|
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. |
On February 15 2012 07:33 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 07:29 Sway.746 wrote:On February 15 2012 07:23 Jibba wrote:On February 15 2012 07:19 Sway.746 wrote: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. Bandwidth cost is close to zero compared to their other costs. There is absolutely no way that it was a factor in this decision. I don't know what their deal with Akamai was, but I think you're underestimating bandwidth. It's not an unsubstantial amount.
If they're paying too much for bandwidth then it's another problem altogether. If they're losing money on bandwidth by streaming content with ads then they were really, really doing it wrong.
|
On February 15 2012 07:35 SevenShots wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 07:31 Soap wrote:On February 15 2012 07:23 nachtkap wrote: 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. To me it is - it's at an appropriate time, with better image quality, doesn't require download of proprietary software and I don't care about SC2 korean competition (once you follow BW it's like MLS vs La Liga) Besides, GSL ad-free season pass is $35, $15 more expensive. yes. it is 15$ more, but it is not for 3 days but for over a month. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/41f32/41f32ccbf9c308e87a90fa896d4fd874e9b79ee6" alt=""
The light ticket ( Code S, Code A, Up-Downs ) is 15$ for an entire season. ( Seasons are also much longer than last year ) Watching one ad before the VOD loads is not really a big deal, and there are 0 ads during live broadcasts.
|
On February 15 2012 07:31 Soap wrote: To me it is - it's at an appropriate time, with better image quality, doesn't require download of proprietary software and I don't care about SC2 korean competition (once you follow BW it's like MLS vs La Liga)
Besides, GSL ad-free season pass is $35, $15 more expensive.
1.) You compain that the Korean SC2 scene is like the MLS to BW's La Liga... but what does that make the foreigner SC2 scene then? The compitition in the US/Europe scene pales in comparisson to the Korean scence.
2) You get a lot more matches (of a higher play quality) for your $35 than the MLG's $20
|
Nvm apparently. Thought I saw people saying their would be earlier in the thread.
|
twitter again...
MrMLGAdam Winter Arena Bcast ?s answered, 100% no ads, Gold Member Discount. http://bit.ly/A3r3d5 Please check out the premium viewing page
$5 off for gold members, no ads (on primary streams)
|
|
On February 15 2012 07:29 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 07:26 TechSc2 wrote:On February 15 2012 07:19 Sway.746 wrote:On February 15 2012 07:14 Mithriel wrote: Im really curious about difference in revenue between a free stream with quite a lot of ads and the 20$ 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 $20 per person instead of purely the ad revenue, then they're making substantially more money. However, now their customer base has shrunk thirty-fold, and they're almost certainly still not profitable. If they ever want to be profitable, they will have to lower their cost structure or have more viewers (and charging for, and thereby alienating a large percentage of your potential and current audience hinders that a LOT). Poor long-term decision, I think. Yes the 3% would make money, but they loose on 97% off ad revenue, which you didn't take into consideration. It's always been a tug off war between high viewers to get ad revenue and getting paid viewers to bump the income Ad revenue.
That link doesn't show the money the make of sponsors. Which is most of the ad revenue, Dr. Pepper isn't going to sponsor MLG if the viewership drops by 97%.
|
haha nice. so you only have to pay 15$ after you already payed for a ticket everyone would have assumed to include this. xD
|
I'm really sad about this. Even though I still expect MLG will be like "WE LOVE ESPORTS!! SO ITS ONLY $10 NOW AND ONLY $5 FOR GOLD MEMBERS!!!" as a publicity stunt, its looking possible that won't happen. This won't work at $15, MLG Gonna be so sad if MLG is gone a year from now T_T
|
You buy a GSL ad-free pass and you get better and more games for more than a month.
I don't know how you could even think about pricing it at a level like 20$ for just three days. Homestory Cup was ad-supported, yes. But I just payed ~8$ to watch it in HD.
And I don't really care for ads between the games since there isn't anything going on anyways.
|
So I don't know how much this post will be seen but I think the best way to gauge it would be a more in depth poll than have been in either of the two threads so far. I might have missed one that was similar or better, if I have, sorry. I've read a lot of both threads. Anyway something like:
Poll: How much would you pay for MLG Arena? (USD)$5 (26) 37% $0 (22) 31% $10 (10) 14% $1-4 (4) 6% $6-9 (3) 4% $15 (3) 4% $20 (2) 3% $25+ (0) 0% 70 total votes Your vote: How much would you pay for MLG Arena? (USD) (Vote): $0 (Vote): $1-4 (Vote): $5 (Vote): $6-9 (Vote): $10 (Vote): $15 (Vote): $20 (Vote): $25+
|
On February 15 2012 07:29 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 07:26 TechSc2 wrote:On February 15 2012 07:19 Sway.746 wrote:On February 15 2012 07:14 Mithriel wrote: Im really curious about difference in revenue between a free stream with quite a lot of ads and the 20$ 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. Yes the 3% would make money, but they loose on 97% off ad revenue, which you didn't take into consideration. It's always been a tug off war between high viewers to get ad revenue and getting paid viewers to bump the income Ad revenue.
However, MLG does not operate on the same type of ad revenue that Twitch partners do. They receive private sponsorships with big dollar signs attached to them, and those sponsorships come with the caveat that the sponsors want tons of people to watch their event. Pepsi is not going to sponsor you if you keep increasing the costs for people to see Pepsi ads.
There's no doubt in my mind that the $20 model will be more profitable than usual for MLG, for this one event. However, they're only going to lose customers over time, not gain any, since the only people willing to pay for it are the diehards who follow the scene regularly. They also lose a lot of good faith money on Gold accounts by assuming a "we're the big business, pay for our tournaments" approach instead of a "we're just having fun, give us money if you like us" approach.
|
On February 15 2012 07:27 legaton wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 07:11 00Visor wrote:On February 15 2012 06:45 Adreme wrote: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. ESL business model is not paying prizes to players (two years late on prize payments!) and venture capital (german investment funds and french banks) Dreamhack had operating losses ion 2009 and 2010. When David Garpenståhl left Dreamhack, he said DH was nearing bankruptcy (source). If things don't look too bad for them, it is because they are way more than an "e-sports" event now. It's more like a PC showroom now + LAN party. HSC got a profit for the first time, but their business model is irreproducible (more power to them). We don't know anything about GSL, but they are catering so much to the foreigner scene, it seems foreigners are their principal source of revenue.
I'm not saying everyone else is doing great. SC2 is a new market and we have to wait 1-2 years how everything evolves. But just because MLG fails (with this new business model) after blowing huge amounts of money, that doesnt mean much for SC2 in general.
|
On February 15 2012 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:I'm really sad about this. Even though I still expect MLG will be like "WE LOVE ESPORTS!! SO ITS ONLY $10 NOW AND ONLY $5 FOR GOLD MEMBERS!!!" as a publicity stunt, its looking possible that won't happen. This won't work at $15, MLG data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt="" Gonna be so sad if MLG is gone a year from now T_T
Too true.
I can see MLG backing out of this idea. It could actually end up killing MLG.
|
On February 15 2012 07:30 Xcobidoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 07:19 JustJonny wrote: MLGSundance Gold members. An email is on the way tomorrow. In it will be a thing. Hopefully it helps ease the sting.
via twitter Predicting we'll be able to buy the PPV with a 5-10 dollar discount or something which would still be 10-15 dollars more than we expected when we bought the gold pass for, but we'll see tomorrow. Well, well, well... I still don't see how they could justify a 25% discount on something I thought I had already paid for :/ No ads is fine though but is to be expected for that price and since there is no LQ stream at all. Regarding the poll, I would probably be fine with paying 10 dollars per event if I scratched the fact that I already have the gold ticket.
|
This poll is the market research they (hopefully) did before. If they didn't then to hell with that kind of unprofessional business. They determined 20$ to be the correct price point (I disagree but hey, I don't have that much data either). Now the big question is how negative the publicity will be considering the whole Twitter/gold member/Assembly problematic.
Oh and I wanted to mention that ESL actually pays the prize money. It might come with up to one year delay (mostly for tax reasons in Germany) but they're still among the best when it comes to actually paying. I also remember a post by Cloud about this and Carmacks response.
|
It looks like MLG is using justin/twitch as a streaming partner. That may be a reason they need to set the prize as high as 20/15 dollars, depending on how much of a cut twitch takes.
|
On February 15 2012 07:33 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 07:29 Sway.746 wrote:On February 15 2012 07:23 Jibba wrote:On February 15 2012 07:19 Sway.746 wrote: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 $20 per person instead of purely the ad revenue, then they're making substantially more money. However, now their customer base has shrunk thirty-fold, and they're almost certainly still not profitable. If they ever want to be profitable, they will have to lower their cost structure or have more viewers (and charging for, and thereby alienating a large percentage of your potential and current audience hinders that a LOT). Poor long-term decision, I think. Remember viewers also cost them money too, so less viewers reduces their bandwidth cost. It's not simply the difference in ad revenue like it would be for TV. Perhaps it's different with the Twitch.tv package they're demoing now. Bandwidth cost is close to zero compared to their other costs. There is absolutely no way that it was a factor in this decision. I don't know what their deal with Akamai was, but I think you're underestimating bandwidth. It's not an unsubstantial amount. They´ve signed a contract with Streamworks who basically handled everything. I wonder how much they paid for it. What I find surprising is that now they are charging 20$ just for one event, Streamworks won´t handle the streams, TwitchTV will. I wonder why that is.
|
On February 15 2012 06:49 GGessence wrote: i didnt pay a cent to watch "the Superbowl" at my house why would a Sc2 competition be any different?
/insertareyoufuckingseriouscomic
|
On February 15 2012 07:45 Timerly wrote: This poll is the market research they (hopefully) did before. If they didn't then to hell with that kind of unprofessional business. They determined 20$ to be the correct price point (I disagree but hey, I don't have that much data either). Now the big question is how negative the publicity will be considering the whole Twitter/gold member/Assembly problematic. Well they do have to pay prize money as well as 48 flights.
Flights are expensive.
|
|
|
|