It's not that I don't understand this way of thinking, but it strikes me as odd.At the end of the day, it's just more entertaining to watch something be performed in front of a live audience instead of on a small computer screen. It's why the movie theatre experience has value to it vs watching at home on a laptop, or why it's more exciting to go to a baseball game at Yankee Stadium than by watching it at home. I know you get the same information at perhaps a greater pace and more... "directly," but there's a certain level of theatrical flair when you get to kind of join in on the excitement of what's being presented to you with dozens if not hundreds of other people. No, you're not there, but you can relate to the emotions and excitement of those you see witnessing the same product, game, or event when you see their reactions emulate yours.
It's just really cool to see something you love presented to large groups of people, and seeing their reaction to it. It's hard to explain for someone who doesn't "get it," but that's the jist of it.
I get why people thinks this can be exciting, but I don't quite understand them being so bullish about this new format and labeling it as less public, not accessible and what not. I do agree that thing that attending a sports game or movie can be exciting, but I feel it's a little different compared to a live stream on the internet.
Maybe I've gown cynical, but the reaction from the public (positive or negative) doesn't influence me at all, because I'm inclined to belief the folks reacting to this all are employees or something like that.
Got the messageWell, I didn't mean to imply it was any less public. All I'm saying is that it's more exciting and inviting to have an event shown to an audience than how they've been doing things.
