|
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 25 2012 21:59 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 21:56 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:55 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:53 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:49 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 21:46 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:43 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:38 eRoN_ wrote:
MLG getting wayyyyyy to big for its boots. Sickens me however, how conditioned people are to defend these companies sitting firmly in their pockets just begging them to take their money off them.
All justified under the banner of "growing e-sports" i suppose... Well that's a load of crap. You can see how much MLG alone made last year, this is just pure corperate greed and i hope they burn. If this is the way e-sports is going, fuck e-sports really. I don't have to pay to watch any football match/tourney unless i want a seat, i'm damn well not going to for this, ever.
Oh well, prehaps some good will come of this. ESL and Dreamhack; much better quality events in all aspects imo, will have a big chance at becoming alot more dominant, as long as they aren't dumb/greedy enough to follow suit that is.
Complimentary "MLG killing esports." They made a loss last year. Same with IPL, which was 6 figures into the red, and presumably the same as a lot of other tournaments. It may be that these organizations don't know how exactly to make money out of starcraft? Big prize pools and empty huge theaters doesn't seem a good plan so why should I feel bad for their loss? Taxing me because they can't do business doesn't seem fair. Read your own post and think about what you just said. You just made their argument for them. My argument is that it's the organizers fault not the community that already gave them money. It's not our fault the the money we give them is way to few for their over investment. A good management plan would know exactly what market this one is and would know how much to invest and where. So no, what I said is not a good reason for PPV. The same principle of bad management is applying to this PPV system as well. Maybe PPV was a good idea, but how they did is really bad. Next they will say that PPV is not working, so the industry is dead and that's ignorance from their part. Eh... no. The whole point of it being free is that the community does NOT give them money. Eh....no, remember that many tournaments have premium also and ads. So some money does come from the community. If you were buying premium you wouldn't be pissed off about the idea of a PPV model. Maybe the implementation, but that is not what you were saying. Ad money isn't "given" by the community. Hence, "free" stream. That's a pretty important distinction.
Since when a client is blamed for not buying a product? Make the product worth the money and cost efficient and there you go.
PPV is forcing a "Take it or leave it" attitude where a free stream + the possibility to support the event can offer lots more exposure and possibilities of growth. The tournaments tried to much from the begging and went downhill with sponsors. That doesn't imply a requirement of a PPV system, just a recalibration and money management.
And again, if the industry would be so grim there would not be so many tournaments left and right.
|
On February 25 2012 22:05 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 21:59 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:56 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:55 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:53 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:49 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 21:46 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:43 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:38 eRoN_ wrote:
MLG getting wayyyyyy to big for its boots. Sickens me however, how conditioned people are to defend these companies sitting firmly in their pockets just begging them to take their money off them.
All justified under the banner of "growing e-sports" i suppose... Well that's a load of crap. You can see how much MLG alone made last year, this is just pure corperate greed and i hope they burn. If this is the way e-sports is going, fuck e-sports really. I don't have to pay to watch any football match/tourney unless i want a seat, i'm damn well not going to for this, ever.
Oh well, prehaps some good will come of this. ESL and Dreamhack; much better quality events in all aspects imo, will have a big chance at becoming alot more dominant, as long as they aren't dumb/greedy enough to follow suit that is.
Complimentary "MLG killing esports." They made a loss last year. Same with IPL, which was 6 figures into the red, and presumably the same as a lot of other tournaments. It may be that these organizations don't know how exactly to make money out of starcraft? Big prize pools and empty huge theaters doesn't seem a good plan so why should I feel bad for their loss? Taxing me because they can't do business doesn't seem fair. Read your own post and think about what you just said. You just made their argument for them. My argument is that it's the organizers fault not the community that already gave them money. It's not our fault the the money we give them is way to few for their over investment. A good management plan would know exactly what market this one is and would know how much to invest and where. So no, what I said is not a good reason for PPV. The same principle of bad management is applying to this PPV system as well. Maybe PPV was a good idea, but how they did is really bad. Next they will say that PPV is not working, so the industry is dead and that's ignorance from their part. Eh... no. The whole point of it being free is that the community does NOT give them money. Eh....no, remember that many tournaments have premium also and ads. So some money does come from the community. If you were buying premium you wouldn't be pissed off about the idea of a PPV model. Maybe the implementation, but that is not what you were saying. Ad money isn't "given" by the community. Hence, "free" stream. That's a pretty important distinction. Since when a client is blamed for not buying a product? Make the product worth the money and cost efficient and there you go. PPV is forcing a "Take it or leave it" attitude where a free stream + the possibility to support the event can offer lots more exposure and possibilities of growth. The tournaments tried to much from the begging and went downhill with sponsors. That doesn't imply a requirement of a PPV system, just a recalibration and money management. And again, if the industry would be so grim there would not be so many tournaments left and right.
The product (big tournaments with lots of production and employees and players and prizes) is only sustainable by ads if the demographic markets are huge and money spenders and etc.
ESPN already HAS a huge viewing audience to their brand, so they have ads no matter what they're broadcasting. E-sports does not have the same luxury.
You're being hypocritical in your criticisms. MLG needs to expand/grow e-sports to be able to keep in business. MLG needsrevenue streams that are not available through ads.
If you don't like the PPV don't buy it, but soon when pretty much every big tourney has a PPV you'll understand.
|
Jesus I just read your last sentence. Do you have ANY idea how corporations function?
Business at all?
|
On February 25 2012 22:08 natebreen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 22:05 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:59 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:56 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:55 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:53 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:49 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 21:46 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:43 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:38 eRoN_ wrote:
MLG getting wayyyyyy to big for its boots. Sickens me however, how conditioned people are to defend these companies sitting firmly in their pockets just begging them to take their money off them.
All justified under the banner of "growing e-sports" i suppose... Well that's a load of crap. You can see how much MLG alone made last year, this is just pure corperate greed and i hope they burn. If this is the way e-sports is going, fuck e-sports really. I don't have to pay to watch any football match/tourney unless i want a seat, i'm damn well not going to for this, ever.
Oh well, prehaps some good will come of this. ESL and Dreamhack; much better quality events in all aspects imo, will have a big chance at becoming alot more dominant, as long as they aren't dumb/greedy enough to follow suit that is.
Complimentary "MLG killing esports." They made a loss last year. Same with IPL, which was 6 figures into the red, and presumably the same as a lot of other tournaments. It may be that these organizations don't know how exactly to make money out of starcraft? Big prize pools and empty huge theaters doesn't seem a good plan so why should I feel bad for their loss? Taxing me because they can't do business doesn't seem fair. Read your own post and think about what you just said. You just made their argument for them. My argument is that it's the organizers fault not the community that already gave them money. It's not our fault the the money we give them is way to few for their over investment. A good management plan would know exactly what market this one is and would know how much to invest and where. So no, what I said is not a good reason for PPV. The same principle of bad management is applying to this PPV system as well. Maybe PPV was a good idea, but how they did is really bad. Next they will say that PPV is not working, so the industry is dead and that's ignorance from their part. Eh... no. The whole point of it being free is that the community does NOT give them money. Eh....no, remember that many tournaments have premium also and ads. So some money does come from the community. If you were buying premium you wouldn't be pissed off about the idea of a PPV model. Maybe the implementation, but that is not what you were saying. Ad money isn't "given" by the community. Hence, "free" stream. That's a pretty important distinction. Since when a client is blamed for not buying a product? Make the product worth the money and cost efficient and there you go. PPV is forcing a "Take it or leave it" attitude where a free stream + the possibility to support the event can offer lots more exposure and possibilities of growth. The tournaments tried to much from the begging and went downhill with sponsors. That doesn't imply a requirement of a PPV system, just a recalibration and money management. And again, if the industry would be so grim there would not be so many tournaments left and right. The product (big tournaments with lots of production and employees and players and prizes) is only sustainable by ads if the demographic markets are huge and money spenders and etc. ESPN already HAS a huge viewing audience to their brand, so they have ads no matter what they're broadcasting. E-sports does not have the same luxury. You're being hypocritical in your criticisms. MLG needs to expand/grow e-sports to be able to keep in business. MLG needsrevenue streams that are not available through ads. If you don't like the PPV don't buy it, but soon when pretty much every big tourney has a PPV you'll understand.
You are really delusional if you think every big tournament will be PPV.
|
|
|
On February 25 2012 22:10 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 22:08 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 22:05 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:59 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:56 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:55 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:53 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:49 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 21:46 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:43 SeaSwift wrote:
[quote]
They made a loss last year. Same with IPL, which was 6 figures into the red, and presumably the same as a lot of other tournaments. It may be that these organizations don't know how exactly to make money out of starcraft? Big prize pools and empty huge theaters doesn't seem a good plan so why should I feel bad for their loss? Taxing me because they can't do business doesn't seem fair. Read your own post and think about what you just said. You just made their argument for them. My argument is that it's the organizers fault not the community that already gave them money. It's not our fault the the money we give them is way to few for their over investment. A good management plan would know exactly what market this one is and would know how much to invest and where. So no, what I said is not a good reason for PPV. The same principle of bad management is applying to this PPV system as well. Maybe PPV was a good idea, but how they did is really bad. Next they will say that PPV is not working, so the industry is dead and that's ignorance from their part. Eh... no. The whole point of it being free is that the community does NOT give them money. Eh....no, remember that many tournaments have premium also and ads. So some money does come from the community. If you were buying premium you wouldn't be pissed off about the idea of a PPV model. Maybe the implementation, but that is not what you were saying. Ad money isn't "given" by the community. Hence, "free" stream. That's a pretty important distinction. Since when a client is blamed for not buying a product? Make the product worth the money and cost efficient and there you go. PPV is forcing a "Take it or leave it" attitude where a free stream + the possibility to support the event can offer lots more exposure and possibilities of growth. The tournaments tried to much from the begging and went downhill with sponsors. That doesn't imply a requirement of a PPV system, just a recalibration and money management. And again, if the industry would be so grim there would not be so many tournaments left and right. The product (big tournaments with lots of production and employees and players and prizes) is only sustainable by ads if the demographic markets are huge and money spenders and etc. ESPN already HAS a huge viewing audience to their brand, so they have ads no matter what they're broadcasting. E-sports does not have the same luxury. You're being hypocritical in your criticisms. MLG needs to expand/grow e-sports to be able to keep in business. MLG needsrevenue streams that are not available through ads. If you don't like the PPV don't buy it, but soon when pretty much every big tourney has a PPV you'll understand. You are really delusional if you think every big tournament will be PPV.
Well you haven't addressed ANY of the salient points brought up about marketing/advertising/sponsorship.
You are just throwing out opinion without any logical backup.
|
On February 25 2012 22:10 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 22:08 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 22:05 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:59 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:56 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:55 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:53 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:49 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 21:46 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:43 SeaSwift wrote:
[quote]
They made a loss last year. Same with IPL, which was 6 figures into the red, and presumably the same as a lot of other tournaments. It may be that these organizations don't know how exactly to make money out of starcraft? Big prize pools and empty huge theaters doesn't seem a good plan so why should I feel bad for their loss? Taxing me because they can't do business doesn't seem fair. Read your own post and think about what you just said. You just made their argument for them. My argument is that it's the organizers fault not the community that already gave them money. It's not our fault the the money we give them is way to few for their over investment. A good management plan would know exactly what market this one is and would know how much to invest and where. So no, what I said is not a good reason for PPV. The same principle of bad management is applying to this PPV system as well. Maybe PPV was a good idea, but how they did is really bad. Next they will say that PPV is not working, so the industry is dead and that's ignorance from their part. Eh... no. The whole point of it being free is that the community does NOT give them money. Eh....no, remember that many tournaments have premium also and ads. So some money does come from the community. If you were buying premium you wouldn't be pissed off about the idea of a PPV model. Maybe the implementation, but that is not what you were saying. Ad money isn't "given" by the community. Hence, "free" stream. That's a pretty important distinction. Since when a client is blamed for not buying a product? Make the product worth the money and cost efficient and there you go. PPV is forcing a "Take it or leave it" attitude where a free stream + the possibility to support the event can offer lots more exposure and possibilities of growth. The tournaments tried to much from the begging and went downhill with sponsors. That doesn't imply a requirement of a PPV system, just a recalibration and money management. And again, if the industry would be so grim there would not be so many tournaments left and right. The product (big tournaments with lots of production and employees and players and prizes) is only sustainable by ads if the demographic markets are huge and money spenders and etc. ESPN already HAS a huge viewing audience to their brand, so they have ads no matter what they're broadcasting. E-sports does not have the same luxury. You're being hypocritical in your criticisms. MLG needs to expand/grow e-sports to be able to keep in business. MLG needsrevenue streams that are not available through ads. If you don't like the PPV don't buy it, but soon when pretty much every big tourney has a PPV you'll understand. You are really delusional if you think every big tournament will be PPV.
If there will be, I personally think we're looking at the death of SC2 as esport. I'm actually skipping buying this, just because I don't want to condone PPV and risk MLG and other tourneys going retard mode and keeping it up.
|
On February 25 2012 22:14 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 22:10 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 22:08 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 22:05 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:59 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:56 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:55 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:53 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:49 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 21:46 ceaRshaf wrote:
[quote]
It may be that these organizations don't know how exactly to make money out of starcraft? Big prize pools and empty huge theaters doesn't seem a good plan so why should I feel bad for their loss? Taxing me because they can't do business doesn't seem fair. Read your own post and think about what you just said. You just made their argument for them. My argument is that it's the organizers fault not the community that already gave them money. It's not our fault the the money we give them is way to few for their over investment. A good management plan would know exactly what market this one is and would know how much to invest and where. So no, what I said is not a good reason for PPV. The same principle of bad management is applying to this PPV system as well. Maybe PPV was a good idea, but how they did is really bad. Next they will say that PPV is not working, so the industry is dead and that's ignorance from their part. Eh... no. The whole point of it being free is that the community does NOT give them money. Eh....no, remember that many tournaments have premium also and ads. So some money does come from the community. If you were buying premium you wouldn't be pissed off about the idea of a PPV model. Maybe the implementation, but that is not what you were saying. Ad money isn't "given" by the community. Hence, "free" stream. That's a pretty important distinction. Since when a client is blamed for not buying a product? Make the product worth the money and cost efficient and there you go. PPV is forcing a "Take it or leave it" attitude where a free stream + the possibility to support the event can offer lots more exposure and possibilities of growth. The tournaments tried to much from the begging and went downhill with sponsors. That doesn't imply a requirement of a PPV system, just a recalibration and money management. And again, if the industry would be so grim there would not be so many tournaments left and right. The product (big tournaments with lots of production and employees and players and prizes) is only sustainable by ads if the demographic markets are huge and money spenders and etc. ESPN already HAS a huge viewing audience to their brand, so they have ads no matter what they're broadcasting. E-sports does not have the same luxury. You're being hypocritical in your criticisms. MLG needs to expand/grow e-sports to be able to keep in business. MLG needsrevenue streams that are not available through ads. If you don't like the PPV don't buy it, but soon when pretty much every big tourney has a PPV you'll understand. You are really delusional if you think every big tournament will be PPV. If there will be, I personally think we're looking at the death of SC2 as esport. I'm actually skipping buying this, just because I don't want to condone PPV and risk MLG and other tourneys going retard mode and keeping it up.
The only reason SC1 succeeded based on the advertising model is because a dedicated cable channel in Korea took on the game and broadcasted it.
There is nowhere near that level of ability in the US or EU.
No one is going to put this on basic cable for many years.
You have no alternative for PPV in this model. Advertising stream income to the TL/MLG/e-sports community is not enough. Period.
You can either just keep e-sports as it is (where it will die in 2-3 years because every player has to get a real job) or you need to grow.
Pick one.
|
On February 25 2012 22:16 natebreen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 22:14 Zarahtra wrote:On February 25 2012 22:10 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 22:08 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 22:05 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:59 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:56 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:55 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:53 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:49 natebreen wrote:
[quote]
Read your own post and think about what you just said. You just made their argument for them. My argument is that it's the organizers fault not the community that already gave them money. It's not our fault the the money we give them is way to few for their over investment. A good management plan would know exactly what market this one is and would know how much to invest and where. So no, what I said is not a good reason for PPV. The same principle of bad management is applying to this PPV system as well. Maybe PPV was a good idea, but how they did is really bad. Next they will say that PPV is not working, so the industry is dead and that's ignorance from their part. Eh... no. The whole point of it being free is that the community does NOT give them money. Eh....no, remember that many tournaments have premium also and ads. So some money does come from the community. If you were buying premium you wouldn't be pissed off about the idea of a PPV model. Maybe the implementation, but that is not what you were saying. Ad money isn't "given" by the community. Hence, "free" stream. That's a pretty important distinction. Since when a client is blamed for not buying a product? Make the product worth the money and cost efficient and there you go. PPV is forcing a "Take it or leave it" attitude where a free stream + the possibility to support the event can offer lots more exposure and possibilities of growth. The tournaments tried to much from the begging and went downhill with sponsors. That doesn't imply a requirement of a PPV system, just a recalibration and money management. And again, if the industry would be so grim there would not be so many tournaments left and right. The product (big tournaments with lots of production and employees and players and prizes) is only sustainable by ads if the demographic markets are huge and money spenders and etc. ESPN already HAS a huge viewing audience to their brand, so they have ads no matter what they're broadcasting. E-sports does not have the same luxury. You're being hypocritical in your criticisms. MLG needs to expand/grow e-sports to be able to keep in business. MLG needsrevenue streams that are not available through ads. If you don't like the PPV don't buy it, but soon when pretty much every big tourney has a PPV you'll understand. You are really delusional if you think every big tournament will be PPV. If there will be, I personally think we're looking at the death of SC2 as esport. I'm actually skipping buying this, just because I don't want to condone PPV and risk MLG and other tourneys going retard mode and keeping it up. The only reason SC1 succeeded based on the advertising model is because a dedicated cable channel in Korea took on the game and broadcasted it. There is nowhere near that level of ability in the US or EU. No one is going to put this on basic cable for many years. You have no alternative for PPV in this model. Advertising stream income to the TL/MLG/e-sports community is not enough. Period. You can either just keep e-sports as it is (where it will die in 2-3 years because every player has to get a real job) or you need to grow. Pick one.
The simple problem is, you are asking it to grow, while putting it in a little box that no one has access to outside of the box itself. That is why this is a terrible idea. I also question your "Advertising is not enough" seeing as there are plenty of tourneys where it is infact, enough.
|
On February 25 2012 22:19 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 22:16 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 22:14 Zarahtra wrote:On February 25 2012 22:10 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 22:08 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 22:05 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:59 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:56 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:55 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:53 ceaRshaf wrote:
[quote]
My argument is that it's the organizers fault not the community that already gave them money. It's not our fault the the money we give them is way to few for their over investment. A good management plan would know exactly what market this one is and would know how much to invest and where.
So no, what I said is not a good reason for PPV. The same principle of bad management is applying to this PPV system as well. Maybe PPV was a good idea, but how they did is really bad. Next they will say that PPV is not working, so the industry is dead and that's ignorance from their part.
Eh... no. The whole point of it being free is that the community does NOT give them money. Eh....no, remember that many tournaments have premium also and ads. So some money does come from the community. If you were buying premium you wouldn't be pissed off about the idea of a PPV model. Maybe the implementation, but that is not what you were saying. Ad money isn't "given" by the community. Hence, "free" stream. That's a pretty important distinction. Since when a client is blamed for not buying a product? Make the product worth the money and cost efficient and there you go. PPV is forcing a "Take it or leave it" attitude where a free stream + the possibility to support the event can offer lots more exposure and possibilities of growth. The tournaments tried to much from the begging and went downhill with sponsors. That doesn't imply a requirement of a PPV system, just a recalibration and money management. And again, if the industry would be so grim there would not be so many tournaments left and right. The product (big tournaments with lots of production and employees and players and prizes) is only sustainable by ads if the demographic markets are huge and money spenders and etc. ESPN already HAS a huge viewing audience to their brand, so they have ads no matter what they're broadcasting. E-sports does not have the same luxury. You're being hypocritical in your criticisms. MLG needs to expand/grow e-sports to be able to keep in business. MLG needsrevenue streams that are not available through ads. If you don't like the PPV don't buy it, but soon when pretty much every big tourney has a PPV you'll understand. You are really delusional if you think every big tournament will be PPV. If there will be, I personally think we're looking at the death of SC2 as esport. I'm actually skipping buying this, just because I don't want to condone PPV and risk MLG and other tourneys going retard mode and keeping it up. The only reason SC1 succeeded based on the advertising model is because a dedicated cable channel in Korea took on the game and broadcasted it. There is nowhere near that level of ability in the US or EU. No one is going to put this on basic cable for many years. You have no alternative for PPV in this model. Advertising stream income to the TL/MLG/e-sports community is not enough. Period. You can either just keep e-sports as it is (where it will die in 2-3 years because every player has to get a real job) or you need to grow. Pick one. The simple problem is, you are asking it to grow, while putting it in a little box that no one has access to outside of the box itself. That is why this is a terrible idea. I also question your "Advertising is not enough" seeing as there are plenty of tourneys where it is infact, enough.
It has not been proven to be enough though, that's the issue.
Almost every major tournament is in the red for tons of money.
They need to do PPV to survive, let alone grow.
If you don't see that, you're a fool.
|
On February 25 2012 22:16 natebreen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 22:14 Zarahtra wrote:On February 25 2012 22:10 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 22:08 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 22:05 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:59 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:56 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:55 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:53 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:49 natebreen wrote:
[quote]
Read your own post and think about what you just said. You just made their argument for them. My argument is that it's the organizers fault not the community that already gave them money. It's not our fault the the money we give them is way to few for their over investment. A good management plan would know exactly what market this one is and would know how much to invest and where. So no, what I said is not a good reason for PPV. The same principle of bad management is applying to this PPV system as well. Maybe PPV was a good idea, but how they did is really bad. Next they will say that PPV is not working, so the industry is dead and that's ignorance from their part. Eh... no. The whole point of it being free is that the community does NOT give them money. Eh....no, remember that many tournaments have premium also and ads. So some money does come from the community. If you were buying premium you wouldn't be pissed off about the idea of a PPV model. Maybe the implementation, but that is not what you were saying. Ad money isn't "given" by the community. Hence, "free" stream. That's a pretty important distinction. Since when a client is blamed for not buying a product? Make the product worth the money and cost efficient and there you go. PPV is forcing a "Take it or leave it" attitude where a free stream + the possibility to support the event can offer lots more exposure and possibilities of growth. The tournaments tried to much from the begging and went downhill with sponsors. That doesn't imply a requirement of a PPV system, just a recalibration and money management. And again, if the industry would be so grim there would not be so many tournaments left and right. The product (big tournaments with lots of production and employees and players and prizes) is only sustainable by ads if the demographic markets are huge and money spenders and etc. ESPN already HAS a huge viewing audience to their brand, so they have ads no matter what they're broadcasting. E-sports does not have the same luxury. You're being hypocritical in your criticisms. MLG needs to expand/grow e-sports to be able to keep in business. MLG needsrevenue streams that are not available through ads. If you don't like the PPV don't buy it, but soon when pretty much every big tourney has a PPV you'll understand. You are really delusional if you think every big tournament will be PPV. If there will be, I personally think we're looking at the death of SC2 as esport. I'm actually skipping buying this, just because I don't want to condone PPV and risk MLG and other tourneys going retard mode and keeping it up. The only reason SC1 succeeded based on the advertising model is because a dedicated cable channel in Korea took on the game and broadcasted it. There is nowhere near that level of ability in the US or EU. No one is going to put this on basic cable for many years. You have no alternative for PPV in this model. Advertising stream income to the TL/MLG/e-sports community is not enough. Period. You can either just keep e-sports as it is (where it will die in 2-3 years because every player has to get a real job) or you need to grow. Pick one.
Not even free streams get 100k viewers and you want a PPV system. 1000 paying viewers will sure grow esports. LOL.
Who ever looked at UFC and though it was a good idea didn't look why it worked there and just borrowed the system and crossed their fingers.
|
I just wanted to add that you should think about the PPV prize again. Everybody says: "they want to sustain themselves" ,but actually they don't do it. They still have big sposors like Dr. Pepper and nos and so on that also give them a lot of money. So they basically want MORE money. they SAVED money by taking their office , wich they already pay for on a montly base i guess , and putting computers in it. that's it. So they saved money and already get money from sponsors. + 20$ from each viewer..... don't tell me they just want to selfsustain.
second i agree with eron.
A lot of the companies don't really know how to work cost efficiently. I'll explain:
NASL season2.
They got the biggest venue there was on this planet and therefore wanted more money to get in and watch the finals. this resulted in nobody coming in because it's too expensive and a huuuuuuge loss for them.
They just didn't think about the basic rules in economy.
1. If the prize is higher , less people will buy it. If the orize is lower more people will buy it.
2. The prize depends on DEMAND. Now tell me how big was the demand vor NASL during the whole season. Did anybody watch the qualifiers and shit? so damand low , therefore prize should be lower.
2nd example:
Homestory cup.
Take did not have the biggest prizepool of all times. The only way he payed the tournament was with the Sponsors roccat aoc xmg and so on.
He did everything right and the good thing was , that he didn't have to pay the venue , because he basically lives there, this factor made the tournament pay for itself.
MLG is doing it wrong. Just like NASL.
The DEMAND is not even close as much as it even was when NASL took place, because the ASUS ROG (ASSEMBLY) is running at the same time, so people get enough starcraft.
And what did we just learn? Prize depends on DEMAND!!!! And because people don't need that much sc2 ( oversaturation ) , they are not willing to pay that much. Therefore MLG should have Made a lower prize for the ticket.
Basically MLG wanted money from viewers+from sponsors + save money due to not having a huge arena . It's like hometory cup where they don't have to pay the venue but get all the money )
so long~
Oh and to the guy who said "If you don't have money to buy it it's like in real life. The guy who has no money doesn't have the biggest house or the best car " ( or some bs like this ) - I CAN STILL BUY A SMALLER HOUSE OR A SLOWER CAR !!!! in this case : if i don't have that much money they could at least let me watch it in 140 p or some shit and you Take the ferrari (1080p).
|
On February 25 2012 22:21 natebreen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 22:19 Zarahtra wrote:On February 25 2012 22:16 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 22:14 Zarahtra wrote:On February 25 2012 22:10 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 22:08 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 22:05 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:59 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:56 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:55 SeaSwift wrote:
[quote]
Eh... no. The whole point of it being free is that the community does NOT give them money. Eh....no, remember that many tournaments have premium also and ads. So some money does come from the community. If you were buying premium you wouldn't be pissed off about the idea of a PPV model. Maybe the implementation, but that is not what you were saying. Ad money isn't "given" by the community. Hence, "free" stream. That's a pretty important distinction. Since when a client is blamed for not buying a product? Make the product worth the money and cost efficient and there you go. PPV is forcing a "Take it or leave it" attitude where a free stream + the possibility to support the event can offer lots more exposure and possibilities of growth. The tournaments tried to much from the begging and went downhill with sponsors. That doesn't imply a requirement of a PPV system, just a recalibration and money management. And again, if the industry would be so grim there would not be so many tournaments left and right. The product (big tournaments with lots of production and employees and players and prizes) is only sustainable by ads if the demographic markets are huge and money spenders and etc. ESPN already HAS a huge viewing audience to their brand, so they have ads no matter what they're broadcasting. E-sports does not have the same luxury. You're being hypocritical in your criticisms. MLG needs to expand/grow e-sports to be able to keep in business. MLG needsrevenue streams that are not available through ads. If you don't like the PPV don't buy it, but soon when pretty much every big tourney has a PPV you'll understand. You are really delusional if you think every big tournament will be PPV. If there will be, I personally think we're looking at the death of SC2 as esport. I'm actually skipping buying this, just because I don't want to condone PPV and risk MLG and other tourneys going retard mode and keeping it up. The only reason SC1 succeeded based on the advertising model is because a dedicated cable channel in Korea took on the game and broadcasted it. There is nowhere near that level of ability in the US or EU. No one is going to put this on basic cable for many years. You have no alternative for PPV in this model. Advertising stream income to the TL/MLG/e-sports community is not enough. Period. You can either just keep e-sports as it is (where it will die in 2-3 years because every player has to get a real job) or you need to grow. Pick one. The simple problem is, you are asking it to grow, while putting it in a little box that no one has access to outside of the box itself. That is why this is a terrible idea. I also question your "Advertising is not enough" seeing as there are plenty of tourneys where it is infact, enough. It has not been proven to be enough though, that's the issue. Almost every major tournament is in the red for tons of money. They need to do PPV to survive, let alone grow. If you don't see that, you're a fool.
You're calling me fool, while ignoring my main statement of, how the f*** will something grow when you stop access to it from everyone else, except the people already in?
If every tournament would go PPV, it would be lights out for SC2 as an esport, since you'd have just robbed every new person of a chance to get to know it as such. If not every lan tournament went PPV, clearly advertising would work, and PPV tournaments would be relying on the advertising tournaments to grow the scene, while the PPV tournaments stay in their little box and hope that the work of others has an effect on their poor business model.
And since we are still seeing tournaments not go the way of MLG, I still question the "there is not enough money in advertisement", since until other tournaments switch up their business model, they must be doing atleast good enough. Very few would actually keep hosting the tourneys if their income could not pay for the bill.
|
On February 25 2012 22:29 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 22:21 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 22:19 Zarahtra wrote:On February 25 2012 22:16 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 22:14 Zarahtra wrote:On February 25 2012 22:10 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 22:08 natebreen wrote:On February 25 2012 22:05 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 25 2012 21:59 SeaSwift wrote:On February 25 2012 21:56 ceaRshaf wrote:
[quote]
Eh....no, remember that many tournaments have premium also and ads. So some money does come from the community. If you were buying premium you wouldn't be pissed off about the idea of a PPV model. Maybe the implementation, but that is not what you were saying. Ad money isn't "given" by the community. Hence, "free" stream. That's a pretty important distinction. Since when a client is blamed for not buying a product? Make the product worth the money and cost efficient and there you go. PPV is forcing a "Take it or leave it" attitude where a free stream + the possibility to support the event can offer lots more exposure and possibilities of growth. The tournaments tried to much from the begging and went downhill with sponsors. That doesn't imply a requirement of a PPV system, just a recalibration and money management. And again, if the industry would be so grim there would not be so many tournaments left and right. The product (big tournaments with lots of production and employees and players and prizes) is only sustainable by ads if the demographic markets are huge and money spenders and etc. ESPN already HAS a huge viewing audience to their brand, so they have ads no matter what they're broadcasting. E-sports does not have the same luxury. You're being hypocritical in your criticisms. MLG needs to expand/grow e-sports to be able to keep in business. MLG needsrevenue streams that are not available through ads. If you don't like the PPV don't buy it, but soon when pretty much every big tourney has a PPV you'll understand. You are really delusional if you think every big tournament will be PPV. If there will be, I personally think we're looking at the death of SC2 as esport. I'm actually skipping buying this, just because I don't want to condone PPV and risk MLG and other tourneys going retard mode and keeping it up. The only reason SC1 succeeded based on the advertising model is because a dedicated cable channel in Korea took on the game and broadcasted it. There is nowhere near that level of ability in the US or EU. No one is going to put this on basic cable for many years. You have no alternative for PPV in this model. Advertising stream income to the TL/MLG/e-sports community is not enough. Period. You can either just keep e-sports as it is (where it will die in 2-3 years because every player has to get a real job) or you need to grow. Pick one. The simple problem is, you are asking it to grow, while putting it in a little box that no one has access to outside of the box itself. That is why this is a terrible idea. I also question your "Advertising is not enough" seeing as there are plenty of tourneys where it is infact, enough. It has not been proven to be enough though, that's the issue. Almost every major tournament is in the red for tons of money. They need to do PPV to survive, let alone grow. If you don't see that, you're a fool. You're calling me fool, while ignoring my main statement of, how the f*** will something grow when you stop access to it from everyone else, except the people already in? If every tournament would go PPV, it would be lights out for SC2 as an esport, since you'd have just robbed every new person of a chance to get to know it as such. If not every lan tournament went PPV, clearly advertising would work, and PPV tournaments would be relying on the advertising tournaments to grow the scene, while the PPV tournaments stay in their little box and hope that the work of others has an effect on their poor business model. And since we are still seeing tournaments not go the way of MLG, I still question the "there is not enough money in advertisement", since until other tournaments switch up their business model, they must be doing atleast good enough. Very few would actually keep hosting the tourneys if their income could not pay for the bill.
Let him be. He is blinded by the marketing Sundance made with statements like "you need to support ESPORTs or gg" and the interview on Live on three. I think he even cried when Sundance said that he gets it, but guess what, he doesn't make money.
Some people just not try to think in perspective.
|
I don't understand why would anyone support PPV. MLG has just made mistakes that makes their business bad.
They are paying players' flights and hotel, both of those should be payed by the player's team
MLG probably doesn't get very much money from sponsors. Dr Pepper doesn't most likely get very much income from sponsoring esports. Getting a sponsor like intel/amd/razer etc would give them much more sponsor income. (I'm not sure about this, but atleast personnally I'm not gonna start drinking dr pepper because they sponsor esports but I might buy intel/asus etc computer part instead of some other)
->
Because of MLG's own failure they are ripping off players and fans.
-Prize pool is low
-Ticket cost way too much
I'd be ok with ppv if tickets would be reasonable priced (10usd?) and players would get bigger share of the ppv income
|
On February 25 2012 22:39 zezamer wrote:
I don't understand why would anyone support PPV. MLG has just made mistakes that makes their business bad.
They are paying players' flights and hotel, both of those should be payed by the player's team
MLG probably doesn't get very much money from sponsors. Dr Pepper doesn't most likely get very much income from sponsoring esports. Getting a sponsor like intel/amd/razer etc would give them much more sponsor income.
->
Because of MLG's own failure they are ripping off players and fans.
-Prize pool is low
-Ticket cost way too much
The prize pool being low can be understandable by the players since they get a free ticket to the event. I don't think a player now at MLG can cry "Oh my god you payed my flight here and this is the prize pool? I'm leaving!".
But I agree with the rest. Why have sponsors for the teams if tournaments want to pay for their trips? (with the viewers money mind you)
|
How do you know there is no other model then PPV?
If they dont make enough Money then that is because the pricepools and other payments have grown faster then the esports itsself.
Maybe just play the first round online? Maybe Esports isnt ready to pay 32 Players from all over the world to fly in. Wouldnt 16 have been enough?
Last year MLG completly fucked up with their premiumservice. as sundance said the hotpocket facebook thing was an absolutely fail calculation. and now i have to pay for there misscalcualation?
MLG did not even try. they saw that there could be a way of making way more money easier and they took it.
they want to tell me they cant get enough money while paying their casters 10 000 dollars EACH for one weekend? so i need to pay for esports because the casters wouldnt cast for 2000 dollars? or 5000?
|
Ok so adds are not enough.. for what?
Covering players flights and accommodation and holding offices in new york? Ok so there is certainly scope to reduce costs and still have an amazing tournament as others have demonstrated.
Mlg have mentioned wanting to set up a more static venue in a less expensive location. So as an experiment to build towards something.
Imagine a purpose built venue in one location. There is the potential to have large live audiences buying tickets. With accommodation built in, which could be used to house the players and perhaps for the audience to rent. There is then revenue from live tickets as well as running a hotel, bar/cafe, premium high quality streams with extra content as well as free low quality with adds and downtime. Teams and players could sell coaching sessions and so on.
There is the potential to create a successful centre for esports. That being said I am still waiting to see how the weekend goes and if MLG can deliver on their promises, that and ppv plus having to stay up all night is not that appealing.
|
On February 25 2012 22:39 zezamer wrote:
I don't understand why would anyone support PPV. MLG has just made mistakes that makes their business bad.
I don't understand why anyone would support an advertising model.
The second any major company decides that something about a Starcraft tournament is objectionable to them (a top player who is sponsored by a rival company, a conglomerate feud with Activision, whatever), they have the power to put a stop to it by threatening to stop funding it.
"We'll support companies that support esports!" -- excellent. That mouse or motherboard you just bought includes their marketing budget in the overhead, so the cost of a PPV is built into the mouse. "I don't care about advertising, I buy whatever mouse is good" -- excellent, then we can count on advertising-driven tournaments dying much sooner, because the advertising doesn't make any money.
If advertisers foot the bill for your starcraft tournaments, then the second SteelSeries or Asus or whatever marketing research suggests that Starcraft fans won't buy enough of their stuff to pay the advertising bills, they'll stop funding it. eSports has risen and fallen for years in the west, and a major factor has been the majority of the money coming from hardware advertisers who are hesitant to promote a two year old game with low system requirements since hardcore players of that game have little need for new graphics cards or CPUs. S. Korea on the other hand is so dense and player participation so high that local adverting is varied, fruitful, and not dependent on short term surges in popularity. EG is sponsored by companies like Intel and SteelSeries. oGs is sponsored by "Mom's Touch" -- a Korean chicken restaurant.
If advertisers foot the bill for tournaments, no one gives a shit about people in countries who won't buy their stuff. If Monster Energy drink doesn't sell in Panama, then viewers from Panama don't matter. If a tournament gets an even distribution of users from all around the world, they need to either develop a way to sell regional advertising all over the world or write off large portions of their users as potential advertising revenue.
If you foot the bill, Starcraft is around as long as you are interested in it, to the degree you are interested in it, the way you want to see it.
Personally, I would prefer if tournaments maintain some free content -- like Day 1/group stage for free in SD, and save the PPV only for later rounds with a couple price points (a standard and deluxe). There are also Barcrafts all over the world, and if not for you, you can always get together with friends and throw a viewing party. But regardless, I'm very glad to see people move past an advertising model because the phrase "ROI" is the nail in the coffin for Starcraft.
I also agree the price is a little steep. On one hand, MLG is nearly 1/3 the cost of a UFC in the US, for something like 30 hours of content vs. 3. On the other, UFC offers either cable television distribution (free) or heavily discounted PPVs ($5-10) in countries with large fan bases and less money. While MLG may have offices in NYC and their employees pay NYC rent and eat NYC food, they need to either have a global mindset on pricing/distribution or revamp their event planning to focus more on growing the North American esports scene. I doubt there are truly many people who are willing to pay anything but not $20. The biggest jump is from free to not free, where you lose out on people who refuse to buy anything and people with can't buy anything (no credit card, kids, etc.). For most people who don't live in their Mom's basement scarfing down bagel bites and wasting their day away, $20 is a drop in the bucket compared to the decision to spend 8+ hours in a weekend watching a stream.
|
On February 25 2012 23:06 mockturtle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 22:39 zezamer wrote:
I don't understand why would anyone support PPV. MLG has just made mistakes that makes their business bad.
I don't understand why anyone would support an advertising model. The second any major company decides that something about a Starcraft tournament is objectionable to them (a top player who is sponsored by a rival company, a conglomerate feud with Activision, whatever), they have the power to put a stop to it by threatening to stop funding it. "We'll support companies that support esports!" -- excellent. That mouse or motherboard you just bought includes their marketing budget in the overhead, so the cost of a PPV is built into the mouse. If advertisers foot the bill for your starcraft tournaments, then the second SteelSeries or Asus or whatever marketing research suggests that Starcraft fans won't buy enough of their stuff to pay the advertising bills, they'll stop funding it. eSports has risen and fallen for years in the west, and a major factor has been the majority of the money coming from hardware advertisers who are hesitant to promote a two year old game with low system requirements since hardcore players of that game have little need for new graphics cards or CPUs. S. Korea on the other hand is so dense and player participation so high that local adverting is varied, fruitful, and not dependent on short term surges in popularity. EG is sponsored by companies like Intel and SteelSeries. oGs is sponsored by "Mom's Touch" -- a Korean chicken restaurant.] If advertisers foot the bill for tournaments, no one gives a shit about people in countries who won't buy their stuff. If Monster Energy drink doesn't sell in Panama, then viewers from Panama don't matter. If a tournament gets an even distribution of users from all around the world, they need to either develop a way to sell regional advertising all over the world or write off large portions of their users as potential advertising revenue. If you foot the bill, Starcraft is around as long as you are interested in it, to the degree you are interested in it, the way you want to see it. Personally, I would prefer if tournaments maintain some free content -- like Day 1/group stage for free in SD, and save the PPV only for later rounds with a couple price points (a standard and deluxe). But regardless, I'm very glad to see people move past an advertising model because the phrase "ROI" is the nail in the coffin for Starcraft.
Well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
