EPTHow did you watch MLG? - Page 56
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 29 2012 04:04 battyone wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On February 29 2012 03:54 Talin wrote: Why would anybody restrain themselves from using a different (and free) service instead? Because you're going to call them spoiled brats otherwise? Such a powerful argument you got there. Anyhow, this thread is not about the concept of piracy, and there's no need to turn it into one. There are plenty of active threads on that topic on TL (such as this one). The argument should really be that they feel entitled to the content and not required to pay for it, even when there is a ton of actually free content that's going on at the same time. The thread has been a debate on the semantics of piracy vs theft vs theft of service vs etc for about 40 pages, a bit late to try to steer the topic away from it. Basically it is ethically weak to say "I don't like this, but I am still going to watch it!" because inadvertently or not you are showing that it IS worth it, that you are willing to give it your time but not your money. It isn't like Sundance said "Okay guys, I get it, payment is going to be optional, like a tip jar." It was a PPV event, and if you chose to not pay but still watch it your ethics are seriously questionable. Of course, if you don't care about your ethics, or have none to begin with, then the decision is an easy one. Take the content, don't pay for it, then post on teamliquid about how smart you were for bypassing the paywall, and then retract that and say how easy it was, then turn around and call everyones argument weak becuase that's what keeps you warm at night. At the end of the day the people who restreamed or bypassed the paywall may have gotten their content for free, they may have gotten one over on MLG, but they also are a gigantic red flag for content producers. More people pirated the stream than paid for it in the poll, which I guess is great if MLG was going for brand exposure and not to run a profitable tournament. What does this say about the community? I know the price was steep and this was an experiment, but it boggles my mind that more people restreamed/paywall bypassed than actually paid for the damn event according to the poll. What point did you prove? Perhaps next time if it isn't worth what the creators are asking for it, you should just watch something else (Assembley, Vods, live streams, and the plethora of free content out there), otherwise you're just hurting the argument that it wasn't worth paying for in the first place. The content was obviously better than the free stuff if you watched it. At least if you are going to say it isn't worth it, watch a streamer so they get some ad revenue, or do something else that you feel is worth your time and money. Spoiled brats? Nah. Ethically weak? Absolutely. *EDIT -- as a quick TL;DR: and analogy, since they're fairly popular in this thread. This is the difference between pirating microsoft office and using libre office. You can compare the two products, and for some one is worth more than the other. It's ethically weak to pirate a copy of microsoft office when there is a Free and Open Source alternate that could benefit from your usage and feedback and input. The weakness in that argument isn't the phrasing ("spoiled brat" part), it's the part where you think it actually matters how you personally perceive people that do something you dislike, even though it really doesn't. What does matter is how you're going to convince them to do things the way you think things should be done. Which is what you could attempt to do if you had an argument other than "I think you're a bad person". | ||
|
xlava
United States676 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 29 2012 04:25 Talin wrote: The weakness in that argument isn't the phrasing ("spoiled brat" part), it's the part where you think it actually matters how you personally perceive people that do something you dislike, even though it really doesn't. What does matter is how you're going to convince them to do things the way you think things should be done. Which is what you could attempt to do if you had an argument other than "I think you're a bad person". Might want to read his post before responding to it (or work on your reading comprehension skills?). With these paragraphs he is presenting an argument meant to convince people not to pirate: "At the end of the day the people who restreamed or bypassed the paywall may have gotten their content for free, they may have gotten one over on MLG, but they also are a gigantic red flag for content producers. More people pirated the stream than paid for it in the poll, which I guess is great if MLG was going for brand exposure and not to run a profitable tournament. What does this say about the community? I know the price was steep and this was an experiment, but it boggles my mind that more people restreamed/paywall bypassed than actually paid for the damn event according to the poll. What point did you prove? Perhaps next time if it isn't worth what the creators are asking for it, you should just watch something else (Assembley, Vods, live streams, and the plethora of free content out there), otherwise you're just hurting the argument that it wasn't worth paying for in the first place. The content was obviously better than the free stuff if you watched it. At least if you are going to say it isn't worth it, watch a streamer so they get some ad revenue, or do something else that you feel is worth your time and money." | ||
|
GreyKnight
United States4720 Posts
On February 29 2012 04:35 xlava wrote: I'm thinking the $20 pass isn't worth it. Were the games good? Should I buy the pass and watch the vods? It's not MLG's fault but the games were nothing spectacular. Pretty poor play from players of such caliber. regardless 20 dollars is not worth it and the games being relatively uninteresting doesn't help | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 29 2012 04:59 Doodsmack wrote: Might want to read his post before responding to it (or work on your reading comprehension skills?). With these paragraphs he is presenting an argument meant to convince people not to pirate: "At the end of the day the people who restreamed or bypassed the paywall may have gotten their content for free, they may have gotten one over on MLG, but they also are a gigantic red flag for content producers. More people pirated the stream than paid for it in the poll, which I guess is great if MLG was going for brand exposure and not to run a profitable tournament. What does this say about the community? I know the price was steep and this was an experiment, but it boggles my mind that more people restreamed/paywall bypassed than actually paid for the damn event according to the poll. What point did you prove? Perhaps next time if it isn't worth what the creators are asking for it, you should just watch something else (Assembley, Vods, live streams, and the plethora of free content out there), otherwise you're just hurting the argument that it wasn't worth paying for in the first place. The content was obviously better than the free stuff if you watched it. At least if you are going to say it isn't worth it, watch a streamer so they get some ad revenue, or do something else that you feel is worth your time and money." I don't understand what is it you wanted me to read specifically there that would change my reply in any way - I did read it the first time, fyi, and I don't see the argument still. Edit: I suppose the second paragraph is worth addressing - it's false because it assumes that people watched one thing or the other, whereas they might easily have watched both (they did not overlap). Also, with one event being free and the other being $20, the latter being better than the former does actually not invalidate the argument that the latter still is not worth the $20. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:04 Talin wrote: I don't understand what is it you wanted me to read specifically there that would change my reply in any way - I did read it the first time, fyi, and I don't see the argument still. You really don't think those paragraphs present an argument to convince people to do things the way he thinks things should be done? You think those two paragraphs just say "I think you're a bad person"? Edit: what about the first paragraph? He is telling people that if they simply pirate tournament organizers' content they are sending a message that this community won't pay for new content, thereby discouraging content providers from participating in the community. It's an argument meant to convince people not to pirate. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:07 Doodsmack wrote: Edit: what about the first paragraph? He is telling people that if they simply pirate tournament organizers' content they are sending a message that this community won't pay for new content, thereby discouraging content providers from participating in the community. It's an argument meant to convince people not to pirate. No, it's an argument that is supposed to convince people to go against their common sense and pay for something they do not value as much. Not pirating does not mean buying the product. It means simply opting not to watch it instead. MLG's revenue remains the same either way, and the numbers tell the same (or very similar) story. I think it's pretty clear that this community won't pay for content in this shape and form anyway, so it was a very accurate message to send in the first place, and hopefully it was received. Whether that discourages the content providers from providing content or encourages them to look for more reasonable offers and rational ways of making a profit is up to the organizers themselves. They are the ones that need to adapt to their market and audience. | ||
|
battyone
United States180 Posts
On February 29 2012 04:25 Talin wrote: The weakness in that argument isn't the phrasing ("spoiled brat" part), it's the part where you think it actually matters how you personally perceive people that do something you dislike, even though it really doesn't. What does matter is how you're going to convince them to do things the way you think things should be done. Which is what you could attempt to do if you had an argument other than "I think you're a bad person". While someone else pointed it out, I'd also like to point out that my argument is not "I think you're a bad person." My argment is that I think it is wrong to take something offered for money while shunning the people who are putting stuff out there for free. Why did you watch MLG for free when you should have been watching content that was free? Was MLGs content superior to theirs? If so how is it not worth your money? If you're all for free stuff, support the people who give you free stuff, don't take from the people who don't want to give you free stuff. *EDIT -- You'll note that I listed other content beyond assembley. There's ALWAYS something going on on TL you can watch... I don't think your a bad person, I think that you have a weird complex about what things should be yours, and no regard for the people giving you free stuff because it's not the particular thing you wanted to see. That particular thing had a price tag, you chose to ignore it and the people offering free stuff. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:18 Talin wrote: No, it's an argument that is supposed to convince people to go against their common sense and pay for something they do not value as much. Not pirating does not mean buying the product. It means simply opting not to watch it instead. MLG's revenue remains the same either way, and the numbers tell the same (or very similar) story. I think it's pretty clear that this community won't pay for content in this shape and form anyway, so it was an accurate message to send in the first place. Whether that discourages the content providers from providing content or encourages them to look for more reasonable offers and rational ways of making a profit is up to the organizers themselves. I wasn't aware that not pirating something was "going against common sense." Maybe not pirating goes against your common sense, but I'd hope that to most people not pirating IS the common sense. And no with how many people bypassed the paywall, the numbers don't say anything, only the revenue they got does. And again what this really tells not only MLG but every business looking into esports, is that the esports demographic will pirate things and complain and not pay for them, and that esports is nnot profitable. By pirating these things and continuing to complain "well it's not good enough to pay for so I'll just pirate it" you're basically discouraging companies from hosting more tournaments and from giving you more content to watch. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:21 hunts wrote: I wasn't aware that not pirating something was "going against common sense." I wasn't aware that I said that in the first place (and that's because I didn't). Not buying something you don't feel is worth the cost is common sense, however. By pirating these things and continuing to complain "well it's not good enough to pay for so I'll just pirate it" you're basically discouraging companies from hosting more tournaments and from giving you more content to watch. That's incorrect. What actually happens is that by deciding to NOT PAY I am discouraging companies from setting their price at that level, which I'm personally fine with. Piracy has nothing to do with that, and how companies react to their price not being so welcome among their audience has nothing to do with me. If they don't believe broadcasting SC2 can be a profitable business, then there is nothing I can do about that. | ||
|
rEiGN~
369 Posts
Why did you watch MLG for free when you should have been watching content that was free? Was MLGs content superior to theirs? If so how is it not worth your money? Just being marginally better than something else doesn't justify a price tag, let alone a $20 one. Economics don't work that way. You don't just make people pay $20 for something they've grown to expect for free, you have to establish a price point. | ||
|
JOJOsc2news
3000 Posts
On February 27 2012 10:27 Primadog wrote: Poll: I watched MLG Winter Arena... ...at home (work, friend's place etc.) (503) ...at a BarCraft (122) 625 total votes Your vote: I watched MLG Winter Arena... (Vote): ...at home (work, friend's place etc.) ty JOJOsc2news for setting up the poll! Thanks for pulling it to the front page! 19% BarCraft is quite epic I have to say. | ||
|
Malkavian183
Turkey227 Posts
| ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:26 rEiGN~ wrote: Just being marginally better than something else doesn't justify a price tag, let alone a $20 one. Economics don't work that way. You don't just make people pay $20 for something they've grown to expect for free, you have to establish a price point. Just by putting a price tag on it, doesn't justify pirating. Econnomics don't work that way. You're not giving the message of "the price tag is unacceptable" you're giving the message of "I'm too cheap to pay but your product is still the best that is on right now." | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:44 hunts wrote: Just by putting a price tag on it, doesn't justify pirating. Econnomics don't work that way. You're not giving the message of "the price tag is unacceptable" you're giving the message of "I'm too cheap to pay but your product is still the best that is on right now." But nobody is trying to justify anything here. The act of not paying gives the message that the price tag is unacceptable. | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:44 hunts wrote: Just by putting a price tag on it, doesn't justify pirating. Econnomics don't work that way. You're not giving the message of "the price tag is unacceptable" you're giving the message of "I'm too cheap to pay but your product is still the best that is on right now." Having the best product "on right now" isn't hard when there's nothing high profile on at that time though. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:45 Talin wrote: But nobody is trying to justify anything here. The act of not paying gives the message that the price tag is unacceptable. Yes I agree with that. The act of not paying AND NOT WATCHING gives the message that the price tag is unacceptable. The act of not paying and watching anyway via a work around, doesn't send that message. It sends the message of "it is worth watching but I refuse to pay." They now can't tell if people aren't paying because they don't think it's worth it (not good enough or price is too high) or if they're just cheap and want everything for free. If everyone that doesn't pay also doesn't watch, they can extrapolate something like "not enough people bought this, the price tag must be too high or the product must not be appealing enough." When people don't pay but still watch, they can't deduce anything like that, what they can most likely get is "people didn't pay but watched, they might just not be willing to pay for anything and want everything handed to them, a market filled with these people isn't worth it we're done here have fun with no more tournaments." | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:50 hunts wrote: Yes I agree with that. The act of not paying AND NOT WATCHING gives the message that the price tag is unacceptable. The act of not paying and watching anyway via a work around, doesn't send that message. It sends the message of "it is worth watching but I refuse to pay." They now can't tell if people aren't paying because they don't think it's worth it (not good enough or price is too high) or if they're just cheap and want everything for free. If everyone that doesn't pay also doesn't watch, they can extrapolate something like "not enough people bought this, the price tag must be too high or the product must not be appealing enough." When people don't pay but still watch, they can't deduce anything like that, what they can most likely get is "people didn't pay but watched, they might just not be willing to pay for anything and want everything handed to them, a market filled with these people isn't worth it we're done here have fun with no more tournaments." That's where the problem starts though. If that's what they wanted to know from this tournament they should have done a better job securing the PPV. The internet is the internet and people will try and circumvent stuff like the popup, especially if it's really easy, and no amount of arguing about ethics or what's right and wrong will change that. | ||
|
TheAlchemist89
160 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:26 rEiGN~ wrote: Just being marginally better than something else doesn't justify a price tag, let alone a $20 one. Economics don't work that way. You don't just make people pay $20 for something they've grown to expect for free, you have to establish a price point. In a perfect world yes... but I keep thinking of gasoline when I read this post. When I was a kid, gas could be bought for 40 cents per litre..... it's now 1.20 bucks. There are BS arguments for why the price has tripled in just a few short years for the exact same product (inferior if they are cutting it with ethanol actually....) Seems economics really only works one way: It does what it can get away with. | ||
| ||
