposorship at this time to provide free streaming for most events
i completely disagree with you allenobserver...no disrespect intended just we see things differently
Last edited:
Yeah, free is great from the user's perspective.
From the producer's perspective, unless one can eat leafs and shit money, i have nk idea how you think it is even possible.
Do you know how much a good camera costs? And remember you want multiple angles too. Of course, you need a computer, lighting, rigging for lights, spare bulbs more hardware thsn we can imagine. Oh, and likely spare everything, for 'just in case'...probably your own internet access. Dont forget a place to put all that stuff so you can carry it to and from.
Travel, food...time.
I have no involvement at all in streaming, other rhan from a viewer's perspective and I am very offended at your position that it should be both free and of premium quality.
Sure, 'for the good of the game' is a noble idea, but in the real world, somewhere, somebody has to pay the bills.
Will you give your money to support my child's sports? She is really good and won 4 of 6 competitions so far this season.
From the producer's perspective, unless one can eat leafs and shit money, i have nk idea how you think it is even possible.
Do you know how much a good camera costs? And remember you want multiple angles too. Of course, you need a computer, lighting, rigging for lights, spare bulbs more hardware thsn we can imagine. Oh, and likely spare everything, for 'just in case'...probably your own internet access. Dont forget a place to put all that stuff so you can carry it to and from.
Travel, food...time.
I have no involvement at all in streaming, other rhan from a viewer's perspective and I am very offended at your position that it should be both free and of premium quality.
Sure, 'for the good of the game' is a noble idea, but in the real world, somewhere, somebody has to pay the bills.
Will you give your money to support my child's sports? She is really good and won 4 of 6 competitions so far this season.
Paying for the stream is not the issue, but you are correct about what you get for it with Accu-Stats. Since a lot of matches happen when people are at work or may be busy, not having a replay or a way to access the videos on your time makes buying the live stream to day time weekday events only useful for retired people.
Unless you really want to see the matches live, the $15 a month AccuStats subscription is better for US Open and DCC since all the matches are on there and you can watch them anytime.
If they made replays or added a code for the Vimeo videos along with it, that would make the value there instead of just having a live stream that you can only catch 20% of after work.
While you are correct saying nothing is free, I have to balk at the previous example of the $70 cost. IMO., there is NO stream worth $70 dollars. I might pay $70 to see it in person, but no way for a stream. Especially when you are taking the risk of having connection problems or loss of internet service. They will not give you a refund if the cable goes out.
Oh.... and I'm not cheap. I have limited income and have to manage my money. I will first use that $70 to enter a tournament somewhere.....not sitting my fat arse on the couch watching someone else play.
It just has to be far more reasonable to get more viewers. I won't pay that much, and certainly a non enthusiast won't pay that much.
When TAR was doing their thing, we would split the cost with a couple of friends and hang out for a couple of nights watching the matches. They did things pretty well, evening matches. If someone got sick of watching for hours, they can wander off and play pool on the table in the house, wander back to watch again, whatever.
Don't get me wrong...i didn't find it worth the $ either.
That said: 10$ a day to see perhaps the premier event in the world, from the comfort of you own home? Or tablet or phone, wherever you want...?
That is an amazing offer. Maybe better than fed ex, or a plane ride or a crack rock.
I like the ones who do "sessions", I think that is Accu Stats. So you can buy just an evening session for like $7 which is probably around 4ish hours of coverage or more in some cases.
For me, that is when paying for a stream makes sense. I can't commit a full day to watching usually and certainly not multiple days in a row. But when I'm home in the evening and I see I can buy just an evening session stream of something I want to watch for $7 then it becomes an easy decision.
Now, if there was a way where if you bought the stream package you would also have a place where you could then download the whole things for later viewing that might make it make more sense for a lot of people.
For me, that is when paying for a stream makes sense. I can't commit a full day to watching usually and certainly not multiple days in a row. But when I'm home in the evening and I see I can buy just an evening session stream of something I want to watch for $7 then it becomes an easy decision.
Now, if there was a way where if you bought the stream package you would also have a place where you could then download the whole things for later viewing that might make it make more sense for a lot of people.
Not only is Paypal safe but if someone somehow phished or accessed your password unless they login from your IP your account will be frozen until you change your password from that IP or call Paypal to restore your account. I have bought accustats US Open and DCC streams several times and never had any issues and it was HD quality too. The only drawback with streams is I feel obligated to watch if I buy and they can be very time consuming so I prefer to focus on semifinal and final matches to narrow it down to just a few hours here or there.
Ok, as I can see I was misunderstood.
Firstly, I never said that the person who does the job should work for free. I explicitly said " I realize that streaming a tournament is not an easy job, someone has to do it and that someone deserves to be payed. I believe that." This is a direct quote, so no Black Balled, I don't think "one can eat leafs and shit money". All I said is that I believe that the payment of the person should come from sponsors and companies who want to promote the sport and not the viewer at this time. If there are no sponsors and no companies who want to support and promote the sport, then yes, the only option is having the viewer pay for the stream, because again, I understand that the person who worked for the stream deserves to get payed for it.
(In my opinion, if there are really no companies who want to promote the sport, we are living in sad, sad times poolwise.)
One other thing, and I think that I will piss off even more people with this, kinda unrelated but since Black-Balled mentioned it, I never said anything about multiple angles. I'm perfectly happy with a stationary camera on a tripod. In my eyes, real die hard pool fans who are dedicated enough to sit through an entire match because they love the game are happy with watching the cue action, the balls and the table. They don't need to see a close up of the opponents reaction to the other player's jump shot, or watch the players drinking water on their chairs, or anything like that. Just show us the table.
Multiple angles and movable cameras are for those who can't sit through an entire match watching just the balls.
My point? Die hard pool fans are the ones who are actually willing to spend money on a stream. So why charge them $70 in order to have 4 cameras, when you can charge them say $35 and only have one? They don't care about cameras for the crowd reaction. why charge them for it? (Again, take Eurotour for example. One camera, one tripod and that's it.)
I know that many won't agree with me and that's fine, we can't agree on everything. So bbb don't worry, I didn't get offended or anything, it's ok to disagree. (You seem to think that I said that the person who does the job shouldn't get paid though, so maybe you missed my point as well...)
Firstly, I never said that the person who does the job should work for free. I explicitly said " I realize that streaming a tournament is not an easy job, someone has to do it and that someone deserves to be payed. I believe that." This is a direct quote, so no Black Balled, I don't think "one can eat leafs and shit money". All I said is that I believe that the payment of the person should come from sponsors and companies who want to promote the sport and not the viewer at this time. If there are no sponsors and no companies who want to support and promote the sport, then yes, the only option is having the viewer pay for the stream, because again, I understand that the person who worked for the stream deserves to get payed for it.
(In my opinion, if there are really no companies who want to promote the sport, we are living in sad, sad times poolwise.)
One other thing, and I think that I will piss off even more people with this, kinda unrelated but since Black-Balled mentioned it, I never said anything about multiple angles. I'm perfectly happy with a stationary camera on a tripod. In my eyes, real die hard pool fans who are dedicated enough to sit through an entire match because they love the game are happy with watching the cue action, the balls and the table. They don't need to see a close up of the opponents reaction to the other player's jump shot, or watch the players drinking water on their chairs, or anything like that. Just show us the table.
Multiple angles and movable cameras are for those who can't sit through an entire match watching just the balls.
My point? Die hard pool fans are the ones who are actually willing to spend money on a stream. So why charge them $70 in order to have 4 cameras, when you can charge them say $35 and only have one? They don't care about cameras for the crowd reaction. why charge them for it? (Again, take Eurotour for example. One camera, one tripod and that's it.)
I know that many won't agree with me and that's fine, we can't agree on everything. So bbb don't worry, I didn't get offended or anything, it's ok to disagree. (You seem to think that I said that the person who does the job shouldn't get paid though, so maybe you missed my point as well...)
I don't think there's any problem with payment - you're safer online than using a credit card in person. I also don't have a problem with the price of most of them. We've got to stop being freeloaders if we want pool to do well.
My problem is with streaming reliability. I always have problems with drop-outs. I don't know if it's this audiovideoweb service that so many of them use, or if it's the internet connection at the site, but reliability is always an issue.
I use internet TV at home, and rarely have any problems. I was watching live Olympics in HD over the internet on my 65" TV. Not to mention Netflix, Youtube, etc., all in great quality. My home internet is not the problem.
And I'm really sick of messages saying "You haven't upgraded to the latest Flash." Right, and I need a new MySpace account and I have to upgrade my modem to 2400 baud.
My problem is with streaming reliability. I always have problems with drop-outs. I don't know if it's this audiovideoweb service that so many of them use, or if it's the internet connection at the site, but reliability is always an issue.
I use internet TV at home, and rarely have any problems. I was watching live Olympics in HD over the internet on my 65" TV. Not to mention Netflix, Youtube, etc., all in great quality. My home internet is not the problem.
And I'm really sick of messages saying "You haven't upgraded to the latest Flash." Right, and I need a new MySpace account and I have to upgrade my modem to 2400 baud.
I stand corrected, aving read both of your posts in this thread.
Thanks for the thoughtful defense.
Chapeau!
I agree with you here. If the camera used is good there only one needed per table. However this doesn't lower the cost of what you should charge for a stream in my opinion by a lot. People are only going to pay so much to watch Pool. So you have to supply what the market is willing to pay for.