|
£13.50 for a weekend of games, and the first game I saw was Nestea v Demuslim. Those games alone out did assembly but 1000% Worth every penny and happy to pay again, better than wasting it on things I don't need.........
|
On February 29 2012 08:06 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 07:57 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 07:53 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:39 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 07:36 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. But this simply isn't true. It's the big companies that end up tanking the most damage and being the most outspoken about the "issues". Many smaller companies actually fare comparatively better than the big ones because of better priced products, a more loyal audience and (often) consistent support and updates for the game, with lower costs. The companies that get hurt the most by piracy - in any part of the entertainment industry - are the old mammoth corporations with monopolistic attitudes that drove the prices of entertainment products extremely high just because they could, and are now facing the great equalizer that is the internet which gives smaller and more agile companies a way to garner enough attention and compete with lower production and distribution costs (thus prices). It is not the piracy itself that bothers them as much as the fact that they're no longer dictating the rules and have found themselves in a new, hostile environment. every software industry gets hurt by piracy, especially smaller companies that can't afford the money or time to setup drm. You're beating around the bush a lot. Everyone gets hurt by it, sure, but not all wounds hurt the same. Big companies that run on outdated business models certainly feel the pain a lot more. Obviously, it's not so much the size that matters, it's the model, but big companies are slower and harder to adapt. DRM is irrelevant for the most part, I don't know why people are mentioning it all the time. Multiplayer games are about the only thing where it actually matters, and in that case the solutions are fairly straightforward and functional.
Offering competitive price is meaningless when most people would rather take FREE stuff if there are no consequences
That line is plainly absurd in its entirety, but more importantly, how on earth is that an argument for NOT offering competitive prices and quality of service? I'm sure that $60 for a game or $20 for a weekend of Starcraft do alienate a very significant number of people that would actually pay a fair price for a good service rather than get it for free, if the option was there. how is it beating around the bush? how is DRM irrelevant? do you not know what DRM is? If the option of free is there, people will always get it for free. how is this absurd? People in the US would buy stuff from walmart to save themselves a couple of dollars instead of buying made in USA. Its not absurd, its human nature. We like cheap stuff if it ensures similar (in case of piracy, identical) quality What you're saying makes no sense at all. EVERY piece of media / entertainment content is available for free, unless it's a really obscure one with a very niche following. So following your logic, nobody would ever pay for anything - yet back here in the real world, that is obviously not the case. Which I'm pretty sure you're well aware of, so I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here.
Because not everything is equal. Currently some stuff is easier to buy than to find/download said media. Then there are people who respects people's work instead of trying to pirate them, and multiple other factors
The whole argument is about whether piracy affects sales or not, it is safe to ignore those factors
Lets put an extreme case, if someone manage to copy steam's UI and allowed to download every game from steam for free at the same accessibility, speed, and safety, hosted in some 3rd world backwatered nation, do you think it would not have affected steam's sales?
In your argument it wouldn't because people who pirate them wouldn't have paid a cent to steam in the first place, but that's quite a naive outlook when its pretty clear many would have swapped to this free alternative if there are no consequences
|
On February 29 2012 08:09 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 08:06 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:57 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 07:53 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:39 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 07:36 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. But this simply isn't true. It's the big companies that end up tanking the most damage and being the most outspoken about the "issues". Many smaller companies actually fare comparatively better than the big ones because of better priced products, a more loyal audience and (often) consistent support and updates for the game, with lower costs. The companies that get hurt the most by piracy - in any part of the entertainment industry - are the old mammoth corporations with monopolistic attitudes that drove the prices of entertainment products extremely high just because they could, and are now facing the great equalizer that is the internet which gives smaller and more agile companies a way to garner enough attention and compete with lower production and distribution costs (thus prices). It is not the piracy itself that bothers them as much as the fact that they're no longer dictating the rules and have found themselves in a new, hostile environment. every software industry gets hurt by piracy, especially smaller companies that can't afford the money or time to setup drm. You're beating around the bush a lot. Everyone gets hurt by it, sure, but not all wounds hurt the same. Big companies that run on outdated business models certainly feel the pain a lot more. Obviously, it's not so much the size that matters, it's the model, but big companies are slower and harder to adapt. DRM is irrelevant for the most part, I don't know why people are mentioning it all the time. Multiplayer games are about the only thing where it actually matters, and in that case the solutions are fairly straightforward and functional.
Offering competitive price is meaningless when most people would rather take FREE stuff if there are no consequences
That line is plainly absurd in its entirety, but more importantly, how on earth is that an argument for NOT offering competitive prices and quality of service? I'm sure that $60 for a game or $20 for a weekend of Starcraft do alienate a very significant number of people that would actually pay a fair price for a good service rather than get it for free, if the option was there. how is it beating around the bush? how is DRM irrelevant? do you not know what DRM is? If the option of free is there, people will always get it for free. how is this absurd? People in the US would buy stuff from walmart to save themselves a couple of dollars instead of buying made in USA. Its not absurd, its human nature. We like cheap stuff if it ensures similar (in case of piracy, identical) quality What you're saying makes no sense at all. EVERY piece of media / entertainment content is available for free, unless it's a really obscure one with a very niche following. So following your logic, nobody would ever pay for anything - yet back here in the real world, that is obviously not the case. Which I'm pretty sure you're well aware of, so I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here. Because not everything is equal. Currently some stuff is easier to buy than to find/download said media.
And therein lies the secret of providing a good service and a good price, so that it is easier and more convenient to buy than to get off of torrents.
Which is what I'm talking about and you claim doesn't matter because "people will get it for free anyway".
Lets put an extreme case, if someone manage to copy steam's UI and allowed to download every game from steam for free at the same accessibility, speed, and safety, hosted in some 3rd world backwatered nation, do you think it would not have affected steam's sales?
Of course it would. The problem is - that's actually impossible to do.
|
On February 29 2012 08:15 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 08:09 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 08:06 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:57 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 07:53 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:39 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 07:36 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. But this simply isn't true. It's the big companies that end up tanking the most damage and being the most outspoken about the "issues". Many smaller companies actually fare comparatively better than the big ones because of better priced products, a more loyal audience and (often) consistent support and updates for the game, with lower costs. The companies that get hurt the most by piracy - in any part of the entertainment industry - are the old mammoth corporations with monopolistic attitudes that drove the prices of entertainment products extremely high just because they could, and are now facing the great equalizer that is the internet which gives smaller and more agile companies a way to garner enough attention and compete with lower production and distribution costs (thus prices). It is not the piracy itself that bothers them as much as the fact that they're no longer dictating the rules and have found themselves in a new, hostile environment. every software industry gets hurt by piracy, especially smaller companies that can't afford the money or time to setup drm. You're beating around the bush a lot. Everyone gets hurt by it, sure, but not all wounds hurt the same. Big companies that run on outdated business models certainly feel the pain a lot more. Obviously, it's not so much the size that matters, it's the model, but big companies are slower and harder to adapt. DRM is irrelevant for the most part, I don't know why people are mentioning it all the time. Multiplayer games are about the only thing where it actually matters, and in that case the solutions are fairly straightforward and functional.
Offering competitive price is meaningless when most people would rather take FREE stuff if there are no consequences
That line is plainly absurd in its entirety, but more importantly, how on earth is that an argument for NOT offering competitive prices and quality of service? I'm sure that $60 for a game or $20 for a weekend of Starcraft do alienate a very significant number of people that would actually pay a fair price for a good service rather than get it for free, if the option was there. how is it beating around the bush? how is DRM irrelevant? do you not know what DRM is? If the option of free is there, people will always get it for free. how is this absurd? People in the US would buy stuff from walmart to save themselves a couple of dollars instead of buying made in USA. Its not absurd, its human nature. We like cheap stuff if it ensures similar (in case of piracy, identical) quality What you're saying makes no sense at all. EVERY piece of media / entertainment content is available for free, unless it's a really obscure one with a very niche following. So following your logic, nobody would ever pay for anything - yet back here in the real world, that is obviously not the case. Which I'm pretty sure you're well aware of, so I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here. Because not everything is equal. Currently some stuff is easier to buy than to find/download said media. And therein lies the secret of providing a good service and a good price, so that it is easier and more convenient to buy than to get off of torrents. Which is what I'm talking about and you claim doesn't matter because "people will get it for free anyway".
you're starting a complete whole new topic. Even with providing good service and pricing, piracy still affects sales
|
On February 29 2012 08:16 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 08:15 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 08:09 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 08:06 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:57 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 07:53 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:39 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 07:36 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. But this simply isn't true. It's the big companies that end up tanking the most damage and being the most outspoken about the "issues". Many smaller companies actually fare comparatively better than the big ones because of better priced products, a more loyal audience and (often) consistent support and updates for the game, with lower costs. The companies that get hurt the most by piracy - in any part of the entertainment industry - are the old mammoth corporations with monopolistic attitudes that drove the prices of entertainment products extremely high just because they could, and are now facing the great equalizer that is the internet which gives smaller and more agile companies a way to garner enough attention and compete with lower production and distribution costs (thus prices). It is not the piracy itself that bothers them as much as the fact that they're no longer dictating the rules and have found themselves in a new, hostile environment. every software industry gets hurt by piracy, especially smaller companies that can't afford the money or time to setup drm. You're beating around the bush a lot. Everyone gets hurt by it, sure, but not all wounds hurt the same. Big companies that run on outdated business models certainly feel the pain a lot more. Obviously, it's not so much the size that matters, it's the model, but big companies are slower and harder to adapt. DRM is irrelevant for the most part, I don't know why people are mentioning it all the time. Multiplayer games are about the only thing where it actually matters, and in that case the solutions are fairly straightforward and functional.
Offering competitive price is meaningless when most people would rather take FREE stuff if there are no consequences
That line is plainly absurd in its entirety, but more importantly, how on earth is that an argument for NOT offering competitive prices and quality of service? I'm sure that $60 for a game or $20 for a weekend of Starcraft do alienate a very significant number of people that would actually pay a fair price for a good service rather than get it for free, if the option was there. how is it beating around the bush? how is DRM irrelevant? do you not know what DRM is? If the option of free is there, people will always get it for free. how is this absurd? People in the US would buy stuff from walmart to save themselves a couple of dollars instead of buying made in USA. Its not absurd, its human nature. We like cheap stuff if it ensures similar (in case of piracy, identical) quality What you're saying makes no sense at all. EVERY piece of media / entertainment content is available for free, unless it's a really obscure one with a very niche following. So following your logic, nobody would ever pay for anything - yet back here in the real world, that is obviously not the case. Which I'm pretty sure you're well aware of, so I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here. Because not everything is equal. Currently some stuff is easier to buy than to find/download said media. And therein lies the secret of providing a good service and a good price, so that it is easier and more convenient to buy than to get off of torrents. Which is what I'm talking about and you claim doesn't matter because "people will get it for free anyway". Even with providing good service and pricing, piracy still affects sales
So does weather and the astrology.
The key is not whether piracy affects sales or not, it's how much it affects sales. Even now it's not as significant as you might want to believe, but ideally as more companies adapt to the reality that is the internet, it will be just another fringe statistic you can shrug off.
|
On February 29 2012 08:27 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 08:16 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 08:15 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 08:09 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 08:06 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:57 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 07:53 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:39 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 07:36 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:
[quote]
if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. But this simply isn't true. It's the big companies that end up tanking the most damage and being the most outspoken about the "issues". Many smaller companies actually fare comparatively better than the big ones because of better priced products, a more loyal audience and (often) consistent support and updates for the game, with lower costs. The companies that get hurt the most by piracy - in any part of the entertainment industry - are the old mammoth corporations with monopolistic attitudes that drove the prices of entertainment products extremely high just because they could, and are now facing the great equalizer that is the internet which gives smaller and more agile companies a way to garner enough attention and compete with lower production and distribution costs (thus prices). It is not the piracy itself that bothers them as much as the fact that they're no longer dictating the rules and have found themselves in a new, hostile environment. every software industry gets hurt by piracy, especially smaller companies that can't afford the money or time to setup drm. You're beating around the bush a lot. Everyone gets hurt by it, sure, but not all wounds hurt the same. Big companies that run on outdated business models certainly feel the pain a lot more. Obviously, it's not so much the size that matters, it's the model, but big companies are slower and harder to adapt. DRM is irrelevant for the most part, I don't know why people are mentioning it all the time. Multiplayer games are about the only thing where it actually matters, and in that case the solutions are fairly straightforward and functional.
Offering competitive price is meaningless when most people would rather take FREE stuff if there are no consequences
That line is plainly absurd in its entirety, but more importantly, how on earth is that an argument for NOT offering competitive prices and quality of service? I'm sure that $60 for a game or $20 for a weekend of Starcraft do alienate a very significant number of people that would actually pay a fair price for a good service rather than get it for free, if the option was there. how is it beating around the bush? how is DRM irrelevant? do you not know what DRM is? If the option of free is there, people will always get it for free. how is this absurd? People in the US would buy stuff from walmart to save themselves a couple of dollars instead of buying made in USA. Its not absurd, its human nature. We like cheap stuff if it ensures similar (in case of piracy, identical) quality What you're saying makes no sense at all. EVERY piece of media / entertainment content is available for free, unless it's a really obscure one with a very niche following. So following your logic, nobody would ever pay for anything - yet back here in the real world, that is obviously not the case. Which I'm pretty sure you're well aware of, so I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here. Because not everything is equal. Currently some stuff is easier to buy than to find/download said media. And therein lies the secret of providing a good service and a good price, so that it is easier and more convenient to buy than to get off of torrents. Which is what I'm talking about and you claim doesn't matter because "people will get it for free anyway". Even with providing good service and pricing, piracy still affects sales So does weather and the astrology. The key is not whether piracy affects sales or not, it's how much it affects sales. Even now it's not as significant as you might want to believe, but ideally as more companies adapt to the reality that is the internet, it will be just another fringe statistic you can shrug off.
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
But while we're on this topic, there is no way for you to offer any substantial evidence or proof that "it's not as significant". Neither can I fully blame piracy as the sole factor that contributes to the overall decline in software sales. If we look at this hypothetically, where does the revenue for these developers come from if everybody has the same mindset as you; that piracy is ok and does not affect the bottom line of a company?
And that is exactly what has happened with China, where pirated products is extremely abundant and its citizens are not fully educated about intellectual properties and rather just get free stuff with the same effort.
also the steam's extreme case scenario is just a hypothetical case, but it is not impossible fyi.
p.s stop with the red herring, its getting quite tedious.
|
In china, it is very hard to find legit copies of stuff in shops, as nearly everything is pirated. Until we see high street stalls selling 50 cent DVD right in front of chain stores, we can't use China as evidence formor against piracy. It is simply at too extreme a level. In china, they made fake apple stores lol.
|
On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 08:27 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 08:16 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 08:15 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 08:09 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 08:06 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:57 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 07:53 Talin wrote:On February 29 2012 07:39 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 07:36 Talin wrote:
[quote]
But this simply isn't true. It's the big companies that end up tanking the most damage and being the most outspoken about the "issues". Many smaller companies actually fare comparatively better than the big ones because of better priced products, a more loyal audience and (often) consistent support and updates for the game, with lower costs.
The companies that get hurt the most by piracy - in any part of the entertainment industry - are the old mammoth corporations with monopolistic attitudes that drove the prices of entertainment products extremely high just because they could, and are now facing the great equalizer that is the internet which gives smaller and more agile companies a way to garner enough attention and compete with lower production and distribution costs (thus prices). It is not the piracy itself that bothers them as much as the fact that they're no longer dictating the rules and have found themselves in a new, hostile environment. every software industry gets hurt by piracy, especially smaller companies that can't afford the money or time to setup drm. You're beating around the bush a lot. Everyone gets hurt by it, sure, but not all wounds hurt the same. Big companies that run on outdated business models certainly feel the pain a lot more. Obviously, it's not so much the size that matters, it's the model, but big companies are slower and harder to adapt. DRM is irrelevant for the most part, I don't know why people are mentioning it all the time. Multiplayer games are about the only thing where it actually matters, and in that case the solutions are fairly straightforward and functional.
Offering competitive price is meaningless when most people would rather take FREE stuff if there are no consequences
That line is plainly absurd in its entirety, but more importantly, how on earth is that an argument for NOT offering competitive prices and quality of service? I'm sure that $60 for a game or $20 for a weekend of Starcraft do alienate a very significant number of people that would actually pay a fair price for a good service rather than get it for free, if the option was there. how is it beating around the bush? how is DRM irrelevant? do you not know what DRM is? If the option of free is there, people will always get it for free. how is this absurd? People in the US would buy stuff from walmart to save themselves a couple of dollars instead of buying made in USA. Its not absurd, its human nature. We like cheap stuff if it ensures similar (in case of piracy, identical) quality What you're saying makes no sense at all. EVERY piece of media / entertainment content is available for free, unless it's a really obscure one with a very niche following. So following your logic, nobody would ever pay for anything - yet back here in the real world, that is obviously not the case. Which I'm pretty sure you're well aware of, so I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here. Because not everything is equal. Currently some stuff is easier to buy than to find/download said media. And therein lies the secret of providing a good service and a good price, so that it is easier and more convenient to buy than to get off of torrents. Which is what I'm talking about and you claim doesn't matter because "people will get it for free anyway". Even with providing good service and pricing, piracy still affects sales So does weather and the astrology. The key is not whether piracy affects sales or not, it's how much it affects sales. Even now it's not as significant as you might want to believe, but ideally as more companies adapt to the reality that is the internet, it will be just another fringe statistic you can shrug off. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Hmm, no, I can't recall that I did.
On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
But while we're on this topic, there is no way for you to offer any substantial evidence or proof that "it's not as significant".
How not-significant exactly do you want me to prove that it is? If I'm not mixing you up with somebody else (which you might be doing with me anyway xD), you're the one that said that if a company isn't as big as Blizzard, they're in "serious trouble" because of piracy, which is just factually wrong because there are plenty of smaller companies that are in no danger of disappearing at all and do not whine about piracy, or even offer free games themselves.
On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
If we look at this hypothetically, where does the revenue for these developers come from if everybody has the same mindset as you; that piracy is ok and does not affect the bottom line of a company?
The same place their revenue comes from today. What people normally consider when buying (or acquiring) any kind product is how practical, convenient and affordable the service and the product are. They aren't thinking about the financial status of the company which sells the product and what's good for that company and where their revenue will come from. None of those concern the consumers.
Piracy (and many other effects of modern day internet as a whole) is good because it forces the relevant industries to change and adapt their services, prices and generally the way they do everything in favor of the consumers by a huge margin. Which is ultimately a good thing for everyone as it means you'll constantly be getting better things for less money (legally).
At the end of the day, plenty of companies have figured out how to be profitable on the internet, many even offering their content for free. So there's no argument that it's impossible. It's very much possible. Ultimately, if some companies can't figure out how to do it, then there's simply no place for them on the market.
|
I have to say TL is full(not all just a lot) of Cheapskates, Poor people and/or People who hate e-sports/MLG.
|
I'm too used to watching that stuff for free on the TL website. I didn't even realize you had to go to the mlg site and pay to watch it -_-. By the time I found out about it I didn't feel like paying anymore. PLUS MKP WON. I'm glad i didnt' watch it, I hate that guy!!
|
On February 29 2012 09:18 Jacob666 wrote:
I have to say TL is full(not all just a lot) of Cheapskates, Poor people and/or People who hate e-sports/MLG.
I think by cheapskate you mean well informed and savvy consumer. Obviously people wouldn't pay for something they usually get for free. Especially with ASUS ROG happening the same weekend.
I had tons of fun watching ROG and I even if MLG was worth $20. Its not worth $20 more than ROG was to me.
|
On February 29 2012 09:30 zJayy962 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 09:18 Jacob666 wrote:
I have to say TL is full(not all just a lot) of Cheapskates, Poor people and/or People who hate e-sports/MLG. I think by cheapskate you mean well informed and savvy consumer. Obviously people wouldn't pay for something they usually get for free. Especially with ASUS ROG happening the same weekend. I had tons of fun watching ROG and I even if MLG was worth $20. Its not worth $20 more than ROG was to me.
No, "well informed and savvy consumers" wouldn't be pirating MLG when there's plenty of free tournaments going on. Those people are cheapskates. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to pay $20 for MLG and then nnot watching it. There is something wrong with all the people not paying for MLG but still watching it, and then trying to play it off like "oh, it wasn't worth the money but I still watched it over everything else"
|
On February 29 2012 09:47 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 09:30 zJayy962 wrote:On February 29 2012 09:18 Jacob666 wrote:
I have to say TL is full(not all just a lot) of Cheapskates, Poor people and/or People who hate e-sports/MLG. I think by cheapskate you mean well informed and savvy consumer. Obviously people wouldn't pay for something they usually get for free. Especially with ASUS ROG happening the same weekend. I had tons of fun watching ROG and I even if MLG was worth $20. Its not worth $20 more than ROG was to me. No, "well informed and savvy consumers" wouldn't be pirating MLG when there's plenty of free tournaments going on. Those people are cheapskates. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to pay $20 for MLG and then nnot watching it. There is something wrong with all the people not paying for MLG but still watching it, and then trying to play it off like "oh, it wasn't worth the money but I still watched it over everything else" Doesn't matter if it's worth the money if I can get for free by doing absolutely nothing
|
On February 29 2012 09:50 Spiders wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 09:47 hunts wrote:On February 29 2012 09:30 zJayy962 wrote:On February 29 2012 09:18 Jacob666 wrote:
I have to say TL is full(not all just a lot) of Cheapskates, Poor people and/or People who hate e-sports/MLG. I think by cheapskate you mean well informed and savvy consumer. Obviously people wouldn't pay for something they usually get for free. Especially with ASUS ROG happening the same weekend. I had tons of fun watching ROG and I even if MLG was worth $20. Its not worth $20 more than ROG was to me. No, "well informed and savvy consumers" wouldn't be pirating MLG when there's plenty of free tournaments going on. Those people are cheapskates. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to pay $20 for MLG and then nnot watching it. There is something wrong with all the people not paying for MLG but still watching it, and then trying to play it off like "oh, it wasn't worth the money but I still watched it over everything else" Doesn't matter if it's worth the money if I can get for free by doing absolutely nothing
And more cheap excuses for pirating, keep em coming. The fact is still the same that you watched a PPV product for free. You did not give MLG the money, and you did not support the huge variety of free streams. You pirated it, it doesn't matter how.
|
On February 29 2012 09:52 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 09:50 Spiders wrote:On February 29 2012 09:47 hunts wrote:On February 29 2012 09:30 zJayy962 wrote:On February 29 2012 09:18 Jacob666 wrote:
I have to say TL is full(not all just a lot) of Cheapskates, Poor people and/or People who hate e-sports/MLG. I think by cheapskate you mean well informed and savvy consumer. Obviously people wouldn't pay for something they usually get for free. Especially with ASUS ROG happening the same weekend. I had tons of fun watching ROG and I even if MLG was worth $20. Its not worth $20 more than ROG was to me. No, "well informed and savvy consumers" wouldn't be pirating MLG when there's plenty of free tournaments going on. Those people are cheapskates. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to pay $20 for MLG and then nnot watching it. There is something wrong with all the people not paying for MLG but still watching it, and then trying to play it off like "oh, it wasn't worth the money but I still watched it over everything else" Doesn't matter if it's worth the money if I can get for free by doing absolutely nothing And more cheap excuses for pirating, keep em coming. The fact is still the same that you watched a PPV product for free. You did not give MLG the money, and you did not support the huge variety of free streams. You pirated it, it doesn't matter how. Yeah and I really don't care. Sorry.
|
Good idea for a thread, I'm surprised how much of a minority I am for having paid the $15 gold discount.
|
On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published:
- Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!
- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office Sales
Piracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really.
|
Wow all those people mad we watched restreams. I did for the Finals because I had work the whole rest of the weekend.
And I was dyin to see MKP win
|
It's sad that there are more people who didn't pay than who did pay.....
|
On February 29 2012 09:58 Jampackedeon wrote:
Good idea for a thread, I'm surprised how much of a minority I am for having paid the $15 gold discount.
Same here, I thought there were more of us 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
