EPTPut down the pitchforks, or lower them, at least. - Page 28
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
viOLetFanClub
Korea (South)390 Posts
| ||
|
Roynalf
Finland886 Posts
Clealy I did get the joke. Karhu finnish word for bear also a beer mark so in Finland there is bear beer. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:15 Gentso wrote: This thread to me just looks like a way of justifying PPV's with a lower cost. I don't like the idea of PPV period, and I feel like this community will agree to anything as long as a nice person writes a long post with an apologetic theme to it. What makes you think that? Im old enough to make my own choices (will be 30 this month..  ) - and the idea of PPV is not a bad idea in general. But you have to be realistic. 20 bucks? Never. Ever. Its a ripoff par excellence. Especially considering that you "could" pay HSC4 as well. 6 Dollars (well, 5€, but should be around 6$ somewhere). Thats reasonable. I can justify that. So its not that i agree because a "nice" person said something (who the fuck, i dont even know the "person" which wrote the initial posting - never saw his name before), its because i think i can pay for stuff, if the price is equal to what i think its worth. MLG is not (20$). | ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1599 Posts
On February 15 2012 04:49 Smackzilla wrote: Tournaments can't afford to lose money on sc2 either. Its expensive to provide a venue, fly in, and provide accommodations to all the top sc2 talent from around the world. What other tournament is footing the cash to make something like this happen? GSL sure isn't. If you want to see a truly international cast of the best players, no one comes close to this MLG arena and no one is providing the support to players and teams to make it happen. You assume they lose money just because they claim they do. MLG been around a long time and keeps losing money. How the fuck are they still around then??? What I am getting at is why is this a buisness if there is never any profit made? When they prove they need the money then I will believe they need the money. Until then I call bullshit. Then on top of that 2009 MLG had 50 million in revenue. If they're losing money while pulling in 50 million they're doing something wrong and deserve to fail. Then with a poor economy they say hey instead of holding our normal tournament the cheap way lets find a way to organize a tournament that costs a fuck ton of money for us to pull off. Meanwhile alienating our fans and sponsors at the same time. I don't always come up with a shitty buisness model, but when I do it is a MLG event. | ||
|
Ricemagical
270 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:19 m4inbrain wrote: What makes you think that? Im old enough to make my own choices (will be 30 this month.. ) - and the idea of PPV is not a bad idea in general. But you have to be realistic. 20 bucks? Never. Ever. Its a ripoff par excellence. Especially considering that you "could" pay HSC4 as well. 6 Dollars (well, 5€, but should be around 6$ somewhere). Thats reasonable. I can justify that. So its not that i agree because a "nice" person said something (who the fuck, i dont even know the "person" which wrote the initial posting - never saw his name before), its because i think i can pay for stuff, if the price is equal to what i think its worth. MLG is not (20$). I think the concern most people have with ppv is that the esports industry has always been able to sustain itself on freemium, and to state that their losing money when they're getting record viewers seems absolutely absurd. And if this model does prove to be viable for mlg then other tournaments might follow suit to a point in which people would have to decide which tournaments to watch or perhaps even not be able to watch at all, reducing the esports community as a whole, even if the esports tournaments themselves gain more money. | ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
| ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:21 NoobSkills wrote: You assume they lose money just because they claim they do. MLG been around a long time and keeps losing money. How the fuck are they still around then??? What I am getting at is why is this a buisness if there is never any profit made? When they prove they need the money then I will believe they need the money. Until then I call bullshit. Then on top of that 2009 MLG had 50 million in revenue. If they're losing money while pulling in 50 million they're doing something wrong and deserve to fail. Then with a poor economy they say hey instead of holding our normal tournament the cheap way lets find a way to organize a tournament that costs a fuck ton of money for us to pull off. Meanwhile alienating our fans and sponsors at the same time. I don't always come up with a shitty buisness model, but when I do it is a MLG event. Add in that MLG is offering less content and competition for a price much higher than their competitors and that's their business model that they want us to believe is the future of NA Esports. :\ That's what I can't stand. GSL offered AOL for 5 dollars... I bought that, in a heartbeat. | ||
|
FlukyS
Ireland485 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:01 hibbleton wrote: MLG is not competing against GSL. Totally irrelevant. For example: McDonalds charges $3.29 for a cheeseburger + fries (I have no idea what they actually charge) and a restaurant charges $12.99 for a cheeseburger + fries. These price points don't matter because they're not competing with each other. Well they are now comparable on price if you take the 20 dollars as a price point for the rest of the year it will be like 100 dollars for the year to watch MLG, I paid 70 dollars for my GSL light subsciption (I dont mind the ads and I dont really see much value in the rest of the services). Like im just going to put this out there that I dont think MLG is worth 30 dollars more than GSL for a year. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:11 hibbleton wrote: Maybe my analogy wasn't the best but the fact remains it doesn't matter what the GSL charges for their high level StarCraft 2 matches. MLG is charging $20 for theirs and it's up to you if you want to pay for it or not. For what it's worth, I have a GSL yearly subscription and I'll be buying the MLG Winter Arena PPV. The analogy is the problem because, presumably, there is a limit to how many cheese burgers you can eat. It's more comparable to the price of admission between a professional and collegiate sports game. For those who decide "I will only spend __ dollars this year on basketball", GSL is a better value purely for number of games (there's other issues which I won't get into here.) For someone who says "I fucking love basketball", they're more likely to go to both games, as long as the times don't overlap. So it's a mix, depending on the market. I like watching good SC2 but I've got a fairly low budget for it, and it's lower on my list than it used to be. That said, I've usually preferred the MLG experience, commercials and all, to the GSL one and I don't particularly trust GOM with my information anymore. I also like Sundance and I think he usually does do right by the fans. I'm supporting MLG more than I'm supporting ESPORTS. That said, MLG should absolutely lower costs for future events. Flying so many players and hosting a large event in NYC is obviously a huge burden. TSL's model may not be ideal for what they're trying to achieve, but there's a lot of middle ground there. On top of that, 4 streams is simply too much. It's too much for a fan to follow, it's a lot of extra bandwidth and it's a lot of extra casters. Each subsequent big name caster (the expensive ones) after Day9 has less and less draw, so you're losing value. Finally, I think a discount for Gold members should've been a no-brainer. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:25 Ricemagical wrote: I think the concern most people have with ppv is that the esports industry has always been able to sustain itself on freemium, and to state that their losing money when they're getting record viewers seems absolutely absurd. And if this model does prove to be viable for mlg then other tournaments might follow suit to a point in which people would have to decide which tournaments to watch or perhaps even not be able to watch at all, reducing the esports community as a whole, even if the esports tournaments themselves gain more money. I was not defending MLG or anything, quite the opposite. In the other thread i already wrote that i dont believe any of the BS MLG dishes out about losing money. They certainly dont (otherwise they would be gone). Then a statement from twitter like this: "Sundance DiGiovanni @MLGSundance @fspikec guy who priced an created Gold did bad math and built in too much. Trying to move beyond it." And you get even more the impression that someone is trying to f you over. And well.. Its not a bad thing to decide which tournament you want to watch, as long as there is the HSC. ;P | ||
|
SirScoots
United States138 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:21 NoobSkills wrote: You assume they lose money just because they claim they do. MLG been around a long time and keeps losing money. How the fuck are they still around then??? What I am getting at is why is this a buisness if there is never any profit made? When they prove they need the money then I will believe they need the money. Until then I call bullshit. Then on top of that 2009 MLG had 50 million in revenue. If they're losing money while pulling in 50 million they're doing something wrong and deserve to fail. Then with a poor economy they say hey instead of holding our normal tournament the cheap way lets find a way to organize a tournament that costs a fuck ton of money for us to pull off. Meanwhile alienating our fans and sponsors at the same time. I don't always come up with a shitty buisness model, but when I do it is a MLG event. You just called receiving venture capital as revenue...quite the opposite of revenue it is actually. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:33 SirScoots wrote: You just called receiving venture capital as revenue...quite the opposite of revenue it is actually. Scoots just go yoda on us? =) | ||
|
quantumslip
United States188 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:33 SirScoots wrote: You just called receiving venture capital as revenue...quite the opposite of revenue it is actually. No actually MLG said they projected 50 million in revenue... whethere they actually did is another matter. (2009 was a sucky year for the economy). See: http://www.fnatic.com/scene/6582/mlg-50-million-in-revenue-this-year.html | ||
|
hoby2000
United States918 Posts
I meant to vote that I would pay $20, but if they brought it down to $10, i would still buy it. If there's a way to change my vote or revoke it so i can revote, that would be sweet. Thanks! | ||
|
SirScoots
United States138 Posts
 | ||
|
Thombur
95 Posts
Because the effect will be the opposite. If they make just enough money the PPV idea will keep on rolling and spreading and then your 20$ to support esports will turn into you always having to pay more than you really thought it was worth. | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:27 SupLilSon wrote: Add in that MLG is offering less content and competition for a price much higher than their competitors and that's their business model that they want us to believe is the future of NA Esports. :\ That's what I can't stand. GSL offered AOL for 5 dollars... I bought that, in a heartbeat. I keep hearing this, and it's so blatantly wrong it hurts. Last year: 6 Pro-circuit events with shitty seeding. This year: 4 Pro-circuit events with better seeding, Arena qualifiers (free), 7 Arenas (free one week after they air). By my count, that is more, not less. | ||
|
Timerly
Germany511 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:33 m4inbrain wrote: I was not defending MLG or anything, quite the opposite. In the other thread i already wrote that i dont believe any of the BS MLG dishes out about losing money. They certainly dont (otherwise they would be gone). Then a statement from twitter like this: "Sundance DiGiovanni @MLGSundance @fspikec guy who priced an created Gold did bad math and built in too much. Trying to move beyond it." And you get even more the impression that someone is trying to f you over. And well.. Its not a bad thing to decide which tournament you want to watch, as long as there is the HSC. ;P Reading this sounds like "we fucked up so we need more money from you guys to keep going". Really? I mean kudos for being open about this kind of thing (if that's correct) but that's really not the point here. You can't just say "we fuck you over because we initially fucked ourselves over by accident". If a business makes a mistake it has to live with the consequences. They tried to put out a new product to make some profits but they chose to create it with far too high costs while not keeping their existing customers happy. I doubt 20$ is the optimal price point revenue wise and I doubt running it in NYC when you don't even have a live audience is the best way to do it. It will hopefully run smoothly and you'll need a lot less staff to run it but honestly, who cares for three days of games straight? Nobody watches all of that. You can't even argue you'd get 20h of entertainment for your 20$ because only a fraction of the consumers will watch that much. We have other stuff to do, guys...and paying 20$ for having the stream on maybe 9h overall (and that's optimistic for many) seems less and less appealing for somebody who already pays for gold especially. Could have simply put a bit extra on the gold price and then wait for it to smooth out. If you're working on a super thin line cash flow wise you may be overspending... | ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:47 babylon wrote: I keep hearing this, and it's so blatantly wrong it hurts. Last year: 6 Pro-circuit events with shitty seeding. This year: 4 Pro-circuit events with better seeding, Arena qualifiers (free), 7 Arenas (free one week after they air). By my count, that is more, not less. Wait, where did you get the 7 Arenas from? I thought there were only 4, one for each Championship. The way I see it, in terms of major events, we go from 6 last year to 8 this year, but 4 of which are PPV, which means that 4 should be available to general viewership. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On February 15 2012 05:51 Bagration wrote: Wait, where did you get the 7 Arenas from? I thought there were only 4, one for each Championship. The way I see it, in terms of major events, we go from 6 last year to 8 this year, but 4 of which are PPV, which means that 4 should be available to general viewership. Its still more contenet as a whole not less especially if you inculde the 3 sets of qualifiers that delivered some great games. | ||
| ||
If they made it 5$, I would consider getting it, and I think that it is a reasonable price, if they are also getting not too low ad revenue.
