Not loving the idea of the live podcasts from the start. Podcasts exist to allow for edits etc.
As for call ins, lord no. There was a terrible radio show in the UK in the early 2000s called Ian Collins and the Midnight Zoo. Sundays between midnight and 1 they'd just let people on the air. A few people got fired because someone slagged off the Queen or something.
In review, no call ins, aside from a dedicated show or something for premium or even everyone.
@jennifyre: Call ins on Mixlr are one of the main reasons I stopped listening to the Mixlr.
That and when I realized how insane it is that I'm listening to 20 minutes of ambient road noise on my way home from work rather than listening to music or something. It's fun to hear Jeff talk about games off the cuff but it's also weirdly a step too far..like weirdly voyeuristic. Not to mention how creepily cult-like the chat had gotten to be.
As long as they screen them, it could be fine, but I otherwise don't see a point. They're just making more work for themselves for no benefit IMO. We have emails, what more could you want? What does a live call add that reading a question from the inbox doesn't? I say just save yourselves the trouble and don't bother. YMMV.
Also, yes, some PAX Q&A people are awful. Everyone has to have a joke, or some shit to bring up, or other crap that 90% of the people there don't want to hear. Or another "how do I become you" questions. Like, most people didn't get there on purpose. There's no guidance-councilor urging anyone into the youtube/webcomic/videogame-whatever/etc profession. I've seen some panels these days try to cut some of that stuff out and trying to guide people to have real questions, but I'm sure it's not 100% unless you just screen people ahead of time. It seems dickish, but it's dickish to waste everyone's time with your "hilarious" question/skit.
I wish everyone understood that, when you call in to any radio program, you are not suddenly a special guest on that radio program.
Please don't try to make everyone laugh, or take the opportunity to thank the Academy, or give a commencement speech. Just ask your question, or make your brief comment, and if they want more from you, they will let you know.
Has the format been discussed at all - I missed last Bombcast so don't know if this was a topic of conversation. There would have to be some sort of screening process, correct? Game Informer has done a bit of interaction with fans, though not in a live format, just listeners presenting questions to the crew. It was actually OK, but not something i'd want long term for Giant Bomb. We already have emails for interaction purposes. No need to break up the crew interaction with calls, too.
I'm just worried of cliche questions from the audience. Like "what's the game of this generation?" or "what's the best console ever?". They just need to hang up and take another call if it's bad.
Call ins are only okay in my opinion if the people receiving the calls aren't afraid to be brutally honest with the callers. No "being polite even though this caller/question is stupid". If it's a bad call. Hang it up and move on, if the caller is offended by that maybe next time they'll have more interesting shit to talk about.
If running a live show is like walking a tightrope, listener call ins are like someone taking a saw to the rope. Definitely makes things more interesting, but also very cringeworthy. I'm all for that type of trainwreckery.
I definitely agree that having a live call-in thing would be a bad idea, especially since I'm sure a good chunk of the calls will be people trying too hard to be funny and/or edgy unless they can get a good call screener.
Calls about a focused subject that spark an interesting discussion? sure.
I mean, if someone calls in to talk about a crazy glitch he discovered in mario 64, or tells a great story about the experiments he did with the AI in football manager, that could be neat.
But with a title like this, it's not even a question anymore. I mean 80% of the emails could be terrible, but there are still 20% of the emails that spark a great story / discussion on the bomb/beastcast. call in's would probably have similar highs and lows.
Pre-screening and/or pre-recorded 'questions' in the email section can work. But then you've got to have people sending them files, and them running them through filters to make sure its safe to open and..
Honestly, its more trouble then its worth. The amount of awful outweighs the fun. Call ins are always the worst part of any show I listen to radio-wise because, in general, people ramble. "Hi, big fan of the shown how are you doing?" is a waste of time to say..but everyone seems to say it, as an example.
That said the one exception I will make is at conventions. Yes, the Pax panels are cringe worthy material most of the time. But just because it makes for a bad streaming experience...well so what? Its a panel first, not a stream. Its for the people attending first and foremost, not those of us watching online.
I'm not saying "and there fore you can be critical of it" but unless you actively attend those Pax panels every year and don't feel like having a Q and A segment available too you makes the panel better..really we can't call for it to be done away with and have much credibility.
So, yah, call ins and Q and As are crap usually. But not always instat-ban worthy, as it depends on the primary audience, and obviously the views and amount of work the people in charge are willing to put in.
I've loved some of the highlights on Tom Scharpling's radio calls and how he shuts some of the stupid shit down. It's probably mostly cringey, but I hope that these guys have been around long enough to have experience on being brutal assholes about stupid calls were that to happen. buhhht, idk, I've been liking it just as it is myself
I like user questions on other things. But GB creates this weird atmosphere where the users think they can be as funny as the crew since it comes off so casually. MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT COMEDIANS IT TURNS OUT.
Log in to comment