|
Criticism is allowed. Undue flaming is not. Take a second to think your post through before you submit.
Bans will be handed out.
Should go without saying, but don't link restreams here either. |
Every young player, every tournament admin and every team manager gets to hear "you do not go into ESPORT for the money, you do it out of your passion and you will have to make hard sacrifices for it".
But along comes MLG, collects some huge venture capital ($10 million no less) on the promise "to make ESPORT profitable for their investors". And you know how "real world capital" works, they want some substantial return on their investment or at the very least see some genuine profits in MLG's books (my guess would be around $1 million for 2012). That is why they have to quickly create an (artificial) income model now.
And that is also why they promote this twisted view again and again, that "growing ESPORTS" somehow equates with "making real dividends from investing into ESPORT" (which is definitely not the same)!
And on top of that, they are not even at a key position inside the market: They are no game publisher with control over their games, they are no TV station with a regular large audience, they are not even a big electronics company with products to sell, they are a mere tournament runner and Internet stream producer (one of many).
You know what? It is not going to happen. Wishful thinking does not create you a market. If it was so easy to make some profit, other actors would have invested more into the scene long time ago (Samsung for example has been in it for years now).
We have seen this over and over again, this is an exemplary investment bubble, and in 2 years it will burst.
And that is fine with me. I say, ride the popularity wave, burn some stupid VC money like there is no tomorrow. But please do not give me this "we an altruistic association that wants to help this community and grow ESPORT together" nonsense, that is insulting.
|
On February 14 2012 07:52 Dodgin wrote:Guess I am watching assembly. They are really shooting themselves in the foot trying to do this while another major event is going on at the same time. But I guess it is just a test. Poll: Will you pay for this?No (3762) 89% Yes (452) 11% 4214 total votes Your vote: Will you pay for this? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
After reading EGAlex's thread on the subject I am interested in the community response to a slightly different system, please vote in this poll if you did in the last one. Poll: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members?No (1520) 74% Yes (539) 26% 2059 total votes Your vote: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Interesting, if we assume that the results are correct and significant, it shows that MLG may not have done a thorough analysis of pricing and elasticity 
|
On February 15 2012 06:45 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 06:40 00Visor wrote:On February 15 2012 05:51 legaton wrote:
So, i checked all the SEC fillings and this is the money invested in MLG
2011-11-23 - debt + option -2 500 000 dollars
2011-08-12 - debt + option - 3 083 328
2010-12-30 - equity - 3 333 353 dollars
2009-08-31 - equity - 3 499 995 dollars
2008-12-31 - equity + option - 7 500 000 dollars
2007-06-18 - equity - 1 400 000 dollars
2006-11-20 - equity - 25 000 000 dollars
2006-07-31 - equity - 10 000 000 dollars
As you can see, in 6 years and a half, they have filled for a small fortune. I think this kind of numbers give a better idea on how expensive an operation like MLG is.
I'm not saying you should pay 20 dollars per event, but it is clear to me that have a desperate need to monetize the scene.
My informed point of view is you must be mentally challenged to invest any money on e-sports (except, maybe, for a small community based operation like TL, but without expecting any huge ROI). But well, good luck to MLG. If these numbers are true, than MLG fucked up before SC2 already. They had tons of money invested and 2011 was by far their most successful year (in viewers). This new business model could be an act of desperation, but it won't work. If it doestn work then I would think most tournaments are in a lot of trouble. Dreamhack is successful HSC is mildly successful and GSL is succesful and that is about it.
No! Thats exactly what I wanted to deny. MLG blowed huge amounts of money before SC2. And now they try their shot with PPV.
If MLG fails this means almost nothing for other tournaments who didnt came with these debts and have other business models.
|
I was just about to write up a post about how I'll be buying this, then I noticed one thing: "commentary from some of the best up-and-coming StarCraft 2 casters."
I'm sort of bothered there's no information on who it is yet. I had assumed for a premium price like this it would be a well-known casting team. This ambigous sentence makes me think they couldn't get any big name casters. I hope to be proven wrong, I was all for buying a ticket until reading that.
|
The poll has dropped to 12%. Looking worse and worse for MLG especially since TL is the community where the highest percent of people will be willing to pay. If only 12% of us are willing to pay then I wouldn't be surprised if the number is like half that in the overall community.
|
Im really curious about difference in revenue between a free stream with quite a lot of ads and the 20$ no free stream variant. See what the best business decision would be. Though we could get the perfect numbers only in a perfect world to calculate which would be best ( or what price would draw most people)
|
On February 15 2012 07:12 AKIRADEATH wrote:
I was just about to write up a post about how I'll be buying this, then I noticed one thing: "commentary from some of the best up-and-coming StarCraft 2 casters."
I'm sort of bothered there's no information on who it is yet. I had assumed for a premium price like this it would be a well-known casting team. This ambigous sentence makes me think they couldn't get any big name casters. I hope to be proven wrong, I was all for buying a ticket until reading that.
That's for the beta streams or whatever they call it. So much like providence it will probably be people like Adebisi, Robin, Tumba, Katu and the likes who don't get the big tournaments. I'm pretty sure they are not going to use Adebisi + JP when they're flying in 32 people from all over the world, no offence 
|
On February 15 2012 07:06 Sway.746 wrote:
MLG is trading viewers for revenue.
They're counting on enough people thinking it's a good deal, and enough people thinking "I need to support eSports!" to watch that they won't burn as much money. But in burning less money, they're weakening their brand through less viewers. Unless charging makes them profitable right now, then I don't see how it can be a good business decision.
Don't forget that pretty much that extra revenue is zero'd out because they have decided to take on the cost of 32 player's travel/hotel and have NO AUDIENCE. I would've loved to be a fly on that wall when they were thinking this up. You really gotta wonder...
|
I didn't want to take my g/f out to the movies for Valentine's day anyways, MLG is just giving me a good excuse! But in all honesty this is just silly on their part, all of their sponsors are going to jump ship if they in one single move have managed to alienate upwards of 70% of there viewer base if not more. Also, a majority of their viewers are teenagers or young adults who either aren't working a job, or are in school and already strapped for cash to blow on "entertainment" expenses. I'll go and watch something else, that's not only free, but doesn't make me feel guilty about "not supporting e-sports". If this is what e-sports is going to turn into, stabbing your viewers in the back then I hope your business fails and Starcraft II is taken off the circuit.
Let's not forget that it is also only the Starcraft II fanbase that is having to fork out this extra cash. For all intents and purposes this looks like an attempt from Sundance to guilt as much cash as he can out of the community while it's still on the up.
|
All of you guys thinking that this model helps eSports is dead WRONG.
eSports is too niche as it is already...All this is doing is isolating the die hard fans from the casual fan base. And we all know that number is probably not very high.
Personally, I think MLG is jumping the gun. They are trying too hard to make money.
|
MLGSundance
Gold members. An email is on the way tomorrow. In it will be a thing. Hopefully it helps ease the sting.
via twitter
|
On February 15 2012 07:14 Mithriel wrote:
Im really curious about difference in revenue between a free stream with quite a lot of ads and the 20$ no free stream variant. See what the best business decision would be. Though we could get the perfect numbers only in a perfect world to calculate which would be best ( or what price would draw most people)
If they only get 3% of the viewership, but are making $20 per person instead of purely the ad revenue, then they're making substantially more money.
However, now their customer base has shrunk thirty-fold, and they're almost certainly still not profitable. If they ever want to be profitable, they will have to lower their cost structure or have more viewers (and charging for, and thereby alienating a large percentage of your potential and current audience hinders that a LOT).
Poor long-term decision, I think.
|
On February 15 2012 07:12 JJH777 wrote:
The poll has dropped to 12%. Looking worse and worse for MLG especially since TL is the community where the highest percent of people will be willing to pay. If only 12% of us are willing to pay then I wouldn't be surprised if the number is like half that in the overall community.
On the contrary, TL has plenty of internet-savvy people who are notorious for not paying even when they should.
Look how there was so many people buying passes just because of Gamebattles they had to revamp the system, but most TLers don't even know what that is.
Seems to me the Arena model is meant to be sold as a cable package like UFC, which is a much more reliable business model than begging for contributions against LAN/tournament tie-ins which have nowhere near the same cost structure.
|
|
|
Sundance via twitter: "Gold members. An email is on the way tomorrow. In it will be a thing. Hopefully it helps ease the sting."
let`s see
|
On February 15 2012 07:11 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 07:52 Dodgin wrote:Guess I am watching assembly. They are really shooting themselves in the foot trying to do this while another major event is going on at the same time. But I guess it is just a test. Poll: Will you pay for this?No (3762) 89% Yes (452) 11% 4214 total votes Your vote: Will you pay for this? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
After reading EGAlex's thread on the subject I am interested in the community response to a slightly different system, please vote in this poll if you did in the last one. Poll: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members?No (1520) 74% Yes (539) 26% 2059 total votes Your vote: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Interesting, if we assume that the results are correct and significant, it shows that MLG may not have done a thorough analysis of pricing and elasticity
If MLG got 12% of there viewers to pay for it then this would be an overwhelmingly successful program that would continue throughout the year.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 15 2012 07:19 Sway.746 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 07:14 Mithriel wrote:
Im really curious about difference in revenue between a free stream with quite a lot of ads and the 20$ no free stream variant. See what the best business decision would be. Though we could get the perfect numbers only in a perfect world to calculate which would be best ( or what price would draw most people) If they only get 3% of the viewership, but are making $20 per person instead of purely the ad revenue, then they're making substantially more money. However, now their customer base has shrunk thirty-fold, and they're almost certainly still not profitable. If they ever want to be profitable, they will have to lower their cost structure or have more viewers (and charging for, and thereby alienating a large percentage of your potential and current audience hinders that a LOT). Poor long-term decision, I think.
Remember viewers also cost them money too, so less viewers reduces their bandwidth cost. It's not simply the difference in ad revenue like it would be for TV.
Perhaps it's different with the Twitch.tv package they're demoing now.
|
Those prices would suggest to me that a weekend of MLG is worth more than a season of GSL. That's simply not the case. Especially since the GSL now had tiered pricing.
When it was announced it sounded like winter area would be a normal MLG without spectators. I'm starting to think this was done for hype purposes.
|
why are so many people comparing this to going to the movies? aren't "the movies" pretty much universally considered overpriced right now? thats the context i always hear movie tickets mentioned in.
if the best mlg can do is to say "hey, at least we compare favorably with the cliche overpriced entertainment!" i think they're in trouble.
|
On February 15 2012 07:23 Jibba wrote:
Remember viewers also cost them money too, so less viewers reduces their bandwidth cost. It's not simply the difference in ad revenue, like it would be for TV.
but it also reduces the exposure the sponsors of the players get. That could be why they are paying for everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
