EPTAutomated Tournaments and the Monetization of Bnet - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Doso
Germany769 Posts
| ||
|
fantomex
United States313 Posts
Obviously it can't be in lieu of free tournaments. But as others have mentioned, unfortunately the legal nightmares in USA alone would make this a money loser. The biggest thing standing in the way is still maphacking. You simply can't have money tournaments while cheating is so prevalent. | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
Some thoughts on this... 1. Obviously, single player and most multiplayer functions would have to be free. I couldn't imagine a poker client that would succeed trying to charge $60 to make an account, even just to play play-money games. 2. I think that this is great to bring something competitive into the game that would otherwise not exist (round-the-clock tourneys), and this would definitely promote E-SPORTS. 3. I like how it's usage-based, rather than a subscription. This will incentivize Blizzard to improve the product. For example, players will likely only play tournaments if they believe they have a realistic chance of winning. Ranking-restricted tourneys will help this, but only if players believe that the ranking system accurately gauges player skill. So Blizzard is incentivized to improve their ranking system to be more accurate, and even prevent players from misrepresenting their own skill as best they can. Also, they would have a real incentive to prevent cheating of all forms, which is a huge bonus IMO. 4. I think anyone can afford 5 cents to play a tournament. And I think this would easily cover their day-to-day expenses to run bnet2. PR- and legality- wise, they might run into trouble. Perhaps they could require some age verification to be allowed to play money games, and then restrict the amount that could be spent in various time units, similar to deposit limits for poker clients. They would also have to state that their alternative monetization option was a subscription, and mention how that would cost more for 99.9% of users. So overall, I think this is a great way to introduce monetization for the players. But they could make way more money charging a $5/month subscription fee. And a subscription fee would be much easier/less hassle too. So I don't know if this will ever be a realistic option. | ||
|
mnck
Denmark1518 Posts
I think this is the wrong way of making StarCraft 2 competetive. | ||
|
Smikis
Lithuania117 Posts
i cant believe that mod is actually encouraging micro transactions.. not to mention members agreeing.. hardly anyone ever play wc3 automated tourneys.. and you want to add even fees to this? so much hassle.. for what supposed 50 bucks prize after 20 games to winner? if you love your poker so much why wont you stick with it.. and stop encouraging micro transactions... we already have modding community that gonna die with map marketplace.. do you think dota would exist today , if it had fee to play.. sure maybe 3.x version.. after some point everyone who plays custom games would bought it already .. why would you bother updating.. unless you charge for every new version.. which brings another nightmare.. spending 200 bucks for one map.. with 3 changes for all you know.. or noone playing newer map.. they talk about big projects.. big project to get initial money maybe.. and move onto next.. without ever having really epic maps.. now you suggest this bullshit? | ||
|
DGMavn
United States48 Posts
On June 19 2010 00:59 fantomex wrote: The biggest thing standing in the way is still maphacking. You simply can't have money tournaments while cheating is so prevalent. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: as soon as money becomes involved, maphacks will become less prevalent. A tool that introduces an unfair advantage in a game with no wager on it has very little monetary value. A tool that introduces an unfair advantage in a contest with monetary prizes is worth money. Introducing the monetary system would provide incentives for those hack authors to keep tighter wraps on their product because it now has additional worth. People will pay a lot of money to get that advantage; if the hack becomes widespread, then the authors get less of the cut. That having been said: Online poker rooms undergo security audits in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their systems are secure. Here's a link to the Pokerstars report. If SC2 were to hypothetically introduce a SnG format, they would most definitely have to have their system vetted. Given that the communication of SC2 is much more complex than online poker (in poker, the server knows when the other player's hole cards should be revealed; it's easier to trick a SC2 server into thinking you have vision of a certain area), I think the cost of this analysis alone would prove more costly to Blizzard than the money they'd make off of it. An interesting sidebar: if there were games going on for money, you'd definitely want to have all traffic going through an official Bnet server, which means no LAN functionality. | ||
|
radiaL
Andorra2690 Posts
Blizzard creates 'gold'/'minerals'/whatever you want to call their currency. You would earn said currency exactly in the same way as getting achievements works now: through ladder play/single player play/etc. It is with this currency that you would enter these automated tournaments, and it is this currency that you would stand to win. Then you can buy things like new portraits/new custom maps(?)/cross region play/etc. Maybe even starcraft branded merchandise. If however, you suck or just want to show off your friend(s), you can put in your credit card and buy this fake currency, which you are then free to spend on the aforementioned items. Note that the money never leaves the system, there is no way of 'cashing out', so this literally creates nothing but a giant income stream for blizzard. I mean mafia wars has made over 100$Million, and it's a text-based Facebook game! Blizzard will never do anything poker-like, it's not worth it. | ||
|
myopia
United States2928 Posts
| ||
|
rS.Sinatra
Canada785 Posts
On June 19 2010 01:20 radiaL wrote: The only way this would ever work is ala Facebook games platform. Blizzard creates 'gold'/'minerals'/whatever you want to call their currency. You would earn said currency exactly in the same way as getting achievements works now: through ladder play/single player play/etc. It is with this currency that you would enter these automated tournaments, and it is this currency that you would stand to win. Then you can buy things like new portraits/new custom maps(?)/cross region play/etc. Maybe even starcraft branded merchandise. If however, you suck or just want to show off your friend(s), you can put in your credit card and buy this fake currency, which you are then free to spend on the aforementioned items. Note that the money never leaves the system, there is no way of 'cashing out', so this literally creates nothing but a giant income stream for blizzard. I mean mafia wars has made over 100$Million, and it's a text-based Facebook game! Blizzard will never do anything poker-like, it's not worth it. Haha.. Starcraft 2 as Facebook App.. very funny... I had to hold my laughter in since I'm at work. | ||
|
fantomex
United States313 Posts
Secondly I think having MORE tournaments is bad, because it will lower the general quality of it all as an e-Sport... /facepalm You really don't see the link between the increased usage of online Poker sites and the increased viewership of televised Poker? People watch the sports they play. If no one plays SC2, no one will watch SC2, and no one will sponsor SC2. (And when I say "Play SC2", I'm not talking about 3v3/UMS, I'm talking competitive ladder/tournaments) I've said this before, and I'll say it again: as soon as money becomes involved, maphacks will become less prevalent. A tool that introduces an unfair advantage in a game with no wager on it has very little monetary value. A tool that introduces an unfair advantage in a contest with monetary prizes is worth money. Introducing the monetary system would provide incentives for those hack authors to keep tighter wraps on their product because it now has additional worth. People will pay a lot of money to get that advantage; if the hack becomes widespread, then the authors get less of the cut. If there one thing the internet is good at, its taking things that have value and making them free. Saying that maphacks will become less prevalent when money is involved is like trying to tell me the sky isn't blue. | ||
|
iopq
United States1198 Posts
| ||
|
rS.Sinatra
Canada785 Posts
On June 19 2010 01:29 iopq wrote: How do I sign up for rakeback? www.rakeback.com | ||
|
DGMavn
United States48 Posts
On June 19 2010 01:24 fantomex wrote: If there one thing the internet is good at, its taking things that have value and making them free. Saying that maphacks will become less prevalent when money is involved is like trying to tell me the sky isn't blue. It's economics. If the demand for something goes way up, you can maximize the price by decreasing the supply. Alternately: if you have a piece of software that can get you a lot of money, but you want to make sure that the only way people can use it is if they pay for it, then the solution becomes DRM. And since the hackers in this case are the ones writing the DRM, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would have both the desire and the skill to crack it. | ||
|
Helios.Star
United States548 Posts
| ||
|
rS.Sinatra
Canada785 Posts
On June 19 2010 01:36 DGMavn wrote: It's economics. If the demand for something goes way up, you can maximize the price by decreasing the supply. Alternately: if you have a piece of software that can get you a lot of money, but you want to make sure that the only way people can use it is if they pay for it, then the solution becomes DRM. And since the hackers in this case are the ones writing the DRM, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would have both the desire and the skill to crack it. I'm not sure why this topic is even being discussed... however, good luck decreasing the supply of something on the internet. There is only one way supply goes on the internet and that is increase, stupidity being it's chief export. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On June 18 2010 23:48 Full wrote: This is gambling. Just because its a game of skill and not luck, does not make this something other than gambling. It's definitely not gambling in the US. This is common practice for local LAN tournaments here and tons of kids do it (kids that are not old enough to gamble). The only difference would be that the transactions are handled online. But changing the method of payment in this way does not change the nature of the business. | ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
I was under the impression that Blizz were on board with this from the get-go, but as with many things on Bnet 0.2, I guess they forgot about it. | ||
|
rS.Sinatra
Canada785 Posts
On June 19 2010 01:51 Liquid`NonY wrote: It's definitely not gambling in the US. This is common practice for local LAN tournaments here and tons of kids do it (kids that are not old enough to gamble). The only difference would be that the transactions are handled online. But changing the method of payment in this way does not change the nature of the business. I agree that this isn't gambling. I even go so far as to say Poker isn't really gambling as the skill patient players will always win in the long-run. However, in the eyes of the public, this may end up in the legal definition of gambling since you are wagering money into a tournament prize pool to win money and risk losing money. While this does happen already and is not perceived as gambling, that reason may only be because its not a widespread phenomenon. Once this becomes popular enough to be taxed, as in people making enough money off of it, there will be a whole shit-storm of other stuff to deal with, such as determining whether or not this would fall under gambling. | ||
|
NonY
8751 Posts
On June 19 2010 00:55 Doso wrote: Buyin-tournaments don't work in eSports - period. Courage tournaments in Korea are buy-in. MLG tournaments in USA are buy-in. KeSPA and MLG have some of the most badass leagues going on in the world. Anyway, these automated tournaments wouldn't primarily be for spectators (though I'm sure publicizing the replays could be arranged). Competitive gaming (or eSports if you insist) relies on selling a product. The product is the entertainment of watching the best players compete. These automated tournaments wouldn't be about that. These tournaments would be for the players. So at virtually any time of the day, a competitive player can compete in something more exciting and meaningful than the ladder. | ||
|
tec27
United States3727 Posts
On June 19 2010 01:51 Liquid`NonY wrote: It's definitely not gambling in the US. This is common practice for local LAN tournaments here and tons of kids do it (kids that are not old enough to gamble). The only difference would be that the transactions are handled online. But changing the method of payment in this way does not change the nature of the business. Its pretty much semantics, but given standard definitions of gambling, it definitely falls under it: gamble - take a risk in the hope of a favorable outcome; "When you buy these stocks you are gambling" gamble - money that is risked for possible monetary gain gamble - play games for money gamble - a risky act or venture People don't like to use the term 'gambling' however because it has connotations of being completely luck-based, and is blocked by some laws in the US. Really though, quite a few things that are perfectly legal in the US fall under the category of 'gambling', they just have a better public reputation I guess. To make this work, Blizzard would need to avoid ever referring to it as 'gambling' though, and stick to pretty much what they say at VirginGaming, which is stuff that refers to only the skill involved. But I'm sure Blizzard's lawyers could figure it out. | ||
| ||
