#51 Posted by codynewill (166 posts) -

@Sooty: @Twilight: Whiskey Media has to make money, and HD isn't cheap. I wouldn't count on anything better than 320p if you're not paying for the videos through subscription. Giantbomb isn't funded like IGN, Gamespot, or Gametrailers are.

#52 Edited by benpicko (2008 posts) -

The problem is that HD on GiantBomb is so bad that 360p is not that much of a downgrade, to be honest.

Edit: Just compared, and yeah... Ignore that.

#53 Posted by Forcen (1823 posts) -

Medium/youtube should be 480p, low should be 360p. 240p should not exist. 720p should be suscriber only.

#54 Posted by Delta_Ass (3279 posts) -

The videos might have always been 360p, but there was almost no compression before. The Youtube compression really muddies up the image, I feel.

#55 Posted by Bollard (5528 posts) -

@Twilight: At least be happy you can even stream that shit - I for one am glad Youtube provides a 240p option cause it's the only thing I don't have to buffer.

#56 Posted by project343 (2823 posts) -

@Rattle618 said:

This generation is not spoiled, not one bit.

Back in my day, we had to lick a toad and wait 3 hours for a postage stamp-sized 5 second web clip to play...

#57 Posted by DeF (4886 posts) -

I thought the "high" setting was 480p?!

Online
#58 Posted by SeanFoster (868 posts) -

I'm a subscriber who thinks HD should be standard for all users of the site.

#59 Posted by CaptainCody (1505 posts) -

I get member's content, but I don't have money to throw around and having to watch shit in a ridiculously bad quality on a 23 inch monitor is awful.

#60 Posted by CaptainCody (1505 posts) -

@SimonM7 said:

It's hardly a demand when it's about keeping the quality *the same as before*. Jeff has gone on and on about how they don't want to gate people off, but rather offer incentives to pay. Well this is exactly the kind of rug pulling he was specifically saying they wouldn't do.

The hilarious thing is how unfavourably it compares to actual youtube content. Every day users pump out similar quick looks at 720p or above on youtube without asking a penny for it, because that's literally a standard feature of that site. So here we're downgraded from the site's baseline quality as the content is moved OFF of GB servers onto a completely different site whose content is more or less always twice the resolution.

And it's not even about 720p, it's about how QLs now all look like garbage compared to before. With the Whiskey Media player the low resolution content was saved by great - or low - compression. Now even TRAILERS FOR VIDEO GAMES, hosted ENTIRELY BY YOUTUBE, containing absolutely ZERO GB CONTENT are streamed on this site as 360p compressed artifact orgies. Of course the funny tangental thing is that you can go to youtube and a different channel on there to see it in 1080p if you want.

I love this site, I love the content it produces and I love the staff, but this is hard to interpret as anything but a backhanded way of sticking non-paying members with basically *the worst quality gaming related videos on the internet* while maintaining that no content has been gated off.

I don't even care if I'm double posting: HOLY FUCKING SHIT, THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS, YOU ARE MY HERO.

#61 Posted by amomjc (977 posts) -

@Rattle618 said:

This generation is not spoiled, not one bit.

#62 Posted by captain_clayman (3321 posts) -

i think 480p would be a nice middle ground.

#63 Edited by CaptainCody (1505 posts) -

@codynewill said:

@Sooty: @Twilight: Whiskey Media has to make money, and HD isn't cheap. I wouldn't count on anything better than 320p if you're not paying for the videos through subscription. Giantbomb isn't funded like IGN, Gamespot, or Gametrailers are.

I'm-I'm sorry, do we live in the dawn of television? They are hosting videos on youtube. Outside of the camera they spend no money at all on HD.

Also, to the own dismay of your point: they host videos in HD, for free.

#64 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

@captain_clayman said:

i think 480p would be a nice middle ground.

Middle ground to what? There's no reason they shouldn't just upload in 720. They just don't want to, for some weird reason.

#65 Posted by Raakill (870 posts) -

@seanfoster said:

I'm a subscriber who thinks HD should be standard for all users of the site.

This.

Also, I won't be continuing my subscription

#66 Posted by amomjc (977 posts) -

@CaptainCody said:

I get member's content, but I don't have money to throw around and having to watch shit in a ridiculously bad quality on a 23 inch monitor is awful.

If you cannot afford $5 a month to support this great company but can afford the internet to be able to stream 720p than something is wrong with you. I am an unemployed stay at home Dad living off unemployment while my unemployed wife goes to school and I can still manage to play with my bills enough to afford this small luxury.

This kind of bullshit just shows how spoiled some rotten people can be. There is nothing wrong with this website incentive's it's audience with this kind of content and just the idea of people like you believing you're right in this is utterly repulsive. This is a fucking entertainment and is not a necessity thus does not deserve the standardization of "everyone should have this." Be fucking glad they give you something in the first place.

#67 Edited by CaptainCody (1505 posts) -

@amomjc said:

@CaptainCody said:

I get member's content, but I don't have money to throw around and having to watch shit in a ridiculously bad quality on a 23 inch monitor is awful.

If you cannot afford $5 a month to support this great company but can afford the internet to be able to stream 720p than something is wrong with you. I am an unemployed stay at home Dad living off unemployment while my unemployed wife goes to school and I can still manage to play with my bills enough to afford this small luxury.

This kind of bullshit just shows how spoiled some rotten people can be. There is nothing wrong with this website incentive's it's audience with this kind of content and just the idea of people like you believing you're right in this is utterly repulsive. This is a fucking entertainment and is not a necessity thus does not deserve the standardization of "everyone should have this." Be fucking glad they give you something in the first place.

Fuck off, if you're going to be a dick and make crazed insinuations then go continue being a terrible Dad. (I can assume too)

Heres a new wallpaper for you:

Now imagine how bad this looks in a less microscopic resolution.
#68 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

@amomjc said:

@CaptainCody said:

I get member's content, but I don't have money to throw around and having to watch shit in a ridiculously bad quality on a 23 inch monitor is awful.

If you cannot afford $5 a month to support this great company but can afford the internet to be able to stream 720p than something is wrong with you. I am an unemployed stay at home Dad living off unemployment while my unemployed wife goes to school and I can still manage to play with my bills enough to afford this small luxury.

This kind of bullshit just shows how spoiled some rotten people can be. There is nothing wrong with this website incentive's it's audience with this kind of content and just the idea of people like you believing you're right in this is utterly repulsive. This is a fucking entertainment and is not a necessity thus does not deserve the standardization of "everyone should have this." Be fucking glad they give you something in the first place.

"It's free. Therefore it doesn't matter if it's bad." Not really. If they reviewed a free game that ran at ten frames a second I wouldn't be surprised if they criticized it for that. Time is a commodity just as much as money.

#69 Posted by AlwaysBeClothing (1469 posts) -

Its fine to have this discussion, but let's all keep personal attacks to a minimum (preferably to none at all).

I wish they would upload everything to youtube in HD, then I wouldn't feel bad about using it. As is, I'm watching most everything ins low quality to help whiskey save on bandwidth costs. Except for games I really care about the graphics and such though, I don't mind the low quality. Batman in HD is very nice, but for watching Ryan and Vinny play wipeout I don't think the hd is necessary.

At any resolution though, Whiskey personalities are why I come back and support them. I need my next episode of Jartime with Jeff

#70 Posted by crusader8463 (14422 posts) -

480p

#71 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

@ninjakiller said:

@Rattle618 said:

This generation is not spoiled, not one bit.

This. You want 480p? GET A SUBSCRIPTION! It's $50 which costs less than a new game.

Who wants 480p, and who would actually pay for that?

I'm convinced half of you don't know anything about this subject at all.

if I pay for a subscription, can I then come back and complain about this and then my complaints will be valid?

#72 Posted by masternater27 (918 posts) -

Or just shell out a little money. Obviously as a subscriber I'm biased, but I only work part-time while going to school and can afford it. I often overdraft on the weeks I have to pay tuition so my sitch ain't the greatest. I'm sure there's legit reasons people can't afford it, but the time you took posting and reading these messages could've netted you like $5 working a minimum wage job. That's a month right there. For my yearly subscription I'm getting exponentially more entertainment than I'd be paying for a game. /end sales pitch.

#73 Edited by B0nd07 (1699 posts) -

I watch the videos on High quality (not HD), and the day they added the Youtube player option (they set it as the primary/default), I watched the entirety of a video before I even realized I was watching the Youtube version. I didn't notice any quality issues. However, I will agree that they could at least upload the videos at 480p.

@gladspooky said:

@captain_clayman said:

i think 480p would be a nice middle ground.

Middle ground to what? There's no reason they shouldn't just upload in 720. They just don't want to, for some weird reason.

The HD videos hosted on-site are 720p (not 1080), and putting them on Youtube would circumvent that subscriber perk. Simple as that.

#74 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

@masternater27 said:

Or just shell out a little money. Obviously as a subscriber I'm biased, but I only work part-time while going to school and can afford it. I often overdraft on the weeks I have to pay tuition so my sitch ain't the greatest. I'm sure there's legit reasons people can't afford it, but the time you took posting and reading these messages could've netted you like $5 working a minimum wage job. That's a month right there. For my yearly subscription I'm getting exponentially more entertainment than I'd be paying for a game. /end sales pitch.

Let's take financial advice from someone who routinely overdrafts.

#75 Posted by ChaosDent (234 posts) -

This thread made me curious about the obvious quality gap between Giant Bomb's high quality format and the YouTube 360p format. So I went back and downloaded all 4 versions of both the Starcraft 2 review and the Uncharted review. It turns out that the high quality format and the low quality format are both actually 640x360, and in the case of the SC 2 review even the "HD" format is 360p! The real difference is bit rate. Each higher quality version has about double the bit rate of the version below it, they scale from mobile (350k) to HD (3500k).  Even though 3 out of 4 of the Starcraft 2 videos were exactly the same size, the quality difference between the various bit rates is very obvious.

 A quick Google search lead me to the conclusion that YouTube's 360p is locked at roughly 500k, 480p appears to target 1000k and 720p appears to target 2000k. These are all lower than the bit rate of the Giant Bomb equivalent. The problem for those noticing the quality issues is that even though GB is probably shipping their high quality (1500k) file to YouTube, YouTube is cutting that down to 30% of its original bit rate based on the input size alone. You are, for all intents and purposes, getting a lower quality video from YouTube's 360p than from Giant Bomb's low quality setting, even though the resolution is the same. 
 
The obvious solution that everyone is proposing here, upload an 854x480 video instead of a 640x360 video might have some serious ramifications that might make it harder to implement than we understand. I support the decision to use YouTube as a primary video platform, both for cost and visibility, but I am also definitely in favor of seeing the Giant Bomb videos appear at 480p (or even 720p) on YouTube. We as users do need to provide feedback, but we also need to give them time to figure this out since a format change like this probably shouldn't happen overnight.

#76 Posted by James_ex_machina (905 posts) -

GB up it to 480 for the non members.
Nonmembers that really enjoy the Whiskey family of sites or just GB, join.

#77 Posted by amomjc (977 posts) -

@CaptainCody said:

@amomjc said:

@CaptainCody said:

I get member's content, but I don't have money to throw around and having to watch shit in a ridiculously bad quality on a 23 inch monitor is awful.

If you cannot afford $5 a month to support this great company but can afford the internet to be able to stream 720p than something is wrong with you. I am an unemployed stay at home Dad living off unemployment while my unemployed wife goes to school and I can still manage to play with my bills enough to afford this small luxury.

This kind of bullshit just shows how spoiled some rotten people can be. There is nothing wrong with this website incentive's it's audience with this kind of content and just the idea of people like you believing you're right in this is utterly repulsive. This is a fucking entertainment and is not a necessity thus does not deserve the standardization of "everyone should have this." Be fucking glad they give you something in the first place.

Fuck off, if you're going to be a dick and make crazed insinuations then go continue being a terrible Dad. (I can assume too)

Heres a new wallpaper for you:

Now imagine how bad this looks in a less microscopic resolution.

I am having trouble trying to figure out what part of your reply to me was in any form, intellectual, so I guess I will just pass and allow you to continue your sweaty rage. Also the wallpaper is stupid.@gladspooky said:

@amomjc said:

@CaptainCody said:

I get member's content, but I don't have money to throw around and having to watch shit in a ridiculously bad quality on a 23 inch monitor is awful.

If you cannot afford $5 a month to support this great company but can afford the internet to be able to stream 720p than something is wrong with you. I am an unemployed stay at home Dad living off unemployment while my unemployed wife goes to school and I can still manage to play with my bills enough to afford this small luxury.

This kind of bullshit just shows how spoiled some rotten people can be. There is nothing wrong with this website incentive's it's audience with this kind of content and just the idea of people like you believing you're right in this is utterly repulsive. This is a fucking entertainment and is not a necessity thus does not deserve the standardization of "everyone should have this." Be fucking glad they give you something in the first place.

"It's free. Therefore it doesn't matter if it's bad." Not really. If they reviewed a free game that ran at ten frames a second I wouldn't be surprised if they criticized it for that. Time is a commodity just as much as money.

Trying to find the place where 720p became the standard for free services. Yeah, okay, multi-million dollar sponsored companies like IGN and Gametrailers allow you to stream in HD, so what? They're revenue and community is no where near as tight and different as the website you are on. We constantly have new members like you complaining about free content like some kind of hobo begging for steak at a poor-house. This is reality and every day Whiskey Media needs to make ends meet. The amount of content they have to carrot-on-a-stick is limited, and I for one am proud of the way that they do it. It is not invasive and gives you just enough incentive to subscribe while not offering so much to allow the price tag to inflate.

#78 Posted by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -

Another point that hasn't been brought up is that a YouTube app is on almost every entertainment device. As a subscriber, I would love to watch Giant Bomb videos in HD on my TV but I don't see myself investing in Roku but every single Blu Ray player I have has access to YouTube. It would be awesome.

As I've said before, I don't think HD should be a subscriber perk anymore. We get more than enough great videos from Giant Bomb and since they are hosting all videos over on YouTube it doesn't really make sense anymore. That's my two cents.

#79 Edited by Karmum (11519 posts) -

@amomjc said:

@CaptainCody said:

I get member's content, but I don't have money to throw around and having to watch shit in a ridiculously bad quality on a 23 inch monitor is awful.

If you cannot afford $5 a month to support this great company but can afford the internet to be able to stream 720p than something is wrong with you. I am an unemployed stay at home Dad living off unemployment while my unemployed wife goes to school and I can still manage to play with my bills enough to afford this small luxury.

This kind of bullshit just shows how spoiled some rotten people can be. There is nothing wrong with this website incentive's it's audience with this kind of content and just the idea of people like you believing you're right in this is utterly repulsive. This is a fucking entertainment and is not a necessity thus does not deserve the standardization of "everyone should have this." Be fucking glad they give you something in the first place.

Not going to lie, nobody really needs your life story and you're incredibly ignorant. I'm going to refrain from commenting on other parts of your post. You'd be surprised what people can and cannot afford.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the quality is 360p or 480p, even if I can tell the difference. Do I think 480p should be something that is free? Yeah, but I don't complain. I enjoy what I get and a higher free quality would be great, considering 720p and even 1080p are often free options on other websites. It's not a big deal to move and I just move on. If it's something I really want to see in better quality, I just go to YouTube. I want Whiskey Media to make a profit and anybody who subscribes to them believes it's worth the money and I'm glad they subscribe, it allows me to enjoy the stuff I get for free even more. No, I'm not cheap. I have a job and save most of my money and $5 a month or $50 a year is nothing to me, I just don't find paying for several "premium" services, including HD content (which I can get at other websites for free, but obviously not the same people or entertainment), worth the money. /rant

Watcha gonna doooo? Do nothing and people protest, do something and people protest.

#80 Posted by csl316 (8646 posts) -
@K9 said:

Because of all these premium videos for the last few weeks I personally don't consider being able to watch content in higher resolution a special feature anymore. If it makes sense financially GB should consider making HD videos viewable by everyone.

When I popped into this thread, I thought it was needless complaining.  But that first sentence changed my worldview.  You're kind of right, the premium videos have already made the membership completely worth it.  Not to mention the shop voucher we got.
 
HD videos do make a good first impression, I guess.  I never let it bother me when I pop onto some other site, as the content should be the main focus.  But I guess to some people, HD can be a deal maker.
#81 Edited by SpaceRunaway (865 posts) -
@ChaosDent
I appreciate the time you spent to do some actual research on this.  So all I've gotten was people saying nothing's changed, and other people saying it totally has.  
 
I haven't been part of the community for very long at all, so I don't have the history with the site that many users do, but for what it's worth I don't really care if HD opened up to free users.  I'm paying to support the GB guys, and the premium videos are the reason I was hooked.  Being able to download videos in HD is a nice perk, but I'm totally here for the videos of old games running on 800X600 monitors.  Whether or not GB offers HD videos on youtube is their own prerogative, and  all I hope for is that there is a response to this from Dave or someone else from the tech side.
Also, it was said in the comments in Dave's blog, but if you guys want to make some more money, make that link to the store a little bigger :>
 
Edit: Gah, spelling in the wee hours of the a.m. is tough
#82 Posted by CaptainCody (1505 posts) -

@amomjc said:

@CaptainCody said:

@amomjc said:

@CaptainCody said:

I get member's content, but I don't have money to throw around and having to watch shit in a ridiculously bad quality on a 23 inch monitor is awful.

If you cannot afford $5 a month to support this great company but can afford the internet to be able to stream 720p than something is wrong with you. I am an unemployed stay at home Dad living off unemployment while my unemployed wife goes to school and I can still manage to play with my bills enough to afford this small luxury.

This kind of bullshit just shows how spoiled some rotten people can be. There is nothing wrong with this website incentive's it's audience with this kind of content and just the idea of people like you believing you're right in this is utterly repulsive. This is a fucking entertainment and is not a necessity thus does not deserve the standardization of "everyone should have this." Be fucking glad they give you something in the first place.

Fuck off, if you're going to be a dick and make crazed insinuations then go continue being a terrible Dad. (I can assume too)

Heres a new wallpaper for you:

Now imagine how bad this looks in a less microscopic resolution.

I am having trouble trying to figure out what part of your reply to me was in any form, intellectual, so I guess I will just pass and allow you to continue your sweaty rage. Also the wallpaper is stupid.@gladspooky said:

@amomjc said:

@CaptainCody said:

I get member's content, but I don't have money to throw around and having to watch shit in a ridiculously bad quality on a 23 inch monitor is awful.

If you cannot afford $5 a month to support this great company but can afford the internet to be able to stream 720p than something is wrong with you. I am an unemployed stay at home Dad living off unemployment while my unemployed wife goes to school and I can still manage to play with my bills enough to afford this small luxury.

This kind of bullshit just shows how spoiled some rotten people can be. There is nothing wrong with this website incentive's it's audience with this kind of content and just the idea of people like you believing you're right in this is utterly repulsive. This is a fucking entertainment and is not a necessity thus does not deserve the standardization of "everyone should have this." Be fucking glad they give you something in the first place.

"It's free. Therefore it doesn't matter if it's bad." Not really. If they reviewed a free game that ran at ten frames a second I wouldn't be surprised if they criticized it for that. Time is a commodity just as much as money.

Trying to find the place where 720p became the standard for free services. Yeah, okay, multi-million dollar sponsored companies like IGN and Gametrailers allow you to stream in HD, so what? They're revenue and community is no where near as tight and different as the website you are on. We constantly have new members like you complaining about free content like some kind of hobo begging for steak at a poor-house. This is reality and every day Whiskey Media needs to make ends meet. The amount of content they have to carrot-on-a-stick is limited, and I for one am proud of the way that they do it. It is not invasive and gives you just enough incentive to subscribe while not offering so much to allow the price tag to inflate.

Their is an amazing amount of irony in your straw-man argument against me, I thought the point of my post was easy to understand but apparently not, so I'll just lay it out: Don't be a jackass to people just because you think you have a hard life and, therefore, make assumptions about everyone else. Lastly, holy shit. Did you really not get the point of the picture? 10/10 troll.

#83 Posted by Xeiphyer (5604 posts) -

I remember when WM was toting that they had nice HD video for all, while other websites gave their free users shitty tiny SD video.
 
Kinda funny how that's flipped around now. Hopefully they can fix this issue, its probably just an oversight.

#84 Posted by ViciousReiven (821 posts) -

@ChaosDent said:

This thread made me curious about the obvious quality gap between Giant Bomb's high quality format and the YouTube 360p format. So I went back and downloaded all 4 versions of both the Starcraft 2 review and the Uncharted review. It turns out that the high quality format and the low quality format are both actually 640x360, and in the case of the SC 2 review even the "HD" format is 360p! The real difference is bit rate. Each higher quality version has about double the bit rate of the version below it, they scale from mobile (350k) to HD (3500k). Even though 3 out of 4 of the Starcraft 2 videos were exactly the same size, the quality difference between the various bit rates is very obvious. A quick Google search lead me to the conclusion that YouTube's 360p is locked at roughly 500k, 480p appears to target 1000k and 720p appears to target 2000k. These are all lower than the bit rate of the Giant Bomb equivalent. The problem for those noticing the quality issues is that even though GB is probably shipping their high quality (1500k) file to YouTube, YouTube is cutting that down to 30% of its original bit rate based on the input size alone. You are, for all intents and purposes, getting a lower quality video from YouTube's 360p than from Giant Bomb's low quality setting, even though the resolution is the same. The obvious solution that everyone is proposing here, upload an 854x480 video instead of a 640x360 video might have some serious ramifications that might make it harder to implement than we understand. I support the decision to use YouTube as a primary video platform, both for cost and visibility, but I am also definitely in favor of seeing the Giant Bomb videos appear at 480p (or even 720p) on YouTube. We as users do need to provide feedback, but we also need to give them time to figure this out since a format change like this probably shouldn't happen overnight.

As someone who know a lot about video compression and the results of bitrate and bits-per-pixel I can confirm that this is true, chances are right now that GiantBomb is in fact uploading their original resolution videos that non-subs have always seen directly from their backups and Youtube is just fucking it up by recompressing it at a lower bitrate.

Really the only ways to fix this is to either have higher res videos to use Youtube's HD functionality or to take the raw video and optimize them for for Youtube (more trouble than it's worth, and they probably don't have raw backups anyway), either way Youtube's HD isn't as good as what some sites offer but it's still a decent alternative that's free to them, and IMO should be free to us.

#85 Posted by NTM (7374 posts) -

@Twilight said:

@sirdesmond said:

@Twilight said:

I don't want to sound like I'm demanding anything, because I'm not paying

If you didn't want to sound demanding then maybe you shouldn't have made this thread in which you are demanding higher quality videos.

I didn't want to sound demanding but I wanted to tell them my problem and hopefully they'll fix it.

No, because your only problem (in their eyes) is that you didn't pay for a subscription. You want it fixed? Pay for it. As bad as it sounds, it's probably true.

#86 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

@NTM said:

@Twilight said:

@sirdesmond said:

@Twilight said:

I don't want to sound like I'm demanding anything, because I'm not paying

If you didn't want to sound demanding then maybe you shouldn't have made this thread in which you are demanding higher quality videos.

I didn't want to sound demanding but I wanted to tell them my problem and hopefully they'll fix it.

No, because your only problem (in their eyes) is that you didn't pay for a subscription. You want it fixed? Pay for it. As bad as it sounds, it's probably true.

Nah. Name one other site that charges for HD video and gets away with it. Go on.

#87 Posted by Shaunage (706 posts) -

Like the site? Pay for it.

#88 Posted by McShank (1629 posts) -

@MattyFTM said:

I'm pretty sure the video's have always been only 360p. They haven't downgraded the quality. And the quality always seems fine to me. I rarely watch the video's in HD, and the standard def vids always seem decent enough.

I am with matty. I would occasionally forget to hit HD and watch in regular which seemed about the same as 360p. Just with the youtube embeded video's it actually tells you what quality it is at instead of standard / hd. If you want better video's put in 5$ for a month or buy a year sub. I just seem to see alot of Non-sub's getting angry at the WM site's because they dont get this or they arn't getting that.. If you want everything, pay and you shall receive. 5$ usually wont make or break someone in their everyday lives.

#89 Posted by DystopiaX (5310 posts) -

@csl316 said:

@K9 said:

Because of all these premium videos for the last few weeks I personally don't consider being able to watch content in higher resolution a special feature anymore. If it makes sense financially GB should consider making HD videos viewable by everyone.

When I popped into this thread, I thought it was needless complaining. But that first sentence changed my worldview. You're kind of right, the premium videos have already made the membership completely worth it. Not to mention the shop voucher we got. HD videos do make a good first impression, I guess. I never let it bother me when I pop onto some other site, as the content should be the main focus. But I guess to some people, HD can be a deal maker.

True. At the bare minimum they should get 480p, that shit's still standard def and I'm pretty sure that's what the old GB SD vids were at.

#90 Posted by i77ogical (47 posts) -

@Twilight said:

@MattyFTM said:

I'm pretty sure the video's have always been only 360p. They haven't downgraded the quality. And the quality always seems fine to me. I rarely watch the video's in HD, and the standard def vids always seem decent enough.

You're probably right with that they've always been in 360p. I've been thinking about making a thread about it before. And seeing it saying "360p" right there on the player made me go ahead and finally make one.

Attracting people form YouTube is a great idea, but for them to want to go to the website, a great first impression is needed. There is no doubt that GiantBomb and all the other Whiskey Media sites produce great video content, but when the videos aren't uploaded in 720p, the site doesn't seem that professional to me. Especially when all the other gaming websites (IGN, Gametrailers etc.) upload all their videos in 720p.

Given the strength of its staff, Giant Bomb has a reasonable right to want more from us than IGN or Gametrailers. Other premium products like Apple, or services like the New York Times, are asking for more and getting it.

But I totally agree about the 360p quality being terrible. 480p is what they should be giving us. As non-paying customers, we're still denied a mobile site and the premium videos. Making us watch dishwater pixellated videos sort of takes it too far. We are still eyeballs for their advertisers. Do they want us to watch the videos or not?

#91 Posted by TheBlindChessman (241 posts) -

@ChaosDent said:

This thread made me curious about the obvious quality gap between Giant Bomb's high quality format and the YouTube 360p format. So I went back and downloaded all 4 versions of both the Starcraft 2 review and the Uncharted review. It turns out that the high quality format and the low quality format are both actually 640x360, and in the case of the SC 2 review even the "HD" format is 360p! The real difference is bit rate. Each higher quality version has about double the bit rate of the version below it, they scale from mobile (350k) to HD (3500k). Even though 3 out of 4 of the Starcraft 2 videos were exactly the same size, the quality difference between the various bit rates is very obvious. A quick Google search lead me to the conclusion that YouTube's 360p is locked at roughly 500k, 480p appears to target 1000k and 720p appears to target 2000k. These are all lower than the bit rate of the Giant Bomb equivalent. The problem for those noticing the quality issues is that even though GB is probably shipping their high quality (1500k) file to YouTube, YouTube is cutting that down to 30% of its original bit rate based on the input size alone. You are, for all intents and purposes, getting a lower quality video from YouTube's 360p than from Giant Bomb's low quality setting, even though the resolution is the same. The obvious solution that everyone is proposing here, upload an 854x480 video instead of a 640x360 video might have some serious ramifications that might make it harder to implement than we understand. I support the decision to use YouTube as a primary video platform, both for cost and visibility, but I am also definitely in favor of seeing the Giant Bomb videos appear at 480p (or even 720p) on YouTube. We as users do need to provide feedback, but we also need to give them time to figure this out since a format change like this probably shouldn't happen overnight.

Thanks for the insight, I knew the videos hosted on the Whiskey servers that I was watching before weren't HD, but I couldn't figure out why these new YouTube 360p ones looked so much worse.

#92 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8698 posts) -

Get over it.
 
(I might be a member, but my pc fails when it comes to anything above 360p so I know what you are referring to, I just simply don't care as much for silly pixels.)

#93 Edited by Mmmslash (2168 posts) -

@SpikeSpiegel said:

I think HD should be free for all users. Especially since now they are hosting all the videos on YouTube to save on bandwidth costs.

My issue is that for all intents and purposes, their video hosting is now free. The YouTube 360p is not equivalent to the GB player's 360p.

Whiskey Media has saved money (and I'm glad, of course), and my experience has declined (which I'm not psyched for, obviously).

Folks can hoot and holler about IF YOU WANT QUALITY SUBSCRIBE, but if my incentive for subscribing is getting back to a standard I had before? No, no thanks.

#94 Posted by Regal (434 posts) -

@sirdesmond said:

@BUCK3TM4N: That wasn't the point of my post. The point was the he demanded something and preceded it with "I don't want to be demanding." That's all. It's like when people say "no offense" and follow it with something offensive. It's just a pet peeve of mine.

I think you are being a little liberal with "demanding", you have to look at the whole picture. 360p has no business existing on any contemporary website. Modern computer monitors and TV's basically don't support 360p (especially not full screen) because of the high resolution of those displays, it is bordering on unwatchable. This is in practise more akin to, say, if the website's formatting were broken for a browser, or if the content in other ways is corrupted beyond that which would allow for a reasonable consumption experience (not saying great experience).

This isn't about subscription feature or not, there are some minimum 2011 standards and customs that apply to sites such as these regardless of financial model. 360p on a site which mainly does video is a rather obvious abnegation of these standards, which describes what a modern website looks like (one that is compatible with modern displays.).

#95 Posted by DjCmeP (1148 posts) -

@Shaunage said:

Like the site? Pay for it.

#96 Posted by RedRoach (1191 posts) -

This is just another thing that makes me feel that WM doesn't give a shit about non-paying members. There is literally no reason that non-premium members shouldn't get HD now that Youtube is covering the cost, other than it might upset some paying members, but this topic shows the vast majority of us are completely okay with it. That and things like how there are almost zero new features (especially when it comes to video) for people who aren't premium. I know you have to cater to your paying members and entice people to sign up, but you still have to make new features for everyone. When was the last time EVERYONE got a new feature? Farmville? which stopped after 2 weeks? Seems to me like every new thing is subscriber only, I mean you can't even watch TNT. MOST importantly, all the video features that were for everyone died out, like TANG, and whatever happened to the revamped QotW?

This is just my opinion, I've been with GB since how to build a bomb episode 1 and I'll love this site forever, but WM seems to be making weird decisions lately.

#97 Posted by uomoartificiale (59 posts) -

There are alot of paying members here that use the argument "You don't pay for it, so fuck yourself, you don't deserve nothing!" Well, this point of view is based on your inability to enjoy something if it's available to all the others. Also paying gets you access to special feature, but that doesn't buy a patent of superiority over other members of the community without distinction. The issues here are:

1) is the quality good enough to make other people who know nothing about GB interested in the site? most people here agree that no, this is not the case.

2) should long-time visitors get such a downgrade in quality, especially for content that is available also on other sites (like trailers) and GB features (like quick looks)? most people agree that the downgrade in quality is noticeable. This is not one guy whining, there are 5 pages of thread full of people saying that the lost in quality is evident.

Those are the questions, and these seem to be the collective opinion here. Trying to force over everyone else here the idea that you are the only entitled to have an opinion because you paid it's not gonna change that.

Moreover both questions are posed from the perspective of people who care for GB. If you think that the only way to care for GB is to pay, you are an elitist who thinks that you can buy access to a community that is much larger than that.

You should also see that employing you way of thinking would lead eventually to someone replying "what do you want, you're a paying member, you get HD content anyway, get the fuck off this thread!". This is not happening fortunately, and you can see that there are lots of paying member too who are equally arguing that all video content should be in 720p without distinction whatsoever.

My two cents are: 480p with a decent bandwidth could be enough to have a quality close to the old 'high' quality. If that's the case, there's no hurry to give everyone 720p.

#98 Edited by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

I agree that they should start offering at least 480p to non-subs if they don't have to host the bandwidth. But really, 360p is what everyone has been getting for years.
 
I do hope they at least start hosting the intern videos internally so I can download the Fear Gauntlet since my connection sucks at streaming 720p.

#99 Posted by Apparatus_Unearth (3149 posts) -

Become a member?

#100 Edited by RollingZeppelin (1971 posts) -

Here's a comparison between the youtube version and WM's player on high resolution:

The Youtube is on the left and the WM player is on the right:

I think they look almost identical, in fact the youtube looks slightly sharper.

As a paying member I wouldn't mind if they uploaded the youtube version in HD. Just saying the 360p isn't really a downgrade of quality.

Here they are zoomed in: