|
On February 10 2012 07:09 SACtheXchng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:00 dementrio wrote:
If a company has a free stream and asks $10 for premium quality or content, we think "well I guess if I don't support this company I'm killing ESPORTS"
If a company has no free stream and asks $5 for providing it, we think "you need to do better than this to get my 5 bucks"
This is what chill meant by "charity" I think. Instead, I don't think that way. If my money supports a company it does so because I (the owner of my money) decide to give it to said company. I do that because the quality of the product convinced me to do so. If I give my money to a company for the SOLE reason to support them, without being convinced by the quality of their stuff, then that's charity in my book. I never asked for free streams. ESPORTS apparrently is asking me to pay for their content to save its ass and not because the content is worth it. That's asking for Donations.
No, SC2 tournaments are asking you to pay for their content because they think it is worth it. Some portions of the community think that you should pay just to support it. (Note: I disagree heavily, you should never pay for something you don't think you get value for). Sometimes, the tournaments are mistaken in thinking their quality product commands the price they charge. Not everyone produces good product when they release stuff, and it's not always priced properly, but this is nothing new for anyone in any type of start-up or doing any type of product development. Try to break into a new business line? Yeah your first try is going to be garbage, but you try to price it accordingly and target your niche market appropriately. Microsoft may be the king of this, and to date they've make it work exactly once I think (Xbox) vs. the number of consumer product lines they've tried.
Now that I've thoughtt about it some more, I don't think SC2 is really ready for a serious monetization conversation yet. There is not enough there to be turned into money right now. Either sponsorships need to attempt to continue to grow and treat it as a long-term loss leader, or else the scene needs to shrink, and fast, so the niche fans who are willing to pay will do so, and have their money concentrated so the small ecosystem that can be supported.
If it is treated as a long term loss leader, it still needs to grow exponentially before it'll be worthwhile. It hasn't hit the critical mass of viewers yet to be ad supported or the right demographic to use a paid-gate model of some type. Sponsorships will have to do if the scene wants to still grow. If not, shrink, consolidate your proven base, and run with the small, known market (with likely only one tournament.)
|
On February 10 2012 07:09 SACtheXchng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:00 dementrio wrote:
If a company has a free stream and asks $10 for premium quality or content, we think "well I guess if I don't support this company I'm killing ESPORTS"
If a company has no free stream and asks $5 for providing it, we think "you need to do better than this to get my 5 bucks"
This is what chill meant by "charity" I think. Instead, I don't think that way. If my money supports a company it does so because I (the owner of my money) decide to give it to said company. I do that because the quality of the product convinced me to do so. If I give my money to a company for the SOLE reason to support them, without being convinced by the quality of their stuff, then that's charity in my book. I never asked for free streams. ESPORTS apparrently is asking me to pay for their content to save its ass and not because the content is worth it. That's asking for Donations. EDIT: Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:03 Chill wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 dementrio wrote:
If a company has a free stream and asks $10 for premium quality or content, we think "well I guess if I don't support this company I'm killing ESPORTS"
If a company has no free stream and asks $5 for providing it, we think "you need to do better than this to get my 5 bucks"
This is what chill meant by "charity" I think. That's exactly what I meant. You should think the content is worth some value so you are willing to pay at most that. You should not give them your money anyways to artificially support an industry that you don't think is worth it. An industry can't survive on people supporting it just to keep it alive. That will work for a few years, tops, but eventually people will get tired of supporting something that isn't giving them that value back. OK, I'm confused now. You're basically saying what I'm saying. Did I misunderstand something? Not a native speaker.
I think Chill was talking about the people who want to continue watching high-quality SC2 content (i.e. the GSL) for free when the content really does justify some sort of cost.
Essentially the people wanting something for nothing. You are obviously wanting something for something. There's a difference.
If it is truly Jerith's position that people should be funneling money into eSports so that it doesn't collapse, that's a retarded position. If tournaments want to charge premium prices, they need to provide premium content. The vast majority of them don't.
|
On February 10 2012 07:08 LordJerith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:06 chadissilent wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 LordJerith wrote:On February 10 2012 06:41 chadissilent wrote:A few 1st/2nds in local LANs and a 4th place in 1 large tournament taking place the same weekend as MLG. I have more 1st/2nd in local LANs than all of vVv combined, apparently.. Come on now. . . lol. . . We are the most accomplished console organization in the world with top 4 finishes on 4 continents. . . You can not like us, but be fair about it. WCG, MLG, XL, these are not "local lans" lol. (Unless you are ferring only to SC2). The point is we DO have something to show for our efforts. Again, you can hate all you want, but be fair. Our SC division was never built to be like EGs. So, yes, in SC2 we are nowhere near any of the traditional eSports orgs. but at least give credit where credit is due. There is a reason why CEO of MLG has been on our podcast show 6 times, as well David Ting and JediRobb from IPL, and Craig Levine from ESEA. Again, to say we have nothing to show and therefore we are irrelevant is both incorrect, and simply far off point. I'm not hating, I am actually good friends with a few vVv members. But when people say you have a lack of results in SC2, they are correct. I was referring to only SC2 by the way. OK, a lack of results in SC2 is far away from "nothing to show for it."
They have an underlying point though..
$124,000 over 4 years for ALL players in ALL games is nothing to be proud about if your goal is to have a successful, respectable profession. That's $31,000/yr for all players in your organization. That's less than what 1 college graduate could reasonable expect to ear straight out of college. While I'm not doubting your teams success, the fact that we can gloat that an entire organization won 124k over 4 years is telling in itself as to where esports truly is on a global market.
|
I have paid for the GSL season ticket for these reasons, because the quality of the games are so much more impressive than any other tournament out there, and the general setup of the whole tournament I enjoy. I do like weekend events like MLG, but I prefer the fact that I can pay X amount of money for GSL, and get _quality_ games that span a longer period of time. For me it would be great to be a spectator at an MLG event, but as someone watching from home I find events held over a longer stretch more enjoyable and easier to watch than one where I have to sit down and watch over a weekend.
GSL has become the benchmark against which I now compare other tournaments, and they all come up lacking imo in certain areas against it. Sure they might have some good production, or a large live crowd to add excitement, but for me if they suddenly charged for a stream I would just look at what I am getting compared to GSL and just end up not paying.
The rant is funny to listen to though, as if sitting there and just saying, CHARGE FOR STREAMS will cause money to roll in, and to think that charging wont cause a loss of viewers is naive. Yes there has to be a way for people to make money, but there is a reason people aren't charging for streams right now, and it aint because people didn't think of it as an option.
|
On February 10 2012 07:04 caradoc wrote:
It's too bad that monetizing barcrafts isn't easy. They're growing exponentially, people spend money at them which reflects that people dont feel uncomfortable with parting with their money for that type of social + esports experience.
You could charge a licensing fee in return for official licenses/shoutouts/swag if they're planned well enough in advance or something. It wouldnt solve all of the funding problems, but it's potentially mutually beneficial-- organizers get to be 'Official MLG Partner' events or whatever, and they pay a fee which they can recouped in the event itself.
EDIT: It's definitely a potential admin nightmare, but I think it could be conceptualized in a way that would mitigate excess organizational costs.
EDIT2: Hell you could have a 'barcraft pass' option as a funding package with a set of benefits and perks etc for organizers.
Dude, that gives ME an idea. Since BarCrafts exist, shouldn't the organizers of big big tournaments be able to convince the people at big big breweries to sponsor the tournaments?
"There's going to be x thousand people watching this event while literally sitting in bars, for y-z amount of money you can sponsor our event and we'll show your logo/play commercials during the event, which lasts a hours/days"
|
[If it is truly Jerith's position that people should be funneling money into eSports so that it doesn't collapse, that's a retarded position. If tournaments want to charge premium prices, they need to provide premium content. The vast majority of them don't.
That is obviously, or it should be obvious, NOT my position.
My position is that MLG should charge for it's streamed SC2 Winter Arena. I suggest a PPV model. Just one suggestion. I believe that if the community will not support this, MLG should realize that true professional eSports is an illusion and not ready to be a monetized business and call it a day.
If you don't believe that watching the top players in SC play on a quality, professional stream, then don't buy it. It's time to find out if there is a viable consumer base such that we take the next step to true, professional eSports, or if it is all just an illusion, hope and dreams.
|
Calgary25991 Posts
On February 10 2012 07:17 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:09 SACtheXchng wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 dementrio wrote:
If a company has a free stream and asks $10 for premium quality or content, we think "well I guess if I don't support this company I'm killing ESPORTS"
If a company has no free stream and asks $5 for providing it, we think "you need to do better than this to get my 5 bucks"
This is what chill meant by "charity" I think. Instead, I don't think that way. If my money supports a company it does so because I (the owner of my money) decide to give it to said company. I do that because the quality of the product convinced me to do so. If I give my money to a company for the SOLE reason to support them, without being convinced by the quality of their stuff, then that's charity in my book. I never asked for free streams. ESPORTS apparrently is asking me to pay for their content to save its ass and not because the content is worth it. That's asking for Donations. EDIT: On February 10 2012 07:03 Chill wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 dementrio wrote:
If a company has a free stream and asks $10 for premium quality or content, we think "well I guess if I don't support this company I'm killing ESPORTS"
If a company has no free stream and asks $5 for providing it, we think "you need to do better than this to get my 5 bucks"
This is what chill meant by "charity" I think. That's exactly what I meant. You should think the content is worth some value so you are willing to pay at most that. You should not give them your money anyways to artificially support an industry that you don't think is worth it. An industry can't survive on people supporting it just to keep it alive. That will work for a few years, tops, but eventually people will get tired of supporting something that isn't giving them that value back. OK, I'm confused now. You're basically saying what I'm saying. Did I misunderstand something? Not a native speaker. I think Chill was talking about the people who want to continue watching high-quality SC2 content (i.e. the GSL) for free when the content really does justify some sort of cost. Essentially the people wanting something for nothing. You are obviously wanting something for something. There's a difference. If it is truly Jerith's position that people should be funneling money into eSports so that it doesn't collapse, that's a retarded position. If tournaments want to charge premium prices, they need to provide premium content. The vast majority of them don't.
It was actually the opposite - people shouldn't give money to companies unless they think their products are worth it. Don't use your money to support esports or else you've created a bubble.
|
On February 10 2012 04:55 Raygun wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 04:39 Liquid`NonY wrote:I'll be damned if most esports fans don't have $30/month to spend for the many hours of entertainment they get from esports. They just feel entitled (not entirely their fault) and they feel some irrational hatred for anyone who is trying to turn a profit, pay their employees and guarantee that the content that everyone loves continues to be produced. I don't have $30/month to spend on Starcraft! I bought that GSL lite ticket, but that's all I can justify spending. All my other spending is for Netflix streaming and for things like cheap sporting events, bars, and dating. My 'entertainment' budget is super tight as a college student and I can't blow everything on Starcraft. I could cut out the GSL ticket, but why? It's like skipping the major leagues and paying for the minors.
lol.
your argument is nullified with the bold. you could just say you are not a fan of esports and thus other priorities take precedence for your entertainment (i.e. overpriced alcohol in bars > $30/mo for esports)
|
On February 10 2012 07:26 LordJerith wrote:Show nested quote +[If it is truly Jerith's position that people should be funneling money into eSports so that it doesn't collapse, that's a retarded position. If tournaments want to charge premium prices, they need to provide premium content. The vast majority of them don't. That is obviously, or it should be obvious, NOT my position. My position is that MLG should charge for it's streamed SC2 Winter Arena. I suggest a PPV model. Just one suggestion. I believe that if the community will not support this, MLG should realize that true professional eSports is an illusion and not ready to be a monetized business and call it a day. If you don't believe that watching the top players in SC play on a quality, professional stream, then don't buy it. It's time to find out if there is a viable consumer base such that we take the next step to true, professional eSports, or if it is all just an illusion, hope and dreams.
But why the insistence on PPV as opposed to commercially supported streams?
|
On February 10 2012 07:25 Diader wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:04 caradoc wrote:
It's too bad that monetizing barcrafts isn't easy. They're growing exponentially, people spend money at them which reflects that people dont feel uncomfortable with parting with their money for that type of social + esports experience.
You could charge a licensing fee in return for official licenses/shoutouts/swag if they're planned well enough in advance or something. It wouldnt solve all of the funding problems, but it's potentially mutually beneficial-- organizers get to be 'Official MLG Partner' events or whatever, and they pay a fee which they can recouped in the event itself.
EDIT: It's definitely a potential admin nightmare, but I think it could be conceptualized in a way that would mitigate excess organizational costs.
EDIT2: Hell you could have a 'barcraft pass' option as a funding package with a set of benefits and perks etc for organizers. Dude, that gives ME an idea. Since BarCrafts exist, shouldn't the organizers of big big tournaments be able to convince the people at big big breweries to sponsor the tournaments? "There's going to be x thousand people watching this event while literally sitting in bars, for y-z amount of money you can sponsor our event and we'll show your logo/play commercials during the event, which lasts a hours/days"
Yeah, stuff like that-- these avenues need to get explored. I think if you look at what people actually pay for an evening or even weekend for drinks/socializing/watching sc at a barcraft, it's probably going to be right at the top of the curve for amount spent per person per amount of content produced. People will drop 50$ for an evening at a barcraft without thinking twice, whereas you get people whining about spending 150 for a year of GSL. Sure they're getting food and drinks too, but it's still essentially money spent to watch sc with friends. It represents a lot of untapped potential. How to actually tap into that is the question. The money is there, and the willingness to spend it is there.
Nobody has looked at demographics though-- we don't know how many people attend barcrafts worldwide.
|
There is no way I would pay PPV especially when there's so many tournaments. Either some go PPV and I stop watching them since there's free once, or they all go PPV and I quit watching all-together. One thing is sure and that is the scene will shrink heavily and ad&sponsor money will be worth much less and therefore smaller companies wont be able to establish since they cant just slam a PPV worthy tournament right from the get-go. Not to mention streamer wont be able to make as much money either.
I'd much rather see many smaller tournaments with a big scene rather than a few big PPV tournaments and a tiny scene divided into the tournaments they like, were I have to pay to watch. Even with the PPV model I just cant pay 20 bucks a month for EACH tournament! The competition will be fierce since you pretty much have to fight for the viewers money and its likely many companies will just fall. In the end there may just be like 3 major tournaments and so much less content. And by then the scene will most likely just be a fraction of what it once was, sure those big companies will make big money but esports will be just dead for hundreds of thousands of people. Its destructive, not for the companies of esports but for the fans.
|
MLG is doing it the right way, they had a product, needed it improved awhile ago. Got venture capital funding to get production and events to a place where MLG should be able to move to a sustainable model of pricing for all content. They fly gsl competitors here, they have like 6 streams with commentators, add production value well. All these people arguing about quality of content should be there before they pay are proving the point some of these events deserve to be pure pricing based and try to make their money there.
If hot pockets, nos, dr.pepper, are required to support MLG making a profit, then that venture capital fund might as well throw in the towel. That's not sustainable at all.
5 bucks a month for arena and content, low quality. 10 bucks a month for arena and content, high quality. 10 bucks per championship event, low quality. 20 bucks per championship event, high quality.
If you refuse to pay that, then all I can do is shake my head.
|
On February 10 2012 07:34 MHT wrote:
There is no way I would pay PPV especially when there's so many tournaments. Either some go PPV and I stop watching them since there's free once, or they all go PPV and I quit watching all-together. One thing is sure and that is the scene will shrink heavily and ad&sponsor money will be worth much less and therefore smaller companies wont be able to establish since they cant just slam a PPV worthy tournament right from the get-go. Not to mention streamer wont be able to make as much money either.
I'd much rather see many smaller tournaments with a big scene rather than a few big PPV tournaments and a tiny scene divided into the tournaments they like, were I have to pay to watch. Even with the PPV model I just cant pay 20 bucks a month for EACH tournament! The competition will be fierce since you pretty much have to fight for the viewers money and its likely many companies will just fall. In the end there may just be like 3 major tournaments and so much less content. And by then the scene will most likely just be a fraction of what it once was, sure those big companies will make big money but esports will be just dead for hundreds of thousands of people. Its destructive, not for the companies of esports but for the fans.
Who says IEM should exist, or NASL. It's a dog eat dog world. We can't live in this stupid assumption that all these live events can co-exist and all make money. It's the same for esports teams. I'd rather see two huge tournaments that I know are sustainable and not going anywhere, that I can depend on. And then fun online tournaments for filler. Than the current terrible over saturation we have now.
|
On February 10 2012 07:36 xSixGeneralHan wrote:
MLG is doing it the right way, they had a product, needed it improved awhile ago. Got venture capital funding to get production and events to a place where MLG should be able to move to a sustainable model of pricing for all content. They fly gsl competitors here, they have like 6 streams with commentators, add production value well. All these people arguing about quality of content should be there before they pay are proving the point some of these events deserve to be pure pricing based and try to make their money there.
If hot pockets, nos, dr.pepper, are required to support MLG making a profit, then that venture capital fund might as well throw in the towel. That's not sustainable at all.
5 bucks a month for arena and content, low quality. 10 bucks a month for arena and content, high quality. 10 bucks per championship event, low quality. 20 bucks per championship event, high quality.
If you refuse to pay that, then all I can do is shake my head.
huh? I am not an expert, but doesn't every single sports league/event in the world rely on sponsorship for a significant portion of their revenue?
|
Seems to me like E-sports are growing at a huge rate, and I think it is much thanks to easily available and free high quality content. If we started to have to pay for content the community would shrink to a small percentage of what it currently is. Then the fees would be required since the viewer base would be so small and all advertisment would diminish.
|
On February 10 2012 07:36 xSixGeneralHan wrote:
MLG is doing it the right way, they had a product, needed it improved awhile ago. Got venture capital funding to get production and events to a place where MLG should be able to move to a sustainable model of pricing for all content. They fly gsl competitors here, they have like 6 streams with commentators, add production value well. All these people arguing about quality of content should be there before they pay are proving the point some of these events deserve to be pure pricing based and try to make their money there.
If hot pockets, nos, dr.pepper, are required to support MLG making a profit, then that venture capital fund might as well throw in the towel. That's not sustainable at all.
5 bucks a month for arena and content, low quality. 10 bucks a month for arena and content, high quality. 10 bucks per championship event, low quality. 20 bucks per championship event, high quality.
If you refuse to pay that, then all I can do is shake my head.
WCG and Dreamhack have been around over a decade, all sponsor supported. They're both completely different models of course, and not saying that MLG shouldn't charge for content, just saying that 'throwing in the towel' is not a foregone conclusion.
Also, hot pockets and dr. pepper represent a very different model for sponsorship than sponsors such as intel, cisco, telia,etc. It's not a clear cut distinction, but Hot pockets/Dr.Pepper etc are primarily sponsoring an event such as MLG to create brand loyalty. Their products are disposable, and they want to create habits in their customer base. Whereas intel/cisco/telia are sponsoring dreamhack, for example, in order to create brand equity-- they want to accrue the prestigious/high tech connotation associated with the event. Also notice the style that dreamhack content is produced in-- it lends itself to that type of sponsorship, and I'm also confident that sponsors had a hand in designing their content.
Anyways it's a subtle but important difference.
|
On February 10 2012 07:36 xSixGeneralHan wrote:
If you refuse to pay that, then all I can do is shake my head.
MLG has a poor tournament, from a spectator's perspective, as opposed to GSL.
GSL regularly provides daily content, of the best players in the world, playing live matches, of which you get to see every single one.
MLG provides three days of content every other month, of high (but not quite GSL) quality, all live (like GSL), but you only see a fraction of the games.
I realize it's not viable for MLG to get players to show up in one place for an entire month, and MLG will never be the GSL, but what I want, and am willing to pay for, is the GSL. The experience of following the GSL is so vastly superior to any other SC2 tournament out there.
|
On February 10 2012 07:43 Thombur wrote:
Seems to me like E-sports are growing at a huge rate, and I think it is much thanks to easily available and free high quality content. If we started to have to pay for content the community would shrink to a small percentage of what it currently is. Then the fees would be required since the viewer base would be so small and all advertisment would diminish.
Why would the viewership shrink to nothing? Seriously, I have a hard time wrapping my head around this. If you are an sc2 fan who likes MLG right now, why wouldn't you pay $5 or $10 for watching a tournament? Seems like a better deal than a movie at the theater. Why is $5 or $10 a bad deal for three days of entertainment focused on one of your hobbies or passions?
|
On February 10 2012 07:43 Blennd wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:36 xSixGeneralHan wrote:
MLG is doing it the right way, they had a product, needed it improved awhile ago. Got venture capital funding to get production and events to a place where MLG should be able to move to a sustainable model of pricing for all content. They fly gsl competitors here, they have like 6 streams with commentators, add production value well. All these people arguing about quality of content should be there before they pay are proving the point some of these events deserve to be pure pricing based and try to make their money there.
If hot pockets, nos, dr.pepper, are required to support MLG making a profit, then that venture capital fund might as well throw in the towel. That's not sustainable at all.
5 bucks a month for arena and content, low quality. 10 bucks a month for arena and content, high quality. 10 bucks per championship event, low quality. 20 bucks per championship event, high quality.
If you refuse to pay that, then all I can do is shake my head. huh? I am not an expert, but doesn't every single sports league/event in the world rely on sponsorship for a significant portion of their revenue?
Events like conventions, sure they rely on it a good bit. But you think NFL needs ford to be their sponsor or they are fucked? No. Because their model is geared towards sustainability. But why not get some money while they are at it, same with stadium names. You might as well get some revenue from your stadium, but they are fine without it.
|
United States15275 Posts
On February 10 2012 07:51 Smackzilla wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:43 Thombur wrote:
Seems to me like E-sports are growing at a huge rate, and I think it is much thanks to easily available and free high quality content. If we started to have to pay for content the community would shrink to a small percentage of what it currently is. Then the fees would be required since the viewer base would be so small and all advertisment would diminish. Why would the viewership shrink to nothing? Seriously, I have a hard time wrapping my head around this. If you are an sc2 fan who likes MLG right now, why wouldn't you pay $5 or $10 for watching a tournament? Seems like a better deal than a movie at the theater. Why is $5 or $10 a bad deal for three days of entertainment focused on one of your hobbies or passions?
Because liking is far different than investing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
