|
On February 27 2012 13:54 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 13:41 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:28 how2TL wrote:On February 27 2012 13:21 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:20 how2TL wrote:
Lowering prices will not work. Look at all these people who think that paying a dime is a scam. If MLG thinks that's what their content should be valued that's their decision to make. If you really think you can increase their revenue, then maybe you're really smart and should get hired by them to do that.
I would be willing to bet that at $20 they had the most profitable MLG event yet. I'm seeing more comments claiming that they would pay if the price was lowered, than people saying they would never pay to watch SC2. Saying that is not the same as doing it. MLG obviously thought that they'd get the most value by having it at $20. Look at this poll. 20% paid $20. Assuming that's representative, that's amazing. 20% of people paying $20 is better than 100% of people paying $0. Do you think 40% of people would pay if it was $10? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. Do you think 80% of people would pay if it was $5? Hell no. MLG had a very successful pilot run. Wait, what? Almost half in the poll said they didn't watch it. From that we can infer that they didn't know about the broken paywall, and that they simply didn't watch the tournament. How is people not watching MLG making it successful for them? Look at this new thread. People not watching MLG means it's unsuccessful, and Sundance saying there's going to be an event in June doesn't necessarily mean this particular model of $20 PPV was a success. He could announce that MLG would go back to its original methods for all we know. Assuming they fix the broken paywall, 20% viewership is terrible. Does nobody remember MLG announcing record-breaking viewership after Providence? More viewers means more exposure, more exposure means growth of esports, growth of esports means more people getting into watching and/or playing SC2. It's even worse when other tournaments like Assembly (that ran at roughly the same time) and the newly announced IPL4 is providing very similar, high-quality content for free. So yes, it does matter when people say they would pay if the price is lower. It doesn't matter the individual isn't telling the truth, what matters is there's a LOT of these comments, so the general idea is definitely way more popular than maintaining this $20 PPV model. Actually, for PPV 20% is a really good result. Go listen to the latest state of the game and educate yourself. That said, I would expect the next event to be $15 and the numbers compared. There will be a sweet spot where you get the max number of viewers who are interested in watching it while making the most profit. I could see future events dropping to $15, then $10, then back up to $15 as MLG work it out.
It's a good result from a ___________ standpoint. Go fill in the blank.
|
Seems like a lot of people didnt pay. I wonder if they will release viewer numbers or PPV numbers for people who payed. Curious to see how much less it is then the typical MLG numbers.
Sad to see people wanting to see e-sports grow but dont want to back it financially.
|
On February 27 2012 14:14 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 12:27 Forikorder wrote:On February 27 2012 12:25 emc wrote:
Also, are people who gather to watch UFC and chip in $50 all thieves? Why shouldn't they all pay $50 individually? Because it's impossible to regulate. just becuase its impossible to relegate doesnt mean its something taht should be done so then we should outcast barcrafters? best way to promote esports is with fresh blood. I got into UFC because I went to parties and UFC was on. Did I pay $50? no, but I became a huge fan. Esports needs fans, even if only 1% of the fan base pays out of 1 million, it's still better than a hardcore fan base of 100,000 who pay for everything. new blood makes a sport thrive, not hinder it.
now if MLG was going all PPV, I would see your point. but they aren't. Their main events are all still free. This is something additional. In order for them to support these additional tournaments, they need PPV.
If all of sc2 suddenly went PPV, yeah that would be terrible and destroy the scene. But thats not going to happy because every tournament realizes this. Will we see more PPV tournaments? Absolutely and not just from MLG. Is that bad? Nope. There will still be plenty of free content.
|
One demographic I think MLG and all the "pay or you're dirty scum" people are forgetting about is the younger audience. Nobody is going to get their parents to let them pay $20 with their credit card to watch people play a video game, and most young people don't have credit cards. Anyone under 18 or so is basically forced to watch with the bug or watch a restream if they want to enjoy the event, even if they're willing to pay for it.
|
On February 27 2012 14:18 Xpace wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 13:54 Kharnage wrote:On February 27 2012 13:41 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:28 how2TL wrote:On February 27 2012 13:21 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:20 how2TL wrote:
Lowering prices will not work. Look at all these people who think that paying a dime is a scam. If MLG thinks that's what their content should be valued that's their decision to make. If you really think you can increase their revenue, then maybe you're really smart and should get hired by them to do that.
I would be willing to bet that at $20 they had the most profitable MLG event yet. I'm seeing more comments claiming that they would pay if the price was lowered, than people saying they would never pay to watch SC2. Saying that is not the same as doing it. MLG obviously thought that they'd get the most value by having it at $20. Look at this poll. 20% paid $20. Assuming that's representative, that's amazing. 20% of people paying $20 is better than 100% of people paying $0. Do you think 40% of people would pay if it was $10? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. Do you think 80% of people would pay if it was $5? Hell no. MLG had a very successful pilot run. Wait, what? Almost half in the poll said they didn't watch it. From that we can infer that they didn't know about the broken paywall, and that they simply didn't watch the tournament. How is people not watching MLG making it successful for them? Look at this new thread. People not watching MLG means it's unsuccessful, and Sundance saying there's going to be an event in June doesn't necessarily mean this particular model of $20 PPV was a success. He could announce that MLG would go back to its original methods for all we know. Assuming they fix the broken paywall, 20% viewership is terrible. Does nobody remember MLG announcing record-breaking viewership after Providence? More viewers means more exposure, more exposure means growth of esports, growth of esports means more people getting into watching and/or playing SC2. It's even worse when other tournaments like Assembly (that ran at roughly the same time) and the newly announced IPL4 is providing very similar, high-quality content for free. So yes, it does matter when people say they would pay if the price is lower. It doesn't matter the individual isn't telling the truth, what matters is there's a LOT of these comments, so the general idea is definitely way more popular than maintaining this $20 PPV model. Actually, for PPV 20% is a really good result. Go listen to the latest state of the game and educate yourself. That said, I would expect the next event to be $15 and the numbers compared. There will be a sweet spot where you get the max number of viewers who are interested in watching it while making the most profit. I could see future events dropping to $15, then $10, then back up to $15 as MLG work it out. It's a good result from a ___________ standpoint. Go fill in the blank.
business? yeah MLG is running a business. Thought everyone knew this. How is this a problem?
|
On February 27 2012 13:38 allerion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 13:28 how2TL wrote:On February 27 2012 13:21 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:20 how2TL wrote:
Lowering prices will not work. Look at all these people who think that paying a dime is a scam. If MLG thinks that's what their content should be valued that's their decision to make. If you really think you can increase their revenue, then maybe you're really smart and should get hired by them to do that.
I would be willing to bet that at $20 they had the most profitable MLG event yet. I'm seeing more comments claiming that they would pay if the price was lowered, than people saying they would never pay to watch SC2. Saying that is not the same as doing it. MLG obviously thought that they'd get the most value by having it at $20. Look at this poll. 20% paid $20. Assuming that's representative, that's amazing. 20% of people paying $20 is better than 100% of people paying $0. Do you think 40% of people would pay if it was $10? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. Do you think 80% of people would pay if it was $5? Hell no. MLG had a very successful pilot run. On February 27 2012 13:27 Rorix wrote:
The first page of the main MLG LR Thread has the link on top. You click it (no cookie/tweak/nonsense hack sh*t), and I was able to watch the DRG MKP finals. The rest of the games I mostly read from time to time in the LR thread. Either MLG/TwitchTV didnt up their security or they purposely "did" that so a lot of people can watch.
...and others call it a scam. Which is what exactly happened from what I've read on this thread. There is no reason for MLG to do that on purpose. Enjoy what you got, but there is no conspiracy here. What happens when you poll r/starcraft and /vg/? What does that percentage that paid drop to? You have to think that the number of people paying for MLG is inflated on TL compared to the other communities. (This is assuming the vast majority of people who normally watch MLG are from one of those three communities)
You're right of course that I'm making an assumption. I still think that $20 makes more money for them than $0 with ads and that they wouldn't have quadrupled their numbers at $5.
|
On February 27 2012 14:18 -stOpSKY- wrote:
Seems like a lot of people didnt pay. I wonder if they will release viewer numbers or PPV numbers for people who payed. Curious to see how much less it is then the typical MLG numbers.
Sad to see people wanting to see e-sports grow but dont want to back it financially.
The fruit ain't ripe - you don't pick it.
|
On February 27 2012 14:18 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:14 emc wrote:On February 27 2012 12:27 Forikorder wrote:On February 27 2012 12:25 emc wrote:
Also, are people who gather to watch UFC and chip in $50 all thieves? Why shouldn't they all pay $50 individually? Because it's impossible to regulate. just becuase its impossible to relegate doesnt mean its something taht should be done so then we should outcast barcrafters? best way to promote esports is with fresh blood. I got into UFC because I went to parties and UFC was on. Did I pay $50? no, but I became a huge fan. Esports needs fans, even if only 1% of the fan base pays out of 1 million, it's still better than a hardcore fan base of 100,000 who pay for everything. new blood makes a sport thrive, not hinder it. now if MLG was going all PPV, I would see your point. but they aren't. Their main events are all still free. This is something additional. In order for them to support these additional tournaments, they need PPV. If all of sc2 suddenly went PPV, yeah that would be terrible and destroy the scene. But thats not going to happy because every tournament realizes this. Will we see more PPV tournaments? Absolutely and not just from MLG. Is that bad? Nope. There will still be plenty of free content.
I agree and it's a reason why Dana White has been advocating MORE free content such as putting fights on FOX, FX, Versus and Spike.
My point was that this fool thinks barcrafting is something you shouldn't do because we should all be spending our money.
|
On February 27 2012 14:19 Konaa wrote:
One demographic I think MLG and all the "pay or you're dirty scum" people are forgetting about is the younger audience. Nobody is going to get their parents to let them pay $20 with their credit card to watch people play a video game, and most young people don't have credit cards. Anyone under 18 or so is basically forced to watch with the bug or watch a restream if they want to enjoy the event, even if they're willing to pay for it.
wtf? Kids now a days have more money than ever. All of these kids are playing on computers that they either paid for or their parents bought them. If the kid really wants to watch it and doesn't have money of their own then they can work something out with their parents where they do more chores or something.
Also that demographic of kids with no money isn't valuable at all and MLG doesn't miss them much honestly.
|
I will never pay for any tournament until Blizzard implements LAN.
|
Watched the free content. Would've probably bought a pass if II had had the time to watch the tournament in its entirety, but I was quite busy this weekend.
|
On February 27 2012 14:19 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:18 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:54 Kharnage wrote:On February 27 2012 13:41 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:28 how2TL wrote:On February 27 2012 13:21 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:20 how2TL wrote:
Lowering prices will not work. Look at all these people who think that paying a dime is a scam. If MLG thinks that's what their content should be valued that's their decision to make. If you really think you can increase their revenue, then maybe you're really smart and should get hired by them to do that.
I would be willing to bet that at $20 they had the most profitable MLG event yet. I'm seeing more comments claiming that they would pay if the price was lowered, than people saying they would never pay to watch SC2. Saying that is not the same as doing it. MLG obviously thought that they'd get the most value by having it at $20. Look at this poll. 20% paid $20. Assuming that's representative, that's amazing. 20% of people paying $20 is better than 100% of people paying $0. Do you think 40% of people would pay if it was $10? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. Do you think 80% of people would pay if it was $5? Hell no. MLG had a very successful pilot run. Wait, what? Almost half in the poll said they didn't watch it. From that we can infer that they didn't know about the broken paywall, and that they simply didn't watch the tournament. How is people not watching MLG making it successful for them? Look at this new thread. People not watching MLG means it's unsuccessful, and Sundance saying there's going to be an event in June doesn't necessarily mean this particular model of $20 PPV was a success. He could announce that MLG would go back to its original methods for all we know. Assuming they fix the broken paywall, 20% viewership is terrible. Does nobody remember MLG announcing record-breaking viewership after Providence? More viewers means more exposure, more exposure means growth of esports, growth of esports means more people getting into watching and/or playing SC2. It's even worse when other tournaments like Assembly (that ran at roughly the same time) and the newly announced IPL4 is providing very similar, high-quality content for free. So yes, it does matter when people say they would pay if the price is lower. It doesn't matter the individual isn't telling the truth, what matters is there's a LOT of these comments, so the general idea is definitely way more popular than maintaining this $20 PPV model. Actually, for PPV 20% is a really good result. Go listen to the latest state of the game and educate yourself. That said, I would expect the next event to be $15 and the numbers compared. There will be a sweet spot where you get the max number of viewers who are interested in watching it while making the most profit. I could see future events dropping to $15, then $10, then back up to $15 as MLG work it out. It's a good result from a ___________ standpoint. Go fill in the blank. business? yeah MLG is running a business. Thought everyone knew this. How is this a problem?
A good business makes money.
A great business grows.
|
On February 27 2012 14:20 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:18 jmbthirteen wrote:On February 27 2012 14:14 emc wrote:On February 27 2012 12:27 Forikorder wrote:On February 27 2012 12:25 emc wrote:
Also, are people who gather to watch UFC and chip in $50 all thieves? Why shouldn't they all pay $50 individually? Because it's impossible to regulate. just becuase its impossible to relegate doesnt mean its something taht should be done so then we should outcast barcrafters? best way to promote esports is with fresh blood. I got into UFC because I went to parties and UFC was on. Did I pay $50? no, but I became a huge fan. Esports needs fans, even if only 1% of the fan base pays out of 1 million, it's still better than a hardcore fan base of 100,000 who pay for everything. new blood makes a sport thrive, not hinder it. now if MLG was going all PPV, I would see your point. but they aren't. Their main events are all still free. This is something additional. In order for them to support these additional tournaments, they need PPV. If all of sc2 suddenly went PPV, yeah that would be terrible and destroy the scene. But thats not going to happy because every tournament realizes this. Will we see more PPV tournaments? Absolutely and not just from MLG. Is that bad? Nope. There will still be plenty of free content. I agree and it's a reason why Dana White has been advocating MORE free content such as putting fights on FOX, FX, Versus and Spike. My point was that this fool thinks barcrafting is something you shouldn't do because we should all be spending our money.
Dana White is all about free content now that he is getting paid a boatload of money from Fox. They tried network fights before, but it wasn't worth it so they stuck with PPV.
But barcraft is amazing and really a great way to grow popularity.
|
On February 27 2012 14:22 Xpace wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:19 jmbthirteen wrote:On February 27 2012 14:18 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:54 Kharnage wrote:On February 27 2012 13:41 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:28 how2TL wrote:On February 27 2012 13:21 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:20 how2TL wrote:
Lowering prices will not work. Look at all these people who think that paying a dime is a scam. If MLG thinks that's what their content should be valued that's their decision to make. If you really think you can increase their revenue, then maybe you're really smart and should get hired by them to do that.
I would be willing to bet that at $20 they had the most profitable MLG event yet. I'm seeing more comments claiming that they would pay if the price was lowered, than people saying they would never pay to watch SC2. Saying that is not the same as doing it. MLG obviously thought that they'd get the most value by having it at $20. Look at this poll. 20% paid $20. Assuming that's representative, that's amazing. 20% of people paying $20 is better than 100% of people paying $0. Do you think 40% of people would pay if it was $10? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. Do you think 80% of people would pay if it was $5? Hell no. MLG had a very successful pilot run. Wait, what? Almost half in the poll said they didn't watch it. From that we can infer that they didn't know about the broken paywall, and that they simply didn't watch the tournament. How is people not watching MLG making it successful for them? Look at this new thread. People not watching MLG means it's unsuccessful, and Sundance saying there's going to be an event in June doesn't necessarily mean this particular model of $20 PPV was a success. He could announce that MLG would go back to its original methods for all we know. Assuming they fix the broken paywall, 20% viewership is terrible. Does nobody remember MLG announcing record-breaking viewership after Providence? More viewers means more exposure, more exposure means growth of esports, growth of esports means more people getting into watching and/or playing SC2. It's even worse when other tournaments like Assembly (that ran at roughly the same time) and the newly announced IPL4 is providing very similar, high-quality content for free. So yes, it does matter when people say they would pay if the price is lower. It doesn't matter the individual isn't telling the truth, what matters is there's a LOT of these comments, so the general idea is definitely way more popular than maintaining this $20 PPV model. Actually, for PPV 20% is a really good result. Go listen to the latest state of the game and educate yourself. That said, I would expect the next event to be $15 and the numbers compared. There will be a sweet spot where you get the max number of viewers who are interested in watching it while making the most profit. I could see future events dropping to $15, then $10, then back up to $15 as MLG work it out. It's a good result from a ___________ standpoint. Go fill in the blank. business? yeah MLG is running a business. Thought everyone knew this. How is this a problem? A good business makes money. A great business grows.
And having some PPV events means MLG won't grow? No it doesn't.
|
I paid the $20 and thoroughly enjoyed the whole experience and weekend. The price for me was not a big deal at all, I'm a student at University and just saved the tiny amount of money it really is by not buying stuff I usually do buy but don't need at all.
I really don't understand how people can complain about the poor stream when they claim they are watching re-streams? No wonder it kept lagging, streaming 1080p content while streaming yourself won't usually go well I would have thought. I live in England and have a modest internet connection, not bad but by no means great, and it was completely fine all weekend!
The production for me was classy; they just got the best 32 (was it 32? xD) SC2 players, put them in a room to fight till the death. Awesome! In a nice setting, quality casting and production and broadcasting. The quality of the stream was AMAZING! The game looked better than if I ran it on my own PC on ultra! Barely any down time, if any at all; I don't remember thinking once "I wish there would be a game already!". The whole, changing up what streams were on and solo-quad views was awesome too. The lack of ceremony really didn't bother me. Even at MLG's like where HuK won, what is the ceremony...? An interview with HuK and then he stands there with the trophy aloft..amazing...lol.
I watched assembly as that was on during the day for me. It was god awful. I just couldn't pay attention to it cuz I found I was always watching the same adverts for 20 minutes rather than games, then missed the games cuz I got fed up and had opened other tabs or a game or whatever. And don't even mention the host, he was the worst thing about it...I couldn't stop cringing at the amount of awkward moments and pauses; it was horrible. Infact that is all I can remember Dreamhack Winter for, that utter shite host guy, don't know who the fuck it was but he was TERRRRIBLE, I remember turning the stream off it was that bad.
Overall MLG for me was great, I'd happily pay the money again. I really feel like people missed out if they didn't want to pay just because, but they really could afford it. I don't mind people got to watch it for free; yeah it sucks, but hopefully people will see the quality MLG has.
|
On February 27 2012 14:24 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:22 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 14:19 jmbthirteen wrote:On February 27 2012 14:18 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:54 Kharnage wrote:On February 27 2012 13:41 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:28 how2TL wrote:On February 27 2012 13:21 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:20 how2TL wrote:
Lowering prices will not work. Look at all these people who think that paying a dime is a scam. If MLG thinks that's what their content should be valued that's their decision to make. If you really think you can increase their revenue, then maybe you're really smart and should get hired by them to do that.
I would be willing to bet that at $20 they had the most profitable MLG event yet. I'm seeing more comments claiming that they would pay if the price was lowered, than people saying they would never pay to watch SC2. Saying that is not the same as doing it. MLG obviously thought that they'd get the most value by having it at $20. Look at this poll. 20% paid $20. Assuming that's representative, that's amazing. 20% of people paying $20 is better than 100% of people paying $0. Do you think 40% of people would pay if it was $10? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. Do you think 80% of people would pay if it was $5? Hell no. MLG had a very successful pilot run. Wait, what? Almost half in the poll said they didn't watch it. From that we can infer that they didn't know about the broken paywall, and that they simply didn't watch the tournament. How is people not watching MLG making it successful for them? Look at this new thread. People not watching MLG means it's unsuccessful, and Sundance saying there's going to be an event in June doesn't necessarily mean this particular model of $20 PPV was a success. He could announce that MLG would go back to its original methods for all we know. Assuming they fix the broken paywall, 20% viewership is terrible. Does nobody remember MLG announcing record-breaking viewership after Providence? More viewers means more exposure, more exposure means growth of esports, growth of esports means more people getting into watching and/or playing SC2. It's even worse when other tournaments like Assembly (that ran at roughly the same time) and the newly announced IPL4 is providing very similar, high-quality content for free. So yes, it does matter when people say they would pay if the price is lower. It doesn't matter the individual isn't telling the truth, what matters is there's a LOT of these comments, so the general idea is definitely way more popular than maintaining this $20 PPV model. Actually, for PPV 20% is a really good result. Go listen to the latest state of the game and educate yourself. That said, I would expect the next event to be $15 and the numbers compared. There will be a sweet spot where you get the max number of viewers who are interested in watching it while making the most profit. I could see future events dropping to $15, then $10, then back up to $15 as MLG work it out. It's a good result from a ___________ standpoint. Go fill in the blank. business? yeah MLG is running a business. Thought everyone knew this. How is this a problem? A good business makes money. A great business grows. And having some PPV events means MLG won't grow? No it doesn't.
I've only read about three threads with polls (two threads too many, to be honest) regarding the PPV. The polls don't show growth.
|
On February 27 2012 14:26 Xpace wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:24 jmbthirteen wrote:On February 27 2012 14:22 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 14:19 jmbthirteen wrote:On February 27 2012 14:18 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:54 Kharnage wrote:On February 27 2012 13:41 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:28 how2TL wrote:On February 27 2012 13:21 Xpace wrote:On February 27 2012 13:20 how2TL wrote:
Lowering prices will not work. Look at all these people who think that paying a dime is a scam. If MLG thinks that's what their content should be valued that's their decision to make. If you really think you can increase their revenue, then maybe you're really smart and should get hired by them to do that.
I would be willing to bet that at $20 they had the most profitable MLG event yet. I'm seeing more comments claiming that they would pay if the price was lowered, than people saying they would never pay to watch SC2. Saying that is not the same as doing it. MLG obviously thought that they'd get the most value by having it at $20. Look at this poll. 20% paid $20. Assuming that's representative, that's amazing. 20% of people paying $20 is better than 100% of people paying $0. Do you think 40% of people would pay if it was $10? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. Do you think 80% of people would pay if it was $5? Hell no. MLG had a very successful pilot run. Wait, what? Almost half in the poll said they didn't watch it. From that we can infer that they didn't know about the broken paywall, and that they simply didn't watch the tournament. How is people not watching MLG making it successful for them? Look at this new thread. People not watching MLG means it's unsuccessful, and Sundance saying there's going to be an event in June doesn't necessarily mean this particular model of $20 PPV was a success. He could announce that MLG would go back to its original methods for all we know. Assuming they fix the broken paywall, 20% viewership is terrible. Does nobody remember MLG announcing record-breaking viewership after Providence? More viewers means more exposure, more exposure means growth of esports, growth of esports means more people getting into watching and/or playing SC2. It's even worse when other tournaments like Assembly (that ran at roughly the same time) and the newly announced IPL4 is providing very similar, high-quality content for free. So yes, it does matter when people say they would pay if the price is lower. It doesn't matter the individual isn't telling the truth, what matters is there's a LOT of these comments, so the general idea is definitely way more popular than maintaining this $20 PPV model. Actually, for PPV 20% is a really good result. Go listen to the latest state of the game and educate yourself. That said, I would expect the next event to be $15 and the numbers compared. There will be a sweet spot where you get the max number of viewers who are interested in watching it while making the most profit. I could see future events dropping to $15, then $10, then back up to $15 as MLG work it out. It's a good result from a ___________ standpoint. Go fill in the blank. business? yeah MLG is running a business. Thought everyone knew this. How is this a problem? A good business makes money. A great business grows. And having some PPV events means MLG won't grow? No it doesn't. I've only read about three threads with polls (two threads too many, to be honest) regarding the PPV. The polls don't show growth.
But MLG isn't doing just PPV events. These Arena's aren't meant to grow the company, they are meant to help sustain the company. Their championship events are where growth happens. They put out quite a bit of free content to help growth.
|
I watched it for free but i did not use any cookie trick or anything, just for free.
But i may consider to pay for it next time, production seems awesome from what i saw.
|
On February 27 2012 14:21 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:19 Konaa wrote:
One demographic I think MLG and all the "pay or you're dirty scum" people are forgetting about is the younger audience. Nobody is going to get their parents to let them pay $20 with their credit card to watch people play a video game, and most young people don't have credit cards. Anyone under 18 or so is basically forced to watch with the bug or watch a restream if they want to enjoy the event, even if they're willing to pay for it. wtf? Kids now a days have more money than ever. All of these kids are playing on computers that they either paid for or their parents bought them. If the kid really wants to watch it and doesn't have money of their own then they can work something out with their parents where they do more chores or something. Also that demographic of kids with no money isn't valuable at all and MLG doesn't miss them much honestly.
I disagree with you there. I'm under 18 and nobody I know paid to watch MLG, they all used restreams or other methods. They probably could've paid seeing as how we see in a rather wealthy area, but they didn't. Many parents also don't enjoy throwing their credit card information online and prefer to keep in right in front of them in person.
|
If the timezone was right I would have paid for it, but I couldn't justify paying $20 for something I could only watch a few hours live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
