|
On December 15 2010 08:34 zidaneshead wrote:
I think the flaw in the concept is that players can play in the low buy-in and high buy-in tournies at the same time. It seems like it'd be really easy if two tournaments were happening over a weekend to just play 1 series for 1 tourney, then play another for another tourney. So if I'm a pro I can technically take my chances in the higher buy-in tournies and at the same time own one of the lower buy-in tournies.
I would think that there should be a restriction to certain tournies based on league level. Maybe up to plats can only play in a $5 buy-in tourney, low-level diamonds can do the $10, higher-level buy-ins are restricted to Master league, etc.
Overall though it's a great idea, I don't think we can expect too much from sponsorship money right now.
Few things that will make top players not do this:
1) Restrictions within site to 1 tourney at a time. That way you would have to go to multiple different sites / tourney operators in order to play in multiple games at once, which they already do...
2) People have to be available at a certain time or will forfeit. Say 15 minutes from when both players have been seated in their bracket. This way people that are in the tournament would have to be ready to play while participating, this means if you are signed up some how for a $50 buy-in and a $5 buy-in, and you are owning the $5, but your $50 15-min time limit is coming up, you'll drop the $5 tourney to play the $50 one...
There can be lots of rules to prevent people from playing more than 1 tournament at a time.
The problem is that if you separate by league then there will be say people in the top 200 who buy a game of SC2, make a new account, put them selves in bronze and just roll every bronze league tourney for no effort at all.
Not to mention, then in the platinum tournies then only the pros and semi-pro level games will ever win... you need to be able to spread out the players and well buy-in tournies first come first server to the brackets = the most random you can get...
One bracket might have 12/64 semi-pros another might have 0/64 semi-pros just randoms.
On December 15 2010 10:37 deL wrote:
I think a more realistic buy-in would be $1 tourneys where first prize is like, under $50. This would be great for those entry level competitive players and not be worth the time for most of the top players who regularly take small events.
At $1 buy-ins pay-pal takes $0.33 of the 1st dollar, then $0.03 for every dollar after that. Meaning that only $42 would come in for the total prize-pool + covering costs... meaning a $1 buy-in would have 0% chance of having a streamer, and would have a top prize of $15 ($10 for 2nd, $5 for 3rd, and $1 for 4 - 8).
|
On December 15 2010 10:50 Bladefury wrote:Blizzard has nothing to lose and everything to gain. It will draw a ton of attention to the game, help many casual gamers make the step up to the competitive scene, leading to bigger tournaments and more publicity. I feel that this has the potential to really make the game huge, just like how online poker sites made poker explode in popularity all over the world.
I agree, I just see alot of people are wondering about the legalities of it, maybe because of what's going on in Korea, but it seems like as long as there's no entity making a profit off of it (besides the winners) then I don't think there's anything that they can really do about it.
|
On December 15 2010 10:57 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +[spoiler]On December 15 2010 08:34 zidaneshead wrote:
I think the flaw in the concept is that players can play in the low buy-in and high buy-in tournies at the same time. It seems like it'd be really easy if two tournaments were happening over a weekend to just play 1 series for 1 tourney, then play another for another tourney. So if I'm a pro I can technically take my chances in the higher buy-in tournies and at the same time own one of the lower buy-in tournies.
I would think that there should be a restriction to certain tournies based on league level. Maybe up to plats can only play in a $5 buy-in tourney, low-level diamonds can do the $10, higher-level buy-ins are restricted to Master league, etc.
Overall though it's a great idea, I don't think we can expect too much from sponsorship money right now. The problem is that if you separate by league then there will be say people in the top 200 who buy a game of SC2, make a new account, put them selves in bronze and just roll every bronze league tourney for no effort at all.
This is a good point, actually. Makes me think that if you wanted to turn whole betting concept into a big thing that Blizzard is the only company that could pull it off.
But you know what, I'll back track a bit off my first post and say that for now these kinds of tournies will at least lead to bigger cash payouts which I suppose is what the OP was really arguing in the first place.
|
I'm not sure if this has been posted already but virgingaming.com already does this for console games. I believe that there are many sites dedicated to buy in competition that involve games of skill. That is how they get around the gambling laws. Just a thought I'm not an expert by any means.
|
This whole post gets a response because it made me rage in so many different ways.
*deep breath*
Here we go!
On December 14 2010 23:56 stenole wrote:
Making online tournaments like this magnifies every aspect of cheating. Unlike online poker where the game is played out server side, on a client side system you are creating a heavy incentive to develop advanced cheating software. And you are also motivating people to use it. This is also a problem with current online prize tournaments, but it still does not become a community wide issue to the same degree.
This entire problem is easily solved by having the tournament admin review any questionable replays. If the tourney host is taking a rake (a percentage of the entry fees as profit for hosting the tournament) then he should be obligated to review questionable replays anyway.
On December 14 2010 23:56 stenole wrote:
Also, the OP suggests that this would actually increase sponsor interest, but would it really? At lower levels sponsors won't have any interest regardless. The sponsors will end up having their brand linked not only to the winners but also the losers of the tournament. Some will surely end up gambling more than they can afford. And sponsors may be asked why they would support this.
Yes, it would? More money would be in the game, ergo, more money would be available for sponsors to advertise for. Do you really think sponsors are that interested in generating interest for their products (the entire REASON behind sponsorships) to a crowd that cries over paying $20 for season passes to GOMTV?
On December 14 2010 23:56 stenole wrote:
The OP also claims it to be detrimental to the tournament scene, the most detrimental problem, that that no money is going into it. Is taking money from the players themselves the way to go? I think it would actually discourage a lot of players from entering tournaments.
YES!!! Where do you expect the money to come from?! Why do you expect money to come from only sponsors or donors? Does the NFL, NCAA, etc...etc... rely completely on sponsors or donors? Are tickets to their games completely free? Do you have to pay for cable television? etc..etc.. And players can still enter all the free tournaments they want, no one is telling them no.
On December 14 2010 23:56 stenole wrote:
And also, if you have more money going through the tournament system, it naturally follows that casters and admins will want more money and are less likely to do work for free. So in the end it's the players themselves who would end up suffering for tournaments to switch over to this format.
What is wrong with this?! People like Day9 or HD or Husky DESERVE to be making money! They've garnered a ton of internet interest in their commentating and casting. Why couldn't they actually get PAID for once, instead of relying on the revenue from a bunch of ads being displayed to people with ad-block who are too whiny to even pay for a GOMTV subscription in the first place?!?!
On December 14 2010 23:56 stenole wrote:
There have also been tournament organizers in the past who have not paid the winners of tournaments. This is bad enough without having to risk them running away with the buy-in money as well.
If someone e-mails you from "starcraft2game@hotmail.com" asking you to pay $100 so a nigerian banker can handle the prize pool, it's your own fault if you get scammed. If someone like Trump, however, were to run a tourney, do you really think he would ruin his entire reputation to steal $600?
On December 14 2010 23:56 stenole wrote:
I will admit that I am biased against money flowing through the gaming circuit in the first place and I don't think professional gamers are necessarily a good thing for a gaming community. If you really want to play for money, play bet games with friends. Or is it only right to take money from strangers?
"Is it only right to take money from strangers"???? You mean like 99.999% of every single financial transaction in the world? Or do you personally know Mike Duke, so you feel comfortable shopping at Wal-Mart, or are you on a first name basis with Gregg Steinhafel from Target??
|
On December 15 2010 10:57 Insanious wrote:
The problem is that if you separate by league then there will be say people in the top 200 who buy a game of SC2, make a new account, put them selves in bronze and just roll every bronze league tourney for no effort at all.
8).
I know of a way to circumvent this. The users sign up for accounts in this tournament system and are only allowed to link paypal accounts or credit cards under one name or billing address. The system keeps track of the users' game statistics and has its own points ranking system to separate the skill levels, ie it is independent of the b.net ladder. This way, users cannot sign up for multiple accounts and they can only play on their friends' accounts for so long.
|
On December 15 2010 11:14 Bladefury wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 10:57 Insanious wrote:
The problem is that if you separate by league then there will be say people in the top 200 who buy a game of SC2, make a new account, put them selves in bronze and just roll every bronze league tourney for no effort at all.
8). I know of a way to circumvent this. The users sign up for accounts in this tournament system and are only allowed to link paypal accounts or credit cards under one name or billing address. The system keeps track of the users' game statistics and has its own points ranking system to separate the skill levels, ie it is independent of the b.net ladder. This way, users cannot sign up for multiple accounts and they can only play on their friends' accounts for so long.
Most people have multiple credit cards, and can link them to multiple pay-pal accounts. Me for example. I have my credit card linked to my paypal as my primary means of transaction (billing address is my house) my gf has her paypal where my credit card is on it as a secondary means of payment. Her billion address different then mine... therefore... see where im going with this.
|
According to this
SjoW has won 5 craftcups not 4 :O
|
On December 15 2010 11:17 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 11:14 Bladefury wrote:On December 15 2010 10:57 Insanious wrote:
The problem is that if you separate by league then there will be say people in the top 200 who buy a game of SC2, make a new account, put them selves in bronze and just roll every bronze league tourney for no effort at all.
8). I know of a way to circumvent this. The users sign up for accounts in this tournament system and are only allowed to link paypal accounts or credit cards under one name or billing address. The system keeps track of the users' game statistics and has its own points ranking system to separate the skill levels, ie it is independent of the b.net ladder. This way, users cannot sign up for multiple accounts and they can only play on their friends' accounts for so long. Most people have multiple credit cards, and can link them to multiple pay-pal accounts. Me for example. I have my credit card linked to my paypal as my primary means of transaction (billing address is my house) my gf has her paypal where my credit card is on it as a secondary means of payment. Her billion address different then mine... therefore... see where im going with this.
You're right. In that case, we would have to rule out paypal and only allow transactions to occur via credit card or bank transfer ala Amazon.
|
On December 15 2010 11:27 Bladefury wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 11:17 Insanious wrote:On December 15 2010 11:14 Bladefury wrote:On December 15 2010 10:57 Insanious wrote:
The problem is that if you separate by league then there will be say people in the top 200 who buy a game of SC2, make a new account, put them selves in bronze and just roll every bronze league tourney for no effort at all.
8). I know of a way to circumvent this. The users sign up for accounts in this tournament system and are only allowed to link paypal accounts or credit cards under one name or billing address. The system keeps track of the users' game statistics and has its own points ranking system to separate the skill levels, ie it is independent of the b.net ladder. This way, users cannot sign up for multiple accounts and they can only play on their friends' accounts for so long. Most people have multiple credit cards, and can link them to multiple pay-pal accounts. Me for example. I have my credit card linked to my paypal as my primary means of transaction (billing address is my house) my gf has her paypal where my credit card is on it as a secondary means of payment. Her billion address different then mine... therefore... see where im going with this. You're right. In that case, we would have to rule out paypal and only allow transactions to occur via credit card or bank transfer ala Amazon.
Or you make it convenient and not separate the tournaments by league. Sadly that means only platinum or higher will generally play but its better than "ok we will have to finger print you to play..." simple is better than complicated. Pay-pal is simple, not separating by league of simply, simple means more people play means more prize money for everyone
|
On December 15 2010 11:10 Steven.Bonnell.II wrote:
What is wrong with this?! People like Day9 or HD or Husky DESERVE to be making money! They've garnered a ton of internet interest in their commentating and casting. Why couldn't they actually get PAID for once, instead of relying on the revenue from a bunch of ads being displayed to people with ad-block who are too whiny to even pay for a GOMTV subscription in the first place?!?!
From what I've heard (and this was from someone who read something so I'm not claiming it as fact by any means) but casters like HD and Husky already make solid coin from their Youtube channel getting so many hits. So I'm not disputing that they don't deserve to make some cash off of casting because lets face it it's their time being spent, but from what it sounded like they make more than most of the pro gamers themselves 
|
Sorry for not reading the entire thread, I just read the OP and would like to give my two cents in on the subject. Take it or leave it.
I completely agree with what the OP is saying and anyone that has knowledge on Esport games would know that this thinking leads to creating large and very strong communities under their respective games.
I personally have a vast experience in different "Esport games", but in order to keep this as small as possible ill just correlate two games. Before entering the world of SC2 I was really into Counter strike 1.6. Anybody with history in CS 1.6 knows the struggles it had to get through during its time as a top tiered game. CS is probably the oldest game that has competitive esports material and its the community and the community ran leagues that kept the driving force of this game going for ten plus years. Look at leagues such as CEVO and ESEA, it is their "pay to play" leagues that has really kept a once large vibrant community still running to this day even though it is relatively smaller.
The way these leagues run is a team will pay a fee to enter the league and will start out a the very bottom. After each season the winners and other highly skilled players of the league will move up into the next league (smaller league). Thus creating a more competitive field of play for everybody involved and a more enjoyable experience. Being such a huge community CS had a variety of levels in the league and everybody would pay the same entry fee. BUT, the prize pool would be higher for more skilled levels, this would stop the best teams from simply rerolling every season and just playing the terrible kids. On top of that obviously a small percentage of the enrollment fee would go to the website and stuff but usually it would go on to create even bigger and better things for the community. IE. More tournaments to go into, a LAN finals for the highest division which would be casted and streamed for viewer pleasure.
I don't really want to make this to much longer, I think this gives enough sight into how a pay to play system can actually boost and create positive outcomes instead of negative situations like some people seem to think.
Already you can see ESEA and CEVO attempting to jump in and create their own leagues for SC2 and I say. Give them a shot and try them out before going on to bashing them and calling them out for being pieces of shit for making it pay to play. Esports is growing! (if you have noticed already) Give these people a few months to work out the problems and I promise you they will deliver a great experience for everyone as they did for counter strike!
Edit:spelling mistakes.
|
You talk about free market principles. As the wielder of a B.S. in economics, I'd like to remind you of another principle: the winner-take-all market.
In any market where a minority of the population can produce the majority of content, competition will be horrendous, and the percentage of people who successfully make a living off it will be minor.
Winner-take-all markets include actors, rock stars, and politicians. These people are famous because each of them can entertain (or govern, or serve) millions.
Similarly, a game of starcraft only takes a few minutes, and pros will be playing for hours each day whether or not they're earning money for it. Even if it's a $10 tourney, it's free money to a pro.
If you're worried about smurfs, set up a skype call to the actual player playing the tournament. You'll be able to look and see if it's the same guy in a mustache or not.
Better yet, host a local event and then put it online. Show pride for your city, give lesser players a chance to win money, and promote Esports to your local community, all in one go!
|
you cant just infuse money like that, for several reasons. first, there simply isnt enough money to accomplish what your setting out to do, and even if there was, there wouldnt be. to create an environment where a free market would weed out higher players from playing in lower tournaments, the number of tournaments and the amount of money going into the system on a daily basis, and the number of players, would have to be insane. Not like it is now, you would need far more players, and far more money than is possible, you can't have a 10-dollar buy-in every week, you need hundreds of 10-dollar buyins every hour of every day, or free market principles will never weed out higher level players.
|
Most FPS games have leagues where you can pay for your team to sign-up and the money it costs to do so goes towards the prize-purse for the tournament.
|
I'm just gonna throw it out there, another large problem is there are plenty of younger people good at this game who don't have access to credit cards and paying online which basically eliminates the possibility of anyone under 18 participating unless they have understanding parents that don't mind them spending $10 to enter a tournament... Professional SC2 hasn't reached the level of poker where it actually makes some sense that you must be 18+ to play for money...
|
On December 15 2010 11:37 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 11:27 Bladefury wrote:On December 15 2010 11:17 Insanious wrote:On December 15 2010 11:14 Bladefury wrote:On December 15 2010 10:57 Insanious wrote:
The problem is that if you separate by league then there will be say people in the top 200 who buy a game of SC2, make a new account, put them selves in bronze and just roll every bronze league tourney for no effort at all.
8). I know of a way to circumvent this. The users sign up for accounts in this tournament system and are only allowed to link paypal accounts or credit cards under one name or billing address. The system keeps track of the users' game statistics and has its own points ranking system to separate the skill levels, ie it is independent of the b.net ladder. This way, users cannot sign up for multiple accounts and they can only play on their friends' accounts for so long. Most people have multiple credit cards, and can link them to multiple pay-pal accounts. Me for example. I have my credit card linked to my paypal as my primary means of transaction (billing address is my house) my gf has her paypal where my credit card is on it as a secondary means of payment. Her billion address different then mine... therefore... see where im going with this. You're right. In that case, we would have to rule out paypal and only allow transactions to occur via credit card or bank transfer ala Amazon. Or you make it convenient and not separate the tournaments by league. Sadly that means only platinum or higher will generally play but its better than "ok we will have to finger print you to play..." simple is better than complicated. Pay-pal is simple, not separating by league of simply, simple means more people play means more prize money for everyone
Excluding the players below platinum is excluding a huge portion of the community. I don't think it is that much more inconvenient to enter your name, credit card no., expiry date, and security code rather than your paypal address. In fact, I find it more of a hassle doing online shopping through paypal. You can't use paypal on Amazon yet it is the most widely used e-commerce site.
Back to the topic of free market separation vs. league separation:
I think it is true that the free market will indeed cause top players like idra and huk to lean towards the tournaments with higher prize pools. A single $4000 tournament win can make up for 20 $200 tournament wins. The tournaments with the highest buy-ins will most likely be made up of these players.
My main concern is with the non-elite players (below top 200?) that do not already play competitively, maybe due to time or job commitments. This is the scenario that I think might happen:
The 2 -2.5 k diamonds who do not already play competitively may be good enough to play in tournaments with high buy-ins, but feel that they cannot afford them or are more risk-adverse and thus play in tournaments with lower buy ins. These players are likely to dominate this group of tournaments, deterring the lesser players from participating.
Conversely, a lesser player may be rich and willing to play for higher stakes, but stand no chance against the pro-dominated tournaments with high buy-ins. It is also not worth it for him to participate in the small tournaments as the prize pools may not be significant enough to infuse the element of competition to his gaming experience.
The main advantage of separating the tournaments according to leagues is that you will know for sure the players you are competing against are around your skill level. Therefore, the lesser players will feel more comfortable engaging in them, knowing that they stand a chance to win the prize pool they desire to play for.
On the other hand, not being able to face a player of higher skill can also take away the competitiveness of a tournament that is made up players of varying skill levels.
About the problem of people creating smurf accounts and playing for their friends, I have mentioned a way to prevent this. Basically, players sign up for accounts on the system and link a credit card for their transactions. A credit card name and billing address can only be associated with one account. The system , keeps track of game stats, has its own points ranking system and runs independently from b.net.
I guess both ways have their pros and cons.
|
some pros will play different tournament at the same time.
i think scaling the smaller tournaments to 1$ buy-ins (or even less) would be more realistic.
|
On December 15 2010 12:20 Nub4ever wrote:
I'm just gonna throw it out there, another large problem is there are plenty of younger people good at this game who don't have access to credit cards and paying online which basically eliminates the possibility of anyone under 18 participating unless they have understanding parents that don't mind them spending $10 to enter a tournament... Professional SC2 hasn't reached the level of poker where it actually makes some sense that you must be 18+ to play for money...
What is your point? There are definitely enough Sc2 players who are above 18 to make this concept viable. Also, I am pretty sure that most kids these days have debit cards, which can be used like credit cards for online payments.
|
On December 15 2010 12:10 Newguy wrote:
you cant just infuse money like that, for several reasons. first, there simply isnt enough money to accomplish what your setting out to do...
I disagree. People paying for lessons and donating to streams, prove that there is money. However, that money just isn't being invested in the best way to generate more money into the community
On December 15 2010 12:10 Newguy wrote:
to create an environment where a free market would weed out higher players from playing in lower tournaments, the number of tournaments and the amount of money going into the system on a daily basis, and the number of players, would have to be insane...
Yes, but you're forgetting the fact that if money is involved, more people would be willing to have tournaments. Thus, solving the problem of not having enough tournaments. And, as I said before, the money is there to have this system; it just needs to be invested better.
As far as not having enough players... do you have any idea how many people play this game? People just don't play in tournaments and who can blame them? Why would anyone invest the time to play in a tournament they probably won't win? (And even if they did win, they get $50, which is nothing) For the love of the game? I'm sorry, but "for the love of the game" won't pay bills. I can't spend 10 hours practicing, "for the love of the game." I could, however, practice if there was a chance to earn money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
