|
Tebellong44238 Posts
On May 22 2014 04:35 OmniEulogy wrote:
the guy who scores a +20 at the masters still walks away with a nice bit of cash. Has nothing to do with communism, It has to do with showing respect to the best players the game has to offer and rewarding them for even being able to get there in the first place.
I mean the masters almost certainly doesn't pay for his flights and hotel etc.
On May 22 2014 04:35 OmniEulogy wrote:
If the prize pool wasn't large enough to spread among 16 teams I would say top 8 is fine but it's clearly growing large enough to the point where the top 16 teams should all be rewarded just for either their amazing year and invite, or beating out all the other competition in their region and qualifying for the tournament. It's not spreading the wealth, it's giving money to people who have all earned it.
Why even hold a tournament? Just hand out wads of cash to whoever valve think deserve it because yay free money. Valve should obviously just pay all the top teams a salary because they deserve it for their amazing year, nothing could possibly be wrong with that.
I know thats not what you are saying but what you are advocating simply isn't what TI is.
|
It's also a matter of scale. How many players play a Grand Slam? How many professional tennis players exist in the whole wide world? It's like inviting just the top 4 Dota teams and paying prize money for every single one of them. Find an average professional tennis player, ranked like 600-700, and he will have made like 5k in prize money is a whole year.
|
no the sponsors do that for him, as well as pay him a ridiculous amount to come in last.
This tournament is very unique compared to others but ok let's go with what you're saying Sno.
I guess starladder is just an excuse for communism to take over DotA2... damn. Every team that went to compete at SL9 got money. What a charity case they are.
MLG also gave money to the 9 teams that went to compete there including Prettyboy Swag / eHug.who went 0-8. Communist organization clearly.
ESL One is going to be giving prize money to all 8 teams that will be attending that event...
The Summit, all 6 teams get money.
WPC - all 8 teams that qualify get money. Even the newly announced MarsTV DotA 2 league gives prize money to all competitors.
Good news is D2CL doesn't give all of the finalists money so you still have one premier tournament you can support!
Basically DotA2 is a communist plot and gives a lot of free hand outs in all the major tournaments...
Why do all of these organizers even hold tournaments if they are just going to give money to everybody who makes it into them through Invites and Qualifiers????
edit: if your reason for not liking it is because 'communism' or a "free" handout I'm just saying all of this makes that seem kind of silly unless you hate almost every major tournament that has happened recently.
|
Brazil1429 Posts
On May 22 2014 04:33 SKC wrote:Teams live on sponsorship deals, TV rights, ticket sales, etc. When you make 150m on TV rights, a fair comparions would be paying the last places in TI 100 bucks. The prize money is a drop in the bucket for big Football teams. The idea of supporting players with prize money is quite unique to ESPORTS, which makes most comparisons pretty bad.
You mean Barcelona and Real Madrid lives on sponsorship deals, TV rights and ticket sales. They have more than 600 million euros invested in their teams, so the money coming from UCL prizepool surely isn't that important. But pick a team like Atletico Madrid, with a budget around 120 million euros. It gets just one Real Madrid player to almost get all the money invested in Atletico Madrid's squad. The money coming from UCL is ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT for them, exactly because they're not a Real Madrid or a Barcelona. Not every esports team is EG.
And I don't get why you're using this language that makes it sound that leveling the field is some act of charity. It's not about supporting the players, it's merely about recognizing that being a TI team is a big deal.
On one thing we can agree,: the process of selecting teams must improve. It's way better than last year, but there's still too many invited teams.
|
On May 22 2014 05:06 shostakovich wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 04:33 SKC wrote:Teams live on sponsorship deals, TV rights, ticket sales, etc. When you make 150m on TV rights, a fair comparions would be paying the last places in TI 100 bucks. The prize money is a drop in the bucket for big Football teams. The idea of supporting players with prize money is quite unique to ESPORTS, which makes most comparisons pretty bad. You mean Barcelona and Real Madrid lives on sponsorship deals, TV rights and ticket sales. They have more than 600 million euros invested in their teams, so the money coming from UCL prizepool surely isn't that important. But pick a team like Atletico Madrid, with a budget around 120 million euros. It gets just one Real Madrid player to almost get all the money invested in Atletico Madrid's squad. The money coming from UCL is ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT for them, exactly because they're not a Real Madrid or a Barcelona. Not every esports team is EG. And I don't get why you're using this language that makes it sound that leveling the field is some act of charity. It's not about supporting the players, it's merely about recognizing that being a TI team is a big deal. On one thing we can agree,: the process of selecting teams must improve. It's way better than last year, but there's still too many invited teams.
That team with a budget of 120 million euros gets like 2m, probally less, euros from La Liga. Don't tell me prize money is a big part of his budget. He can't guarantee he will be part of every Champion's League. Even when he plays it, it's still a small fraction of his budget and he still gets more than it from TV rights. Atletico got 42m from domestic (not international) TV rights. The smallest amount a team in La Liga got was 12m, that's a lot more than the prize for first place and more than a decent run at UCL. These premium tournaments are important for these teams because they can increase their budget for that or the next year, but by no means necessary. Else they would all have died. Tell me how a team such as Granada can afford a 20m wage bill if they rely on prize money.
Also, I don't know where you got that I was talking about charity. My full post was exclusivelly on why the sports comparisons were bullshit, on how there are plenty of leagues that don't pay prize money for it, and how prize money isn't even that big of a deal of most of them. I also said that as a mostly invitational tournament, in my view it's fine not to pay the bottom teams. I also think it's fine to push the prize pool to more than 8 teams and to make it more level. And I also wouldn't be outraged if every team got paid, like some people are with them not getting paid.
My whole point was: A) Not paying bottom teams is better with the current format, B) These sports comparisons are bullshit as an argument for paying everyone.
|
On May 22 2014 02:31 Vykromond wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 01:42 Sn0_Man wrote:
Regardless, the real argument still isn't "well the bottom teams suck so they don't deserve money" it is "well there should be more to the scene than TI and having TI award every attendee as much money as winning almost any other tournament would award artificially stratifies the scene and turns into valve subsidizing the scene instead of promoting it". Most dota fans do NOT want an LCS situation where "These teams get paid a livable salary by the publisher/developer to play the game and everybody else doesn't" but awarding even 1% of the winnings to each team results in a $60,000+ "sponsorship" to the attending teams. But isn't it... OUR money that would act as the subsidy? Just because the publisher/developer is acting as the intermediary for the money that's going from us to the teams via the prize pool doesn't make it their money, just as if, colloquially speaking, I pay for a movie ticket with a debit card, it wasn't JP Morgan Chase that subsidized the movie studio but me. So in the case that all 16 teams get a prize, the publisher/developer isn't really paying the players a salary... we are. In fact, Valve can keep its original prize distribution exactly the same, and ours could in theory be completely flat across the teams*. Wouldn't this really be THE COMMUNITY paying the teams a flat (very high) salary to play the game? And would that really be so bad? I feel that talking about Valve at all in terms of the prize pool is a misdirection of sorts, even if one made in good faith. * I don't actually support a position this extreme, just illustrating the point.
Meh, I kinda disagree with this argument (though i can see where you are coming from).
Ultimately, all the money valve works with is OUR money, but the issue is how they choose to use OUR money. In effect, it really isn't our money once it leaves our hands and enter's valve's.
Valve is the one who determines how to use the money. They are the ones that determined a compendium should be made. They are the ones who determined that $2.50, not more or less (or any at all), should go to the prize pool. And they will determine how much should go to each teams.
On a different matter, saying that giving bottom teams money removes incentive is ridiculous and fails to consider the value of more money over less. People value more money then valuing less, and teams will have the incentive to take first place for more money rather than second for less, competitive utility aside. That's a stupid argument to make otherwise.
Ultimately, we are starting to reach the point where we Dota needs to start asking ourselves, how does the average top tier team make enough money to have their players live off it? Minus the top 4 teams, we still aren't there yet in the West.
|
Tebellong44238 Posts
@Omni I mean most of those organizations have to offer money to every team just to make attendance worth it, Previous starladders saw teams qualify for the LAN finals and no-show because unless they won outright they would lose money to attend. Even this year, the 7/8th place teams at starladder likely lost money attending even including the travel assistance (although I'd guess sponsors paid for it so w/e) whereas every team at TI is 100% covered.
Also none of those tournaments have 16 teams at the LAN finals. They all pay top 8 same as TI, also the scale of pay isn't even in the same order of magnitude for any of those tournaments. Beyond that, many of those tournaments are the "LAN finals" of a month(s) long event. TI is the tournament, not just the finals.
And lastly, Developer-funded tournaments have different rules and expectations when compared to third-party organized ones.
|
Brazil1429 Posts
On May 22 2014 05:08 SKC wrote:
That team with a budget of 120 million euros gets like 2m, probally less, euros from La Liga. Don't tell me prize money is a big part of his budget. He can't guarantee he will be part of every Champion's League. Even when he plays it, it's still a small fraction of his budget and he still gets more than it from TV rights. Atletico got 42m from domestic (not international) TV rights. The smallest amount a team in La Liga got was 12m, that's a lot more than the prize for first place and more than a decent run at UCL. These premium tournaments are important for these teams because they can increase their budget for that or the next year, but by no means necessary. Else they would all have died. Tell me how a team such as Granada can afford a 20m wage bill if they rely on prize money.
Also, I don't know where you got that I was talking about charity. My full post was exclusivelly on why the sports comparisons were bullshit, on how there are plenty of leagues that don't pay prize money for it, and how prize money isn't even that big of a deal of most of them. I also said that as a mostly invitational tournament, in my view it's fine not to pay the bottom teams. I also think it's fine to push the prize pool to more than 8 teams and to make it more level. And I also wouldn't be outraged if every team got paid, like some people are with them not getting paid.
My whole point was: A) Not paying bottom teams is better with the current format, B) These sports comparisons are bullshit as an argument for paying everyone.
Let's go by your numbers and say that Atletico got 43mi from domestic TV rights.
If they win UCF saturday, they'll make at least 31,400,000 million euros, not counting their wins and draws in the groupstage. If they lose, they'll make a mere 27,500,000mi. One team can manage to get 50,000,000 euros on UCF alone if they win everything like Bayern did. Now please explain to me how UCF prizepool is a small fraction of their budget. Basic math disagrees with you.
|
On May 22 2014 04:33 SKC wrote:
In the NBA only teams that get to the playoffs get prize money.
And what is TI, if not the Dota esports scene's closet analogue to a playoffs?
|
On May 22 2014 05:39 shostakovich wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 05:08 SKC wrote:
That team with a budget of 120 million euros gets like 2m, probally less, euros from La Liga. Don't tell me prize money is a big part of his budget. He can't guarantee he will be part of every Champion's League. Even when he plays it, it's still a small fraction of his budget and he still gets more than it from TV rights. Atletico got 42m from domestic (not international) TV rights. The smallest amount a team in La Liga got was 12m, that's a lot more than the prize for first place and more than a decent run at UCL. These premium tournaments are important for these teams because they can increase their budget for that or the next year, but by no means necessary. Else they would all have died. Tell me how a team such as Granada can afford a 20m wage bill if they rely on prize money.
Also, I don't know where you got that I was talking about charity. My full post was exclusivelly on why the sports comparisons were bullshit, on how there are plenty of leagues that don't pay prize money for it, and how prize money isn't even that big of a deal of most of them. I also said that as a mostly invitational tournament, in my view it's fine not to pay the bottom teams. I also think it's fine to push the prize pool to more than 8 teams and to make it more level. And I also wouldn't be outraged if every team got paid, like some people are with them not getting paid.
My whole point was: A) Not paying bottom teams is better with the current format, B) These sports comparisons are bullshit as an argument for paying everyone. Let's go by your numbers and say that Atletico got 43mi from domestic TV rights. If they win UCF saturday, they'll make at least 31,400,000 million euros, not counting their wins and draws in the groupstage. If they lose, they'll make a mere 27,500,000mi. One team can manage to get 50,000,000 euros on UCF alone if they win everything like Bayern did. Now please explain to me how UCF prizepool is a small fraction of their budget. Basic math disagrees with you.
Winning UCF isn't a small fraction. But not every team can win the UCF. We are not talking about winners here. We are talking about the lowest positions on the table, and how some sports paying teams that lose every game makes it so TI should also do it. Or not. This is a one in a lifetime deal for atletico, sure it will be relevant today, but not last year and not next year. Teams cannot rely on prize money on football because overall it is a small fraction of their budget. Even Man U or Real will get a lot of money if they win the Champion's League. Doesn't mean they need to win, or even play it, to pay their bills. The "participation prize" is the analogue you tried to bring to Dota, not the first prize. We are talking about those 2m from playing in the playoffs (and some teams don't get even that). That is a drop in the bucket for any team. How many spanish teams will survive just fine without winning major bucks from UCL?
Winning TI is a big deal for the team that wins it as wel, but who cares, everybody knows it. Winning is a big deal in all sports. If we are comparing both scenes, in terms of money, winning TI is a much bigger deal than winning the Champions League. So nothing to complain about that, right? Noone will say the winner from TI doesn't win enough.
|
Brazil1429 Posts
On May 22 2014 05:43 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 05:39 shostakovich wrote:On May 22 2014 05:08 SKC wrote:
That team with a budget of 120 million euros gets like 2m, probally less, euros from La Liga. Don't tell me prize money is a big part of his budget. He can't guarantee he will be part of every Champion's League. Even when he plays it, it's still a small fraction of his budget and he still gets more than it from TV rights. Atletico got 42m from domestic (not international) TV rights. The smallest amount a team in La Liga got was 12m, that's a lot more than the prize for first place and more than a decent run at UCL. These premium tournaments are important for these teams because they can increase their budget for that or the next year, but by no means necessary. Else they would all have died. Tell me how a team such as Granada can afford a 20m wage bill if they rely on prize money.
Also, I don't know where you got that I was talking about charity. My full post was exclusivelly on why the sports comparisons were bullshit, on how there are plenty of leagues that don't pay prize money for it, and how prize money isn't even that big of a deal of most of them. I also said that as a mostly invitational tournament, in my view it's fine not to pay the bottom teams. I also think it's fine to push the prize pool to more than 8 teams and to make it more level. And I also wouldn't be outraged if every team got paid, like some people are with them not getting paid.
My whole point was: A) Not paying bottom teams is better with the current format, B) These sports comparisons are bullshit as an argument for paying everyone. Let's go by your numbers and say that Atletico got 43mi from domestic TV rights. If they win UCF saturday, they'll make at least 31,400,000 million euros, not counting their wins and draws in the groupstage. If they lose, they'll make a mere 27,500,000mi. One team can manage to get 50,000,000 euros on UCF alone if they win everything like Bayern did. Now please explain to me how UCF prizepool is a small fraction of their budget. Basic math disagrees with you. Winning UCF isn't a small fraction. But not every team can win the UCF. We are not talking about winners here. We are talking about the lowest positions on the table, and how some sports paying teams that lose every game makes it so TI should also do it. Or not. This is a one in a lifetime deal for atletico, sure it will be relevant today, but not last year and not next year. Teams cannot rely on prize money on football because overall it is a small fraction of their budget. Even Man U or Real will get a lot of money if they win the Champion's League. Doesn't mean they need to win, or even play it, to pay their bills. The "participation prize" is the analogue you tried to bring to Dota, not the first prize. We are talking about those 2m from playing in the playoffs (and some teams don't get even that). That is a drop in the bucket for any team. How many spanish teams will survive just fine without winning major bucks from UCL? Winning TI is a big deal for the team that wins it as wel, but who cares, everybody knows it. Winning is a big deal in all sports. If we are comparing both scenes, in terms of money, winning TI is a much bigger deal than winning the Champions League. So nothing to complain about that, right? Noone will say the winner from TI doesn't win enough.
To teams like Arsenal and Fenerbahce it's probably true, because they're big teams. But when we talk about less proeminent teams that are trying to fight their way via playoffs, like, for example, FC Paços de Ferreira (from Portugal), PFC Ludogorets Razgrad (from Bulgaria) or even teams from Iceland, things change a lot because they're from smaller markets. To these teams, even 2,1mi euros (which is what they get by being part of the playoffs) is a big deal. I'm just trying to show that this money is indeed important to them and that not every team has a big chunk of their budget coming from TV rights. Because they have access to this money, they're able to build teams and and have a chance in the game. Football in Europe is top heavy (and corrupt as fuck), but the way UCF distribute their prizepool is not top heavy at all.
|
On May 22 2014 06:11 shostakovich wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 05:43 SKC wrote:On May 22 2014 05:39 shostakovich wrote:On May 22 2014 05:08 SKC wrote:
That team with a budget of 120 million euros gets like 2m, probally less, euros from La Liga. Don't tell me prize money is a big part of his budget. He can't guarantee he will be part of every Champion's League. Even when he plays it, it's still a small fraction of his budget and he still gets more than it from TV rights. Atletico got 42m from domestic (not international) TV rights. The smallest amount a team in La Liga got was 12m, that's a lot more than the prize for first place and more than a decent run at UCL. These premium tournaments are important for these teams because they can increase their budget for that or the next year, but by no means necessary. Else they would all have died. Tell me how a team such as Granada can afford a 20m wage bill if they rely on prize money.
Also, I don't know where you got that I was talking about charity. My full post was exclusivelly on why the sports comparisons were bullshit, on how there are plenty of leagues that don't pay prize money for it, and how prize money isn't even that big of a deal of most of them. I also said that as a mostly invitational tournament, in my view it's fine not to pay the bottom teams. I also think it's fine to push the prize pool to more than 8 teams and to make it more level. And I also wouldn't be outraged if every team got paid, like some people are with them not getting paid.
My whole point was: A) Not paying bottom teams is better with the current format, B) These sports comparisons are bullshit as an argument for paying everyone. Let's go by your numbers and say that Atletico got 43mi from domestic TV rights. If they win UCF saturday, they'll make at least 31,400,000 million euros, not counting their wins and draws in the groupstage. If they lose, they'll make a mere 27,500,000mi. One team can manage to get 50,000,000 euros on UCF alone if they win everything like Bayern did. Now please explain to me how UCF prizepool is a small fraction of their budget. Basic math disagrees with you. Winning UCF isn't a small fraction. But not every team can win the UCF. We are not talking about winners here. We are talking about the lowest positions on the table, and how some sports paying teams that lose every game makes it so TI should also do it. Or not. This is a one in a lifetime deal for atletico, sure it will be relevant today, but not last year and not next year. Teams cannot rely on prize money on football because overall it is a small fraction of their budget. Even Man U or Real will get a lot of money if they win the Champion's League. Doesn't mean they need to win, or even play it, to pay their bills. The "participation prize" is the analogue you tried to bring to Dota, not the first prize. We are talking about those 2m from playing in the playoffs (and some teams don't get even that). That is a drop in the bucket for any team. How many spanish teams will survive just fine without winning major bucks from UCL? Winning TI is a big deal for the team that wins it as wel, but who cares, everybody knows it. Winning is a big deal in all sports. If we are comparing both scenes, in terms of money, winning TI is a much bigger deal than winning the Champions League. So nothing to complain about that, right? Noone will say the winner from TI doesn't win enough. To teams like Arsenal and Fenerbahce it's probably true, because they're big teams. But when we talk about less proeminent teams that are trying to fight their way via playoffs, like, for example, FC Paços de Ferreira (from Portugal), PFC Ludogorets Razgrad (from Bulgaria) or even teams from Iceland, things change a lot because they're from smaller markets. To these teams, even 2,1mi euros (which is what they get by being part of the playoffs) is a big deal. I'm just trying to show that this money is indeed important to them and that not every team has a big chunk of their budget coming from TV rights. Because they have access to this money, they're able to build teams and and have a chance in the game. Football in Europe is top heavy (and corrupt as fuck), but the way UCF distribute their prizepool is not top heavy at all.
It's also the poorest example because of how gruosome the qualification process for UCL is. Even top teams fail to qualify ocasionally. The biggest thing people point out when they disagree with every team getting prize money is that teams are invited. The reason why these elite tournaments such a Grand Slams and Champions League spread the money so much is because it's so hard to play it. National tournaments have pretty lousy prizes in comparion. The amount of second tier teams the UCL affects is extremelly small is the whole context of professional football teams.
|
Tebellong44238 Posts
I mean its hard to play in the international dude. Although yes, you could argue that if a team like NAR can be in the international its not THAT absurdly hard.
Also gruesome is spelled gruesome, and I think you meant gruelling anyway.
|
On May 22 2014 06:20 Sn0_Man wrote:
I mean its hard to play in the international dude. Although yes, you could argue that if a team like NAR can be in the international its not THAT absurdly hard.
Also gruesome is spelled gruesome, and I think you meant gruelling anyway.
UCL has the equivalent of Alliance or C9 failing to qualify though. A top team is almost guarateed to play in TI. The main diference is that it also artificially protect poor regions far more than TI. If TI was like UCL we would have Revenge/UG, MVP and Mith or something in the main tournament, but Alliance, Newbee and C9 would be out or something like that (don't mind the teams, replace them with Navi/VG/whathever). Anyway the teams spend a whole year proving they deserve that sport in an objective matter (at least against other teams from their country).
|
One point that I think is important is how distributing the prize money more affects the growth of the competitive scene. Dota or esports in general doesn't have enough stable organizations to financially support tens of dota teams. If you distribute community funded prize money more evenly to teams, it allows more teams to make a passable living from dota. That equals even more competition for the top spots (because more teams can do it full-time) and ultimately a larger pool of teams because people aren't forced to quit so easily and making a living is easier. More competitive (and I mean actually competitive and not teams that try to play in qualifiers and fail all the time) teams brings higher quality entertainment for the viewers, which I think leads to even more growth in the number of spectators.
I'm not sure who I feel would "deserve" prize money currently, but I think the more important side of this is how the prize money distribution influences the future of dota. In the context of esports and organizations that sometimes barely provide peripherals and travel support, we are talking about quite significant changes in income for a lot of players.
|
276 Posts
On May 22 2014 04:42 Sn0_Man wrote:
Valve should obviously just pay all the top teams a salary because they deserve it for their amazing year, nothing could possibly be wrong with that.
This, unironically.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Participation fee is normal in big sporting events. But given the scale of Dota2 and the prominence of The International in the year, the bigger problem is figuring out how to make every other tournament about 4 times larger so we don't have 80% of the professional scene be in one single tournament.
|
Not everything has to follow another. Making TI so top heavy is hype.. especially TI1, that paved the way for future internationals. I much prefer it this way... there are already many tournaments with larger prize pool nowadays for teams that are not top5 (arbitrary) to compete in.
|
The problem with paying every team at TI is that unlike traditional sports, TI doesn't have a straightforward, transparent qualification path. Sure, it's Valve's tournament and they're free to give their money to whomever they please, but there are some disgruntled voices about which teams should be invited and which shouldn't already; these voices would be a helluva lot louder if every of the invites got paid. Until there is a selection method for teams to TI that is actually transparent, giving participants anything more than tickets and lodging for losing every single match would be a pretty bad call with all the drama and bad blood it'd create.
|
On May 22 2014 02:31 Vykromond wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 01:42 Sn0_Man wrote:
Regardless, the real argument still isn't "well the bottom teams suck so they don't deserve money" it is "well there should be more to the scene than TI and having TI award every attendee as much money as winning almost any other tournament would award artificially stratifies the scene and turns into valve subsidizing the scene instead of promoting it". Most dota fans do NOT want an LCS situation where "These teams get paid a livable salary by the publisher/developer to play the game and everybody else doesn't" but awarding even 1% of the winnings to each team results in a $60,000+ "sponsorship" to the attending teams. But isn't it... OUR money that would act as the subsidy? Just because the publisher/developer is acting as the intermediary for the money that's going from us to the teams via the prize pool doesn't make it their money, just as if, colloquially speaking, I pay for a movie ticket with a debit card, it wasn't JP Morgan Chase that subsidized the movie studio but me. So in the case that all 16 teams get a prize, the publisher/developer isn't really paying the players a salary... we are. In fact, Valve can keep its original prize distribution exactly the same, and ours could in theory be completely flat across the teams*. Wouldn't this really be THE COMMUNITY paying the teams a flat (very high) salary to play the game? And would that really be so bad? I feel that talking about Valve at all in terms of the prize pool is a misdirection of sorts, even if one made in good faith. * I don't actually support a position this extreme, just illustrating the point.
If we're going to say that it's really the community's money "subsidizing" the teams, can't we say that it's the LoL community that's "subsidizing" the LCS teams? After all, Riot's money comes from the LoL community. It's less direct, sure, but it's the same peoples' money ending up in the same peoples' hands with the same intermediary.
Anyway, yeah, it'd be nice if there were more ways for teams to directly make money from the community. Make the entry barrier to selling team-sponsoring cosmetics lower, for example, or give teams a direct cut of event ticket sales, or something. If you cut all the prizes in a year of DotA in half, and distribute the other half evenly among all competing teams, you probably end up with a significantly larger/more stable professional DotA scene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
