|
On July 30 2011 05:35 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 05:31 Serene wrote:On July 30 2011 05:25 iNcontroL wrote:
No. When you get more money you reinvest in areas that need imporovement first. The current prizepool doesn't alienate anyone. If they hit 100k dubs they won't be like " finally! Now that we raised 30 million dollars we can increase the prize pool 10k " if you think thatnus how it works you are
A
Damn fool Good job. You understand basic business practices. However, MLG has fantastic production value as is. So that rules out reinvesting into that. That leaves two avenues, both of which Sundance pointed out. 1. Increasing the prize pool for each individual event and for each game across the board. 2. Increasing the number of events held and innovating by including new leagues and games into the circuit. Sundance has mentioned both of these. While Twitter may not have been the best choice, I fail to see your criticism on this. I mean, how does this differ from you pushing NASL HD passes and hyping it up? If you're going to point out that you didn't say if you buy them we'll have a bigger prize pool next season. Then I'll just use your advice. When you have money invest it into this that need improvement. Like a new soundperson and overall production value. I think you missed the other twitter message where Sundance threatened to decrease the prize pool if they don't reach their target. In either case, many of us are interested in knowing the approx. subscriber base and would appreciate some transparency. Twitter and Facebook status/walls are terrible ways of making a point and sharing such things. Wording is everything.
I take the second tweet one of two ways:
1. It was a sarcastic remark to the tweets he recieved.
2. As the CEO he recognizes that without additional income he may have to slash prize pools to keep all the games on the circuit.
Unfortunately social media such as Facebook and Twitter leave little room for interpretation and leaves you unable to identiify the nuances of tones.
To Malaris* - Matter of opinion here. I watched both and enjoyed watching MLG by far, Columbus that is. But it's my opinion and I concede that fantastic may have been an inaccurate choice of words.
|
It goes beyond that.
If they managed to get 100,000 subscribers that would bring all kinds of new sponsorships into the fold.
|
On July 30 2011 05:35 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 05:31 Serene wrote:On July 30 2011 05:25 iNcontroL wrote:
No. When you get more money you reinvest in areas that need imporovement first. The current prizepool doesn't alienate anyone. If they hit 100k dubs they won't be like " finally! Now that we raised 30 million dollars we can increase the prize pool 10k " if you think thatnus how it works you are
A
Damn fool Good job. You understand basic business practices. However, MLG has fantastic production value as is. So that rules out reinvesting into that. That leaves two avenues, both of which Sundance pointed out. 1. Increasing the prize pool for each individual event and for each game across the board. 2. Increasing the number of events held and innovating by including new leagues and games into the circuit. Sundance has mentioned both of these. While Twitter may not have been the best choice, I fail to see your criticism on this. I mean, how does this differ from you pushing NASL HD passes and hyping it up? If you're going to point out that you didn't say if you buy them we'll have a bigger prize pool next season. Then I'll just use your advice. When you have money invest it into this that need improvement. Like a new soundperson and overall production value. I think you missed the other twitter message where Sundance threatened to decrease the prize pool if they don't reach their target. In either case, many of us are interested in knowing the approx. subscriber base and would appreciate some transparency. Twitter and Facebook status/walls are terrible ways of making a point and sharing such things. Wording is everything.
I think that what sundance was trying to say is that if 100,000 memberships is too lofty of a goal then then MLG as a business will eventually end up failing anyways. And what is the first thing you would cut spending-wise as a business in order to maintain the events quality? The prize pool
|
On July 30 2011 05:42 Arch00 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 05:35 StarStruck wrote:On July 30 2011 05:31 Serene wrote:On July 30 2011 05:25 iNcontroL wrote:
No. When you get more money you reinvest in areas that need imporovement first. The current prizepool doesn't alienate anyone. If they hit 100k dubs they won't be like " finally! Now that we raised 30 million dollars we can increase the prize pool 10k " if you think thatnus how it works you are
A
Damn fool Good job. You understand basic business practices. However, MLG has fantastic production value as is. So that rules out reinvesting into that. That leaves two avenues, both of which Sundance pointed out. 1. Increasing the prize pool for each individual event and for each game across the board. 2. Increasing the number of events held and innovating by including new leagues and games into the circuit. Sundance has mentioned both of these. While Twitter may not have been the best choice, I fail to see your criticism on this. I mean, how does this differ from you pushing NASL HD passes and hyping it up? If you're going to point out that you didn't say if you buy them we'll have a bigger prize pool next season. Then I'll just use your advice. When you have money invest it into this that need improvement. Like a new soundperson and overall production value. I think you missed the other twitter message where Sundance threatened to decrease the prize pool if they don't reach their target. In either case, many of us are interested in knowing the approx. subscriber base and would appreciate some transparency. Twitter and Facebook status/walls are terrible ways of making a point and sharing such things. Wording is everything. I think that what sundance was trying to say is that if 100,000 memberships is too lofty of a goal then then MLG as a business will eventually end up failing anyways. And what is the first thing you would cut spending-wise as a business in order to maintain the events quality? The prize pool
If that was actually ever a serious consideration, they'd be better off just closing the doors. The prize pools are already embarrassing for a tournament of this magnitude.
|
So after reading Sundance's inspiring plea for subscriptions I went straightaway to the mlg website and tried to sign up for a gold membership, as I have a full-time job and a burning desire to support e-sports.
As I clicked the "submit" button on my web browser I felt a little shiver in my spine, like I was nourishing an injured bird back to health that would one day spread its wings and fly strong and free.
Then the website told me that I can't buy a subscription because I live in Iowa.
That's nice.
|
On July 30 2011 05:33 Maliris wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 05:31 Serene wrote:On July 30 2011 05:25 iNcontroL wrote:
No. When you get more money you reinvest in areas that need imporovement first. The current prizepool doesn't alienate anyone. If they hit 100k dubs they won't be like " finally! Now that we raised 30 million dollars we can increase the prize pool 10k " if you think thatnus how it works you are
A
Damn fool Good job. You understand basic business practices. However, MLG has fantastic production value as is.. Haha, yeah about that... Dreamhack has blown MLG out of the water every time, MLG are just lucky they are an American company so everyone wants to hype it up :p production is one of the weakest parts of MLG, it's been like this at every single one for years -.-
At first I was going to respond to this until I read some of your posts in other threads, you basically take every chance you get to criticize anything related to north america.
edit: to be fair though your post is half true, but its a matter of opinion.
|
No more fan of Incontrol  Just seems like needless complaining.
|
On July 30 2011 05:44 Corrupted wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 05:42 Arch00 wrote:On July 30 2011 05:35 StarStruck wrote:On July 30 2011 05:31 Serene wrote:On July 30 2011 05:25 iNcontroL wrote:
No. When you get more money you reinvest in areas that need imporovement first. The current prizepool doesn't alienate anyone. If they hit 100k dubs they won't be like " finally! Now that we raised 30 million dollars we can increase the prize pool 10k " if you think thatnus how it works you are
A
Damn fool Good job. You understand basic business practices. However, MLG has fantastic production value as is. So that rules out reinvesting into that. That leaves two avenues, both of which Sundance pointed out. 1. Increasing the prize pool for each individual event and for each game across the board. 2. Increasing the number of events held and innovating by including new leagues and games into the circuit. Sundance has mentioned both of these. While Twitter may not have been the best choice, I fail to see your criticism on this. I mean, how does this differ from you pushing NASL HD passes and hyping it up? If you're going to point out that you didn't say if you buy them we'll have a bigger prize pool next season. Then I'll just use your advice. When you have money invest it into this that need improvement. Like a new soundperson and overall production value. I think you missed the other twitter message where Sundance threatened to decrease the prize pool if they don't reach their target. In either case, many of us are interested in knowing the approx. subscriber base and would appreciate some transparency. Twitter and Facebook status/walls are terrible ways of making a point and sharing such things. Wording is everything. I think that what sundance was trying to say is that if 100,000 memberships is too lofty of a goal then then MLG as a business will eventually end up failing anyways. And what is the first thing you would cut spending-wise as a business in order to maintain the events quality? The prize pool If that was actually ever a serious consideration, they'd be better off just closing the doors. The prize pools are already embarrassing for a tournament of this magnitude.
You do realize that all of the tournaments leading up to providence grand finals are basically satellite qualifers, right? The prize pool for providence is actually quite significant when you consider its split accross 3 games equally.
|
On July 30 2011 05:42 Arch00 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 05:35 StarStruck wrote:On July 30 2011 05:31 Serene wrote:On July 30 2011 05:25 iNcontroL wrote:
No. When you get more money you reinvest in areas that need imporovement first. The current prizepool doesn't alienate anyone. If they hit 100k dubs they won't be like " finally! Now that we raised 30 million dollars we can increase the prize pool 10k " if you think thatnus how it works you are
A
Damn fool Good job. You understand basic business practices. However, MLG has fantastic production value as is. So that rules out reinvesting into that. That leaves two avenues, both of which Sundance pointed out. 1. Increasing the prize pool for each individual event and for each game across the board. 2. Increasing the number of events held and innovating by including new leagues and games into the circuit. Sundance has mentioned both of these. While Twitter may not have been the best choice, I fail to see your criticism on this. I mean, how does this differ from you pushing NASL HD passes and hyping it up? If you're going to point out that you didn't say if you buy them we'll have a bigger prize pool next season. Then I'll just use your advice. When you have money invest it into this that need improvement. Like a new soundperson and overall production value. I think you missed the other twitter message where Sundance threatened to decrease the prize pool if they don't reach their target. In either case, many of us are interested in knowing the approx. subscriber base and would appreciate some transparency. Twitter and Facebook status/walls are terrible ways of making a point and sharing such things. Wording is everything. I think that what sundance was trying to say is that if 100,000 memberships is too lofty of a goal then then MLG as a business will eventually end up failing anyways. And what is the first thing you would cut spending-wise as a business in order to maintain the events quality? The prize pool
We can sit here all day and argue intention. My point still stands. Sometimes it best to say nothing at all and put your best foot forward. <3 cliches.-.-
Guess what happens when you cut the prize pool? less incentive for the top teams to send their players out and less people would compete. ;/
There are other ways to cut expenses. To cut the prize pool, which is already pretty small for the SC2 side already isn't good for business either.
|
On July 30 2011 05:36 Beyonder wrote:
Haha, dont overanalyze this too much, its not needed. Silly tweet, sarcastic deserved comment. That was it :D Noone is making drama but you guys ^_^
This.
User was warned for this post
|
imo the stream sucks at 300ish so its worth it just to get better quality (700ish) an no freaking BIC/Doritos commercial every 2 secs! :D
|
On July 30 2011 05:50 Arch00 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 05:44 Corrupted wrote:On July 30 2011 05:42 Arch00 wrote:On July 30 2011 05:35 StarStruck wrote:On July 30 2011 05:31 Serene wrote:On July 30 2011 05:25 iNcontroL wrote:
No. When you get more money you reinvest in areas that need imporovement first. The current prizepool doesn't alienate anyone. If they hit 100k dubs they won't be like " finally! Now that we raised 30 million dollars we can increase the prize pool 10k " if you think thatnus how it works you are
A
Damn fool Good job. You understand basic business practices. However, MLG has fantastic production value as is. So that rules out reinvesting into that. That leaves two avenues, both of which Sundance pointed out. 1. Increasing the prize pool for each individual event and for each game across the board. 2. Increasing the number of events held and innovating by including new leagues and games into the circuit. Sundance has mentioned both of these. While Twitter may not have been the best choice, I fail to see your criticism on this. I mean, how does this differ from you pushing NASL HD passes and hyping it up? If you're going to point out that you didn't say if you buy them we'll have a bigger prize pool next season. Then I'll just use your advice. When you have money invest it into this that need improvement. Like a new soundperson and overall production value. I think you missed the other twitter message where Sundance threatened to decrease the prize pool if they don't reach their target. In either case, many of us are interested in knowing the approx. subscriber base and would appreciate some transparency. Twitter and Facebook status/walls are terrible ways of making a point and sharing such things. Wording is everything. I think that what sundance was trying to say is that if 100,000 memberships is too lofty of a goal then then MLG as a business will eventually end up failing anyways. And what is the first thing you would cut spending-wise as a business in order to maintain the events quality? The prize pool If that was actually ever a serious consideration, they'd be better off just closing the doors. The prize pools are already embarrassing for a tournament of this magnitude. You do realize that all of the tournaments leading up to providence grand finals are basically satellite qualifers, right? The prize pool for providence is actually quite significant when you consider its split accross 3 games equally.
I'm well aware of the grand finals. That's a whole other issue entirely though. Each of these tournaments are major events and the winners of these 3 days marathons deserve a righteous reward. Also, the fact that Starcraft is splitting the prize pools with games that bring in a fraction of the viewership is not a good argument.
|
Just wanted to comment about Incontrol as a person, not a player and how much I hate people like him- seems overly polite and good-mannered at first and just after a little while you realize how big of a hypocrite he is. Just a bitter, bitter, arrogant, attention-seeking hater. Don't feed the troll!
|
That is not how you make your point Vadrigar. See you in a few days.
Why do so many people open with that exact opening and not know how it works yet?
lmao
With that said, I would absolutely love it if TL enforces a new commandment. If you are going to post something, you better have read the whole thread before committing to it.
Just think about how many temp bans people would get!
|
Subscriptions (i.e. regular revenue) help a company like MLG gauge sustainability and then act accordingly - larger prize pools, larger events, etc. This isn't rocket science, it's good business.
The fact that the OP was followed by page after page of people complaining about MLG's desire to increase their revenue before increasing their expenditures is pretty ludicrous. Maybe it's because we're internet dwellers and gamers and in general are used to getting a lot out of everything without ever shedding real dollars, but damn do we ever act entitled.
That said, I went and bought a membership today. MLG puts on a hell of a show and is well worth the tiny cost.
edit:
On July 30 2011 03:47 kentarre wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think a lot of people are simply not understanding the business aspect of MLG. MLG is a company, funded by venture capital. To date, they have raised ~52.5 million dollars (source: http://www.industrygamers.com/releases/18597/). They were founded in 2002, and while I don't have the raw stats on hand, ~35 millionw as raised in 2006, ~10 million raised in 2010. The other 6-7 million were spread across the remaining years. Venture capital is being raised for companies for various reasons, the main are 1) the company has a promising business model, but not enoguh capital to push it forward; or 2) the company has a very popular service and audience, but the business model is not entirely stable yet and requires capital to stablize. Again, without knowing anything regarding the insides of how MLG functions or utilizes its finances, I am of the opinion that MLG falls under category 2. In that MLG has proven it has a large audience, it is a popular service, however the source of revenue to provide such an ongoing service is shakey. Now this is partly the fault of MLG on some points. The choice to provide full HQ streaming for the last MLG event was done at cost to MLG. This was a service towards the fans that was not up to par for the amount of money they asked for, so they had to take the hit and go forward. Now take the time into consideration. This is end of July rolling into August of 2011. In business terms this is the middle of Q3. In order to secure additional funding (if its needed), or to prove that it has a strong business model, MLG needs to prove that it can make enough revenue that it can stand on its own two feet. Or it needs to make a sizable growth in that direction to prove to investors. As Sundance mentioned, a 10% interest in membership from its audience is not unreasonable, especially from an investment stand point. Spotify (a recent launch in NA but huge following in EU) only yields a 10-15% return on their premium membership services. 10% is a ballpark low number for any investor to be looking for. TLDR: what this really means is that if Sundance, and by extension MLG, can prove that eSports fans are willing to invest in paid services for better viewing and playing experiences, that looks AWESOME to investors. Investors will whip out their checkbooks and invest more into MLG. MLG will in return get more funding and be able to expand further. This is why Sundance said he can close the deal and push out more tournaments, ladders, and higher prize pools. You want eSports to push forward? Put up the money.
I didn't get to your post before I got angry at the hating and posted my useless reply. I wanted to quote you were because you explained it much better and I enjoyed your post. When a person or people are trying to grow a business, it will require external investment. External investment will require steady and reliable revenue streams. In the case of something like an online gaming event, subscriptions fit the mold.
I mean, I agree that the prize pool at MLG is relatively small compared to other big events - that much is obvious. But it's also obvious that MLG puts an onus on putting on a slick, professional, well produced show. Compare it to something like NASL which was shoddy at best and redeemed only by having killer games in the finals (plus I always enjoy InControL) - but it had bigger prizes. The truth is that something like MLG doesn't need big money to draw in the talent. The event is so big and the stage is so large that anyone who fancies themselves a competitor wants to show up and win on the biggest stage. But they aren't evil. If they generate more revenue, they'll allot more to the prize pool.
As an aside, producing a gaming event with the level of quality and professional production of a major sports broadcast is arguable more important to growing the pro-gaming audience and building respectability in the eyes of the mainstream than tossing a few extra grand to the guys who win. It's also far more difficult. I have no problem appreciating the approach MLG has chosen to take.
|
On July 30 2011 06:00 Flaccid wrote:
Subscriptions (i.e. regular revenue) help a company like MLG gauge sustainability and then act accordingly - larger prize pools, larger events, etc. This isn't rocket science, it's good business.
The fact that the OP was followed by page after page of people complaining about MLG's desire to increase their revenue before increasing their expenditures is pretty ludicrous. Maybe it's because we're internet dwellers and gamers and in general are used to getting a lot out of everything without ever shedding real dollars, but damn do we ever act entitled.
That said, I went and bought a membership today. MLG puts on a hell of a show and is well worth the tiny cost.
*Pats Flaccid on the back*
|
Its not rocket science, more money in, means more money out.
Though I think sundance could have been a little less harsh the way he said it.
|
On July 30 2011 05:57 Vadrigar wrote:
I'll probably get banned but just wanted to say how much I hate people like Incontrol- seems overly polite and good-mannered at first and just after a little while you realize how big of a hypocrite he is. Just a bitter, bitter, arrogant, attention-seeking hater. Don't feed the troll!
Why would you post something totally unrelated to the topic about one post made in the beginning of a 21 page thread, and even ASKING for the ban? Geez.
It's not like incontrol is wrong either; if they get money they raise the prize money obviously.
|
On July 30 2011 06:03 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 05:57 Vadrigar wrote:
I'll probably get banned but just wanted to say how much I hate people like Incontrol- seems overly polite and good-mannered at first and just after a little while you realize how big of a hypocrite he is. Just a bitter, bitter, arrogant, attention-seeking hater. Don't feed the troll! Why would you post something totally unrelated to the topic about one post made in the beginning of a 21 page thread, and even ASKING for the ban? Geez. It's not like incontrol is wrong either; if they get money they raise the prize money obviously.
Thats not what incontrol is saying, in fact he is saying that raising that money has nothing to do with the prize pools and he is calling sundance a liar and shady for saying that the 2 are "correlated"
|
On July 30 2011 06:03 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 05:57 Vadrigar wrote:
I'll probably get banned but just wanted to say how much I hate people like Incontrol- seems overly polite and good-mannered at first and just after a little while you realize how big of a hypocrite he is. Just a bitter, bitter, arrogant, attention-seeking hater. Don't feed the troll! Why would you post something totally unrelated to the topic about one post made in the beginning of a 21 page thread, and even ASKING for the ban? Geez. It's not like incontrol is wrong either; if they get money they raise the prize money obviously.
My response is to Sundance's response (which is in OP's post) to Incontrol's response. How is that unrelated? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
