|
My main thoughts are that people are jumping the gun too quickly. They should calm down, give their feedback on issues in a calm and reasonable manner, and give MLG some time to respond to the feedback. I think Columbus proved that MLG is very willing to listen to feedback and makes changes when necessary.
No Anaheim replays:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=249168
This, indeed, is an issue for a lot of people, especially when MLG replays have been a really good source of strategies to try out. The big issue seems to be that there does not seem to be any kind of response as to why they aren't being released after the event. But again, my same suggestions apply here: calm down, give your feedback on issue of replays being released after the event. Tell it to MLG in a calm and reasonable manner, and give MLG some time to respond to the feedback.
And keep in mind, they really don't need to release replays. It was a PRIVILEGE that we got to get all the replays at past events. Keep the fact that no one is really entitled to these replays and be thankful if you get them.
No 2 HQ Streams at same time:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=249214
Eh. Once again, give MLG your feedback and that you think that you should be able to watch the 2 streams simultaneously if you bought an HQ pass. This seems like a no-brainer for MLG, but it's probably not something they can fix right away. Just give them your feedback and wait until the next MLG event for them to change it.
Subscribers and prize pools:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=248967
This is probably the one that's the most confusing, as there seems to be a lot of emotion being thrown around. Now, I understand how people are really passionate about SC2. But too much emotion can cloud reasoning. MLG DOES have a lot of faults that it doesn't seem to be willing to face/ignoring. However, acting antagonistic towards them isn't the right way to go about things.
MLG has one thing in the right: More subscribers will lead to them raising the prize pool. It's simple business, and that's what MLG is. Aiming for a high subscriber count isn't a bad goal for a business like MLG.
And there are some factors to consider. MLG clearly spend a ton of money on satellite trucks, travel, convention halls, and gaming equipment. At the same time, they also have some big sponsors to offset some of those costs. There’s really no way of really knowing how financially sound the company is - but they are probably not making money hand over fist given their large expenses + staff.
HOWEVER, that's probably where the sympathy for MLG stops.
For a company that only holds 6 events a year, a prize pool of 14,000 dollars, with the First Prize only being 5,000, it's rather pathetic. That's not even enough to cover a lot players' travel costs, especially non-Americans. IMO, First Prize should get at least 7,500 dollars in an event like this at the lowest, and 10,000 to be a respectable amount. When comparing it to the prize pools of other major events, it's a FACT it's much lower than others comparatively. This could even lead to less people attending unless they are near an event.
I don't know their current subscriber numbers, but 100,000 subscribers is a lot to shoot for. If you state "If we sell 100,000 memberships before the national championship I will raise the prize pool. A lot. Next season too" makes it sound like hitting 100,000 is the only way you would even consider raising the prize pool. And when your prize pool is so much lower than most other major tournaments, that's a FACT that asking for 100,000 subscribers is a lot to ask for.
And then going on to state "if that number is to high than I need to cut prize money next year" does come off as a bit dickish. So unless that probably unreasonable goal of 100,000 is met, you're threatening to cut your already lackluster prize pool? Please. That is not the way to woo more potential subscribers. Be optimistic about it, and set a more realistic goal. Provide the services up to the quality that people are expecting when they choose to buy a subscription. Release those replays. Allow for the ability to watch 2 HQ streams with one pass. Things like that will get more people to buy subscriptions because then they'll want to support you.
It's not MLG's place nor anyone else's to tell people to "step up and buy subscriptions". People will buy subscriptions based on how much they value the service, not based on how much they "want to support e-sports". That is also business. Columbus was a step forward in the right direction for MLG, and it gained a lot of supporters following it. However, this attitude by some figures at MLG is quickly losing those same followers.
People could definitely be more polite in their feedback. However, the attitude of some people at MLG isn't really helping, and MLG doesn't seem to be willing to face some facts when comparing their events with other Major events.
|
On July 30 2011 12:42 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 12:32 Ribbon wrote:On July 30 2011 07:29 hellsan631 wrote:
What we don't need is for someone to shove t-shirts down our throats, products to buy, and being told that if your not buying, your not helping. Saying these things makes the value of your brand go down, and makes you seem a little bit obtuse. If you're not buying, you're not helping. It's a fact. Stop being entitled. It's not like they're taking away the option to watch TOTALLY FUCKING FREE or anything. MLG will succeed or fail, not due to the amount of people that throw money at you, but because of your sponsorships and viewer numbers. .... It doesn't matter how many people buy your product? Wha? (Which is something that you cannot ask directly for.) Increased viewer numbers (premium or not), will increase sponsorship interest, which will in turn help generate that 3 million you are asking for. Quick, how many viewers to you need to pull $3 million/year in sponsorship money? Jesus christ, people are self-entitled. How dare MLG ask more people to buy their products? How dare they adjust their spending based on their revenue? Assholes, clearly. You're missing the subtlety of the issue being discussed here. No one is faulting MLG for asking for more subscriptions but the manner in which Sundance has done so. Holding the prizepool for ransom is not the way to go for many people. Even if it's 100% true and anything short of 100k subscriptions mean a possible decrease in the prizepool, no one likes being presented with ultimatums.
Is it an ultimatum or is it a fact?
|
so wait, it's $30 for the entire year or is it per event?
|
On July 30 2011 12:53 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 12:42 Telcontar wrote:On July 30 2011 12:32 Ribbon wrote:On July 30 2011 07:29 hellsan631 wrote:
What we don't need is for someone to shove t-shirts down our throats, products to buy, and being told that if your not buying, your not helping. Saying these things makes the value of your brand go down, and makes you seem a little bit obtuse. If you're not buying, you're not helping. It's a fact. Stop being entitled. It's not like they're taking away the option to watch TOTALLY FUCKING FREE or anything. MLG will succeed or fail, not due to the amount of people that throw money at you, but because of your sponsorships and viewer numbers. .... It doesn't matter how many people buy your product? Wha? (Which is something that you cannot ask directly for.) Increased viewer numbers (premium or not), will increase sponsorship interest, which will in turn help generate that 3 million you are asking for. Quick, how many viewers to you need to pull $3 million/year in sponsorship money? Jesus christ, people are self-entitled. How dare MLG ask more people to buy their products? How dare they adjust their spending based on their revenue? Assholes, clearly. You're missing the subtlety of the issue being discussed here. No one is faulting MLG for asking for more subscriptions but the manner in which Sundance has done so. Holding the prizepool for ransom is not the way to go for many people. Even if it's 100% true and anything short of 100k subscriptions mean a possible decrease in the prizepool, no one likes being presented with ultimatums. Is it an ultimatum or is it a fact?
Sundance wrote:
"if that number is to high than I need to cut prize money next year."
Whether intentional or not, that sounds like a threat to me. If it wasn't, he definitely could have phrased it better.
|
On July 30 2011 12:54 LittleAtari wrote:
so wait, it's $30 for the entire year or is it per event?
Entire year. $10 for 3 months.
|
So if MLG makes 3 million plus in online revenue they better raise their prizes by 300,000 dollars at least. NASL has 400,000 in prize money, so MLG needs to step up.
|
On July 30 2011 12:59 nukeazerg wrote:
So if MLG makes 3 million plus in online revenue they better raise their prizes by 300,000 dollars at least. NASL has 400,000 in prize money, so MLG needs to step up.
NASL is a replay cast tournament. MLG is a live event. MLG costs a lot more as a result.
On July 30 2011 12:58 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 12:54 LittleAtari wrote:
so wait, it's $30 for the entire year or is it per event? Entire year. $10 for 3 months.
Why are there only 9 months in the year?
|
|
|
On July 30 2011 12:59 nukeazerg wrote:
So if MLG makes 3 million plus in online revenue they better raise their prizes by 300,000 dollars at least. NASL has 400,000 in prize money, so MLG needs to step up.
That's because NASL apparently didn't spend a dime to improve production values. When you rent satellite trucks, create a traveling venue, and provide computers and consoles for literally hundreds of players, costs can get pretty high compared to a relatively stationary event. It also shows since MLG seems like a much more presentable face of esports comparatively.
|
On July 30 2011 13:01 dabom88 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 12:59 nukeazerg wrote:
So if MLG makes 3 million plus in online revenue they better raise their prizes by 300,000 dollars at least. NASL has 400,000 in prize money, so MLG needs to step up. NASL is a replay cast tournament. MLG is a live event. MLG costs a lot more as a result. Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 12:58 aksfjh wrote:On July 30 2011 12:54 LittleAtari wrote:
so wait, it's $30 for the entire year or is it per event? Entire year. $10 for 3 months. Why are there only 9 months in the year?
you obvious save money by buying the full year instead of buying individual months.
rly? lol
|
On July 30 2011 13:01 dabom88 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 12:59 nukeazerg wrote:
So if MLG makes 3 million plus in online revenue they better raise their prizes by 300,000 dollars at least. NASL has 400,000 in prize money, so MLG needs to step up. NASL is a replay cast tournament. MLG is a live event. MLG costs a lot more as a result. Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 12:58 aksfjh wrote:On July 30 2011 12:54 LittleAtari wrote:
so wait, it's $30 for the entire year or is it per event? Entire year. $10 for 3 months. Why are there only 9 months in the year?
There's a 3 month sub for $10 and a 12 month for $30.
|
On July 30 2011 13:01 dabom88 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 12:59 nukeazerg wrote:
So if MLG makes 3 million plus in online revenue they better raise their prizes by 300,000 dollars at least. NASL has 400,000 in prize money, so MLG needs to step up. NASL is a replay cast tournament. MLG is a live event. MLG costs a lot more as a result.
NASL was not cast from replays. It was cast live, but then a recording of the cast was played.
|
@dabom88
NASL is a 16 person live tournament, and MLG is a 16 man live tournament with a few wildcard players added.
They could cut huge manpower costs if they ran their open bracket before hand. That also would cut down on the lag of battle.net at the event.
I like your GSL stance though. I will never pay for starcraft viewing. I don't think esports can rely on paying viewers to be successful in the long run.
|
I think Sundance is stupid to go out and say it like that. All he did was alienate a lot of fans.
I mean that is why businesses use PR departments and people that actually know how to spin the reality to sound as if they are doing you a favor.
I don't know what he meant with the tweet, but he does look like a greedy ba**ar* and that's just the way it is.
I mean all he can do now is try to deflate the situation and make some sort of an excuse or something.
|
Not a penny will go his way from me with such an attitude/comment. Even if it was a "joke" or not, not my kind of humor and it's most likely just the sad truth.
|
LOL
have never bought an mlg pass, never will
|
we don't need 24 events a year, maybe 1-2 MLG events is ok, and plz lower the production value. We don't need that shit.
|
On July 30 2011 13:26 zaii wrote:
we don't need 24 events a year, maybe 1-2 MLG events is ok, and plz lower the production value. We don't need that shit.
it's 6 events
and production value is huge in making this a professional event that sponsors can support.
Honestly, i just think that they should advertise the HQ pass more. i mean $30 for the entire year is a pretty good deal.
|
On July 30 2011 13:36 LittleAtari wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 13:26 zaii wrote:
we don't need 24 events a year, maybe 1-2 MLG events is ok, and plz lower the production value. We don't need that shit. it's 6 events and production value is huge in making this a professional event that sponsors can support. Honestly, i just think that they should advertise the HQ pass more. i mean $30 for the entire year is a pretty good deal.
No MLG is planning 24 events next year.
|
<3 MLG! Lets go for 100.000!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
