|
Really curious on the TeamLiquid perspective on this controversial subject.
Earlier in the week on the vVv Gaming podcast, The Loser's Bracket, LordJerith (the president of vVv Gaming) went on a long rant about monetizing eSports using Starcraft as a primary example. He touched on subjects such as eSports giving away too much for free and stated that MLG/IPL/etc should charge for quality streams, a la WWE or UFC.
Jerith also said... "If we don't monetize eSports, this is dead." Is he right? Is this the solution?
From looking at things from the outside, MLG might be considering a model similar to this. Sundance tweeted a few days ago...
Ok. I lied. I'm back. How many people pay for UFC PPV? How many would pay if it was $20-$25
(Source: Sundance DiGiovanni - Twitter)
The question becomes.. what are your thoughts on paying for streams in this manner? Would you accept a PPV model to watch high quality content? If this does happen and it fails... is all hope lost for eSports in North America?
If you would like to listen to the full rant, the episode of The Loser's Bracket can be found here and the rant starts approximately 49 minutes into the show. I will warn you, if you do listen... there are quite a few curse words/words that might offend.
Please share your feedback here. From what I can tell, this is a subject that MLG looks to be watching closely. We need to speak up and share our concerns, questions, and feelings. Look forward to your feedback.
|
Personally, I would never pay for high quality content, unless it's the GSL.
If I only got 480p and such for free, I'd only tune into the matches I really wanted to see.
|
There are other ways to make a profit. Subscription fees for leagues will eventually be replaced with more ad-based sources of revenue, I bet. Look at Facebook and Google. The vast majority of their revenue comes from ads.
|
On February 09 2012 14:58 Voltaire wrote:
There are other ways to make a profit. Subscription fees for leagues will eventually be replaced with more ad-based sources of revenue, I bet. Look at Facebook and Google. The vast majority of their revenue comes from ads.
agreed, honestly I think jerry's a bit dumb to say the least anyway in how he runs his teams anyway and what he expects from them.
While I don't have a problem paying for content as long as its not expensive but I also think if it goes to you have to pay and no free to watch well that's going to kill esports a lot as well (there are lots of teenagers without jobs who love watching and can't pay it/parents won't pay it) and is not the right way to go.
|
I think one of the important things to consider about "monetizing eSports" is the way it currently operates.
You can't just put a pricetag on HD streams and go "There, problem solved". When you look at things like the UFC, WWE, etc. you have to consider they charge for the streams because not only are they paying for the event, they're also paying large sums just to have the talent show up KNOWING they'll make a return on the PayPerView, etc.
Compare that to the current eSports scene where teams pay to send their players to events to have a SHOT at winning money, and and some events the players are even paying to compete.
Furthermore, the community is used to getting HD for free right now. Unless you can convince EVERY SINGLE LEAGUE to broadcast in HD for payment, Tournament X will get watched instead of Tournament Y because X offers free HD and Y doesn't.
I don't think we're at a point where eSports dies if it's not monetized soon. The scene is still growing very rapidly, and is constantly attracting new viewers, new sponsors, and new players. Only when it starts to slow down do we really need to focus on extra monetization.
|
A PPV model would be terrible.
SC2 is doing fine right now. Almost everything is free, with maybe higher quality streams for a few bucks, supported mostly through ads. No one could start trying to force people to pay either, because there's so many other options people could turn to.
|
Nope, the UFC are people putting themselves in serious physical harm, they have a lot more on the line than a sc2 match.
For WWE, you cannot compare esports, a fringe hobby community, to one of the highest rated shows on television. Here are some WEEKLY numbers for the WWE.
WWE Smackdown: The 3/11 show drew a 1.96 cable rating with 3.07 million viewers. TNA Impact: The 3/10 show drew a 1.25 cable rating with 1.74 million viewers. The show did a 0.76 rating among males 18-34 and 1.12 rating among males 35-49. It went up against an NBA game (Lakers vs. heat) doing 4.84 million viewers and "Jersey Shore" doing 7.20 million viewers. WWE Superstars: The 3/10 show drew a 0.50 cable rating with 500,000 viewers. The replay scored a 0.17 rating with 149,000 viewers. WWE Monday Night Raw: The 3/7 show drew a 3.92 cable rating with 5.72 million viewers. The show drew a strong 3.42 rating among males 18-34. 68% of the audience was male. It was the highest rated episode of Raw since August 24, 2009 and was the highest rated show on cable that night. It also ended as the highest rated show on both broadcast or cable among male teenagers with a 4.5 rating. Read more: http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2011/0319/537583/#ixzz1lrUPw51p
So you're saying that esports should be in competition with a market that has 4 shows within 4 days that has a total of 11.08 million views? Come on now.
Btw those 11.08 million views, yea those were for free as long as you subscribed to the required channels. So his logic is sort of flawed in that regard.
Plus this is the internet, what do you think is going to happen should they deny people the chance to watch it? Thats right, we will pirate it, and they won't get the viewer count to provide to their sponsors anymore, which in turn hurts esports more than the potential profit of edging out the paying half of the community
|
Do you want 1000 people paying $25 or do you want 5000 people paying $5?
I think that's pretty much what you'd get into. Less people will see the content, but you'll still make your money.
I think that's an overall "bad idea". I think eSports goal has always been to REACH more gamers, not hinder them.
|
Calgary25877 Posts
I think people have gotten used to this charity model where the majority is given away for free. I think there's this perception that companies are making money, but I doubt they are.
It's a tough spot. Monetize and people revolt and you die. Don't monetize and you slowly drown. I don't know how it's going to work. Maybe you have to completely level up the broadcast to a completely different place where people expect to pay for that quality? No idea.
Edit: No one seems to treat this as a business. There's a feeling things should be free because they want it to grow. Until we get past that and make it a business, it'll never be more than a niche market, which is fine, but it is what it is.
|
Paying for Hd won't drive away consumers, but so long as HD is a reasonable price and there are 480p streams to watch with decent sound quality, it won't affect the stream numbers much. The majority of SC2 profit is made though ad revenue at the moment, hence making the industry not self sufficient. That in itself can be harmful because if a major sponsor pulls the plug or gets a better deal elsewhere, money starts drying up real fast.
|
Good luck. Very few tounaments can get ppl to pay for em. I don't have a problem with it if you can get it but most can't and have to rely on adveritsers.Welcome to business where 90% fail. Rant all you want but that's reality not how you wish it to be.
|
The current pay structure is fine in my opinion.
I have paid for events/seasons before and missed a lot due to real life.
I do enjoy some of the free-to-view events which are currently in better quality than 480+, but only watch them when I have time and they are streaming.
I doubt I would even consider paying $20.00 - 25.00 for any one particular event.
I have paid for UFC PPV in the past but there is usually a group of us and it works out to approximately $5.00 per person.
With that being said there are many illegal venues to view PPV streams live for free. Forcing people to pay for events could lead to that sort of thing too for E-sports.
|
It depends on the price because the majority of the viewer base are kids that might not be able to pay for streams on a consistent basis. At this stage of the scene it would do more harm then good. Maybe in the future when Esports is more mainstream and there are more people that are willing to spend money on streams then this could be viable. But as of now, no way this would work.
|
I feel that what he said is completely and utterly accurate; he could have said it manner that is more professional. I mean, he is referring to all of us who are watching the streams for free as fat asses, and there are a lot of swearing that to me is just him venting/
Maybe we're not at that point where the scene is dieing, but if we want to best players, casters, or to attract future talent to SC2 events, or esport events in general, I feel that doing that is completely fine. They could do a LQ channel for free, and you have to pay for a HQ pass to get HQ. Or they can have multiple streams (where most of the games are casted) and one free stream, where less notable games are casted.
|
On February 09 2012 15:09 Chill wrote:
I think people have gotten used to this charity model where the majority is given away for free. I think there's this perception that companies are making money, but I doubt they are.
It's a tough spot. Monetize and people revolt and you die. Don't monetize and you slowly drown. I don't know how it's going to work. Maybe you have to completely level up the broadcast to a completely different place where people expect to pay for that quality? No idea.
If we are talking about tournaments here, then they should start focusing on in event product, and improving that. For example they could start setting up seating for a fee depending on where you want to sit, much like any live sports event. This provides people with the opportunity to pay a bit of money to be given a prime spectator seat, where people not willing to spend the money can still enjoy the event.
Another idea would be to start making side shows, perhaps set up a few computers that the championship series players can compete against fans, for a fee of course, during the downtime of games. I am aware the format they used last year would not particularly fit this idea, but I'm sure someone in their scheduling department could figure this one out.
|
Arghhhhh, no! This is not the way to monetize e-sports!!!
Advertising is the way to do it! Why, when I'm watching any e-sports am I not seeing specific targeted ad's that are relevent to the product at hand? If I am watching a game with a TL player, why am I not seeing easily clickable ads for the Razer Mouse the player is using or TLAF right there on the screen? The same goes for all the other teams and there sponsors. There should be easy way for the current sponsors to get returns on their investments beyond just seeing their logo on a t-shirt and getting a thank you in an interview.
The Casters could talk about / pimp the sponsors products, not just the event sponsors, but the players sponsors too. Just pimp everything. Then when more companies enter the scene you can bump up things like player entry fees and when it's proven to be a successful marketing tool (like television ads are) you will be able to set insane prices for advertising spots.
This is e-sports, the entire marketing and advertising needs to be rethought from the ground up. You should not be competing with Pay Per View, you should be competing with Television advertising. And the possibility of interactive advertisement should be an incredible tool to blow it out of the water.
The idea that we should pay $25 an event is silly, it is so weak that the companies that are still relying on direct payment for services are turning to things like SOPA/PIPA to try to prevent people from not paying. The day the SC2 e-sports scene joins this "dark-side" is the day I will stop watching.
Don't get me wrong, continue to have it as an option for people who prefer to watch ad-free. But to rely on it... It's just not going to be viable.
|
Well asking myself directly: "Would I pay for a high quality tournament stream?"
Only GSL would I even consider paying $5. And not much more than that either. You can tell Jerith only has the $$$$ signs for his eyes and that he's sensationalizing SC2/Esports speculative growth into a world where Esports has the sheer numbers to make up for any loss of viewership which may occur because of the transition.
It doesn't (at least not in perspective to UFC whose main revenue comes from PPV), and especially when Esports is just blossoming - EVEN THE GAMES IN QUESTION are still under contention for balance issues/UI issues/etc. - it doesn't need to be bludgeoned with prospects of "get rich quick" idealisms.
i.e. Let the Esports flower grow and flourish with the grassroots activism from its fanbase before you try to grab it at its stem and munch it up with your money-grubby teeth
|
The majority of tournaments put out poor quality content.
There's not more than maybe 10-15 players that are really the cream, and worth watching.
That's the problem right now, there's too much content, and too much shitty content.
|
On February 09 2012 15:09 Chill wrote:
I think people have gotten used to this charity model where the majority is given away for free. I think there's this perception that companies are making money, but I doubt they are.
It's a tough spot. Monetize and people revolt and you die. Don't monetize and you slowly drown. I don't know how it's going to work. Maybe you have to completely level up the broadcast to a completely different place where people expect to pay for that quality? No idea.
Edit: No one seems to treat this as a business. There's a feeling things should be free because they want it to grow. Until we get past that and make it a business, it'll never be more than a niche market, which is fine, but it is what it is.
I agree with this, but it just seems to me at least that currently there's way more supply than demand.
I'm not saying people don't want to watch starcraft, but there's a million tournaments going on all the time right now for people to watch. GSL, MLG, Dreamhack, etc. are the only ones that come to mind that could get away with charging, because they attract the absolute highest level of competition. But even then, there's a limit to how much a person can watch. I absolutely love MLG, but even I find it hard to watch starcraft all day for an entire weekend. Why would I purchase when it's too much content for me to digest?
Perhaps some of the businesses need to drown in order to raise the demand for the more successful business models?
Just a thought.
|
Sure that model works... except the vast majority of the tournaments out there (probably everything but GSL) don't have the production/casting/talent to justify charging for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
