EPTeven by these guys tbh
MLG raises $11.3m in additional funding - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
alhazrel
98 Posts
even by these guys tbh | ||
|
Secret05
United States342 Posts
On March 15 2012 03:16 SimDawg wrote: After getting a game for free, and we're not talking about quantifiable in game items, we're talking about esports events. It's just not comparable. I'd imagine the average LoL player spends far less than $60, not to mention 2 expansion's worth of money on the game. No way man. "Micro transactions", which is what LoL uses, has proven to be extremely profitable. I know several people that have have spent more than $300 on LoL skins/characters. Just look at the company zynga, the creator of facebook games like Farmville, they've been insanely profitable by using micro transactions. | ||
|
ShinobiX
Germany33 Posts
On March 15 2012 02:32 andsaca wrote: mlg is doing good things. paying for travel and other general player support is just as important as prize money right now, it shows legitimacy to the outside world and any future potential investors. also, if they are still planning on purchasing a static studio on top of all this, they need to be making quite a bit. its a growth pain everyone. we need to help see them thru it, not complain about where all of this money is going Sorry, it's the talk like this (you are by far not the only one) that makes me think "What a load of horseshit." I repeat myself, who gives a fuck how much money teams or mlg makes? None of this, not paying the flight tickets, hotel rooms or even hookers is in any way improving the situation. As a sponsor I couldn't care less if a tournament pays a player's flight ticket. That doesn't make it more or less interesting to me, I just don't care. As a sponsor, all I care about is how much exposure my product gets and more importantly, how much that effects my own business. If I was Dr Pepper, do you think I would sell more drinks because MLG flew Idra to NYC? Please try to make that connection for me WITHOUT going far out on the theories? What interests me as a sponsor is exposure time and numbers of viewers. While I will concede that more arena events gets the sponsors more exposure time, it's traded off by fewer viewers, so while I don't know the numbers, I'd wager that it's not the same kind of success for sponsors as for MLG itself. And that is the bullshit that riles me, Sundance polishing his Halo saying he's helping eSport grow. Bullshit. Get the viewership numbers up, not the numbers in your bank statement. Then we're talking. | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
 Sundance and MLG and American E-sports hwaiting ~~~ | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
On March 15 2012 03:40 ShinobiX wrote: Sorry, it's the talk like this (you are by far not the only one) that makes me think "What a load of horseshit." I repeat myself, who gives a fuck how much money teams or mlg makes? None of this, not paying the flight tickets, hotel rooms or even hookers is in any way improving the situation. As a sponsor I couldn't care less if a tournament pays a player's flight ticket. That doesn't make it more or less interesting to me, I just don't care. As a sponsor, all I care about is how much exposure my product gets and more importantly, how much that effects my own business. If I was Dr Pepper, do you think I would sell more drinks because MLG flew Idra to NYC? Please try to make that connection for me WITHOUT going far out on the theories? What interests me as a sponsor is exposure time and numbers of viewers. While I will concede that more arena events gets the sponsors more exposure time, it's traded off by fewer viewers, so while I don't know the numbers, I'd wager that it's not the same kind of success for sponsors as for MLG itself. And that is the bullshit that riles me, Sundance polishing his Halo saying he's helping eSport grow. Bullshit. Get the viewership numbers up, not the numbers in your bank statement. Then we're talking. this this this so many people on here don't seem to understand business at all. The release at the start of the thread is for INVESTORS. Yes its cool that its growing but its to try and get more money into themselves - which is great. PPV is a fucking travesty, micro payments are a fucking travesty. If you want big sponsors you need BIG viewership. EVERY time you make me people pay you lose a %, every time you ask for money you lose a %. TBH the ENTIRE tournament could be viewed from a business sense as an exercise in getting as many viewers as possible because that is the poitn of maximum exposure. Sure at the events themselves its cool but its only a fraction of the people watching online. The only reason for having a LAN is that perception is that it is more competative, if someone marketed online as being more competative as its more *real* then the whole expensive situation of having a premises to host a tournament resolves itself (as many high quality tournaments did). Is it more competative? I dunno its all about definition - i don't think it actually matters. Im not seriously suggesting that as a solutino to international tournaments .. but in them the aim is to get the ping low enough to be able to play. Whether you are in the same building or on the same coast is by the by. The point is that the only reason for the tournament is to generate as many viewers as possible. That is what sponsors really want - investors want a solid business model and profit and growth with a large market that has not yet been fully utilised. The 2 problems intersect really well for esports. The PPV discussion is one of ... Option a) do we get sponsors to fund this Option b) to we get the players to fund this Sadly the viewers don't seem to understand and just want commentry with no regard for the long term costs or sustainability. If you want esports to work, then they have to work like every other sport and be done by sponsorship not by raping viewers. the reason why you pay TV companies is because they ahve nothing to do with the games themselves ... if Day[9] went indie adn decided to do his own MLG show and bought the rights to do that from MLG then id be happy to pay him. Will I help MLG with their incredibly short sighted idea for PPV? Hell no. There are other tournaments adn there will be other casters. Ive been watching this stuff for 10 years in a variety of games and ive watched it implode. However overall its growing, if MLG do go PPV you can bet they wont be around in 5-10 years as they wont be able to sustain the viewers unless they turn into a much wider platform for commented games in general. Also to anyone who wants pay per view: ECONOMY OF SCALE. Don't request a system that is designed for maximum profit. I want to buy in bulk, moreover they want you to buy in bulk (because some wont use the full value). Have some self respect | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On March 15 2012 02:42 Sphen5117 wrote: No offense, but that's and EXTREMELY ignorant post. There's no need to spend money on it? Then there's no need for exist. It won't exist if you don't spend money. You want a product for free? Well it costs money to produce. To get such solid, unique, and wonderful entertainment, it costs money. If you don't want to pay for it, then sad to say you should have a very very limited voice in what "IT" actually is. Sure it's a hobby to you. That's fine. If you don't care if it succeeds or fails then you probably shouldn't have a say in the direction it takes, how tourneys are run, what formats are used, etc. A lot of people buy games and don't sit around watching other people play them for hours. Many games don't even have a competitive scene to follow. Think rationally, Blizzard didn't make SC2 for the money they could make through the competitive scene. They made the money through game sales. We all invested 60 dollars when we bought SC2 Wings of Liberty. For some people that's enough money to get all the enjoyment they need out of it. If you want to be able to watch pros all day then give up your money. But there's nothing ignorant at all about his post. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On March 15 2012 02:42 Sphen5117 wrote: No offense, but that's and EXTREMELY ignorant post. There's no need to spend money on it? Then there's no need for exist. It won't exist if you don't spend money. You want a product for free? Well it costs money to produce. To get such solid, unique, and wonderful entertainment, it costs money. If you don't want to pay for it, then sad to say you should have a very very limited voice in what "IT" actually is. Sure it's a hobby to you. That's fine. If you don't care if it succeeds or fails then you probably shouldn't have a say in the direction it takes, how tourneys are run, what formats are used, etc. You shouldn't really call his post ignorant. He spent money when he purchased the game. He plays the game. He didn't ask for, nor receive the product for free, as you suggested, incorrectly. As far as his say in what "IT" actually is, his voice is just as important as yours, as you are both potential customers. If you blindly throw money at "IT" just to support eSports, that's fine for you, as it's your money, but don't expect rational people to do the same. MLG's events are entertainment, competing just like Blizzard did with the game itself. Personally, I think MLG does a fantastic job with their events, but my compliments are hardly income in their bank account. I agree with TB with the assessment that, generally, SC2 players expect things for free. Sure, there are some who buy GOM tickets, HD passes, stream subscriptions, but not only do most not do this, they expect the content for free. It's one thing to simply make the decision to not purchase if it's not worth the money to you, but quite another to bitch that it should be free. The MLG PPV thread told quite a story. A community entitlement party. | ||
|
Humposaurus
Netherlands86 Posts
 | ||
|
Synche
United States1345 Posts
On March 15 2012 03:40 Secret05 wrote: No way man. "Micro transactions", which is what LoL uses, has proven to be extremely profitable. I know several people that have have spent more than $300 on LoL skins/characters. Just look at the company zynga, the creator of facebook games like Farmville, they've been insanely profitable by using micro transactions. Micro transaction business model is about getting 4 times the people to pay $5, and allowing the extremely dedicated the ability to pay $300, $500, $5000. You say "insanely profitable" without having much knowledge about how the actual model works. I don't know that LoL has released numbers, so this is all speculative. It's the difference between average revenue per user (ARPU) and average revenue per paying user (ARPPU). I'd be hard pressed to imagine that even the ARPPU (a much less relevant number) for LoL is going to be much above the approximately $150 Blizzard will get on all 3 games. | ||
|
Sphen5117
United States413 Posts
On March 15 2012 02:45 skeldark wrote: who said i want this product? i want to see some games and play the game. No need for big pricepool, flying players around the world, or professional casters and players, to have this. And i am happy that in the sc2 community there are still people left, who care for sc2 and not for esport first. You guys think: if there is more money in it and if its bigger, its better. When i see all the drama threads and all this not sc2 related discussion in the community i think it makes it worse. But i agree with total biscuit on one point: this will move over to LOL soon. But that's the thing, you want to see games, right? I'm ASSUMING you want to see very high quality games with the most skilled of players, right? Not just constant cannon rushes, 6 pools, and lack of army control? Well to fost ther highest level of play, players have to be able to make a living playing so that they can invest the time to become that. The growth of esports is what it takes to let so many players make a living off this beautiful game. I don't question your love of the game itself, but please don't think I don't get the biggest of nerdchills when I watch amazing play. I don't think we dissagree on that, but I don't think you give credit to how necessary "esports" is for what you want. If all you want to watch is just ladder warriors duking it out, people that only play in their spare time, so that the game's strategy development is slow if not stagnant, and never realizing its full potential, thereby producing sub-par games for entertainment, then I guess go ahead. But I assumed you both want and enjoy much more. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
Its not about entitlement. Its about rich little kids who think they are being good by splashing money about. Its about a business model that rather than growing because of its popularity and sucking sponsors in is having to be artificially subsidized by the people that want to watch it therefor making it a lot less attractive to big sponsors because the viewership is substantially lower. Also if i start paying for things and the stream is laggy, they start running late, production value problems I GET ANGRY because i was ripped off. Right now things go wrong and its endearing, they are human and doing their best and i love them for it. In UK its only £50 to start a small claims settlement, if i buy a years subscription and i feel ripped off things get VERY expensive for MLG. Its a silly idea. If I paid for mlg and got NO adverts at all that would be fine. But there are sponsors logos EVERYWHERE. And paying $5 for a skin that will be sold 100,000 times is a joke. If you think thats value then you have no idea what $1 is actually worth in real world terms. do you want an example of an industry that uses micro payments? Strip clubs. Its not like tipping the musicians (which is a very american thing btw - in the UK we just pay them and then dont take all their wages in tax, they earn a living instead of having to beg) Moreover if you want SC2 to grow you need to get my dad watching it. If you charge him hes not going to watch it. Moreover some people who paid last time wont this time ... people don't need MLG they want good commentry of good games. There is so much of that which is community generated that it should be really obvious that any demand is totally artificial. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On March 15 2012 04:00 MrTortoise wrote: this this this so many people on here don't seem to understand business at all. The release at the start of the thread is for INVESTORS. Yes its cool that its growing but its to try and get more money into themselves - which is great. PPV is a fucking travesty, micro payments are a fucking travesty. If you want big sponsors you need BIG viewership. EVERY time you make me people pay you lose a %, every time you ask for money you lose a %. TBH the ENTIRE tournament could be viewed from a business sense as an exercise in getting as many viewers as possible because that is the poitn of maximum exposure. Sure at the events themselves its cool but its only a fraction of the people watching online. The only reason for having a LAN is that perception is that it is more competative, if someone marketed online as being more competative as its more *real* then the whole expensive situation of having a premises to host a tournament resolves itself (as many high quality tournaments did). Is it more competative? I dunno its all about definition - i don't think it actually matters. Im not seriously suggesting that as a solutino to international tournaments .. but in them the aim is to get the ping low enough to be able to play. Whether you are in the same building or on the same coast is by the by. The point is that the only reason for the tournament is to generate as many viewers as possible. That is what sponsors really want - investors want a solid business model and profit and growth with a large market that has not yet been fully utilised. The 2 problems intersect really well for esports. The PPV discussion is one of ... Option a) do we get sponsors to fund this Option b) to we get the players to fund this Sadly the viewers don't seem to understand and just want commentry with no regard for the long term costs or sustainability. If you want esports to work, then they have to work like every other sport and be done by sponsorship not by raping viewers. the reason why you pay TV companies is because they ahve nothing to do with the games themselves ... if Day[9] went indie adn decided to do his own MLG show and bought the rights to do that from MLG then id be happy to pay him. Will I help MLG with their incredibly short sighted idea for PPV? Hell no. There are other tournaments adn there will be other casters. Ive been watching this stuff for 10 years in a variety of games and ive watched it implode. However overall its growing, if MLG do go PPV you can bet they wont be around in 5-10 years as they wont be able to sustain the viewers unless they turn into a much wider platform for commented games in general. Also to anyone who wants pay per view: ECONOMY OF SCALE. Don't request a system that is designed for maximum profit. I want to buy in bulk, moreover they want you to buy in bulk (because some wont use the full value). Have some self respect Sorry. It seems you don't understand business. It is not MLG's goal to "want big sponsors". BH the ENTIRE tournament could be viewed from a business sense as an exercise in getting as many viewers as possible because that is the poitn of maximum exposure. ... is also not their goal. The goal of MLG (and Sundance), as is the goal of any for-profit institution, is to maximize shareholder wealth. Investors don't give a shit if you generate more income through sponsorships or through PPV. They care about bottom line results. Also to anyone who wants pay per view: ECONOMY OF SCALE. Don't request a system that is designed for maximum profit. I want to buy in bulk, moreover they want you to buy in bulk (because some wont use the full value). Have some self respect I don't even know what this is, but you should refrain from insulting others' business acumen. Have some self-respect yourself. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
Hence my focus on sponsors as I think that is the best source of revenue if MLG wants long term success. What is MLG's main source of revenue do you think? As a viewer where do you want it to be? My argument is that you do not want it funded by us the fans. Maybe you do, but i think that has no respect for the idea of online gaming as being something that people actually want to watch and will sustain itself. That is why i say people *wanting* ppv have no self respect. I think the community is stronger than that. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6252 Posts
On March 15 2012 04:19 Kaitlin wrote: Sorry. It seems you don't understand business. It is not MLG's goal to "want big sponsors". ... is also not their goal. The goal of MLG (and Sundance), as is the goal of any for-profit institution, is to maximize shareholder wealth. Investors don't give a shit if you generate more income through sponsorships or through PPV. They care about bottom line results. I don't even know what this is, but you should refrain from insulting others' business acumen. Have some self-respect yourself. You realize that by growing the scene it will only allow MLG to be a sustainable business in the future. So while in the short term PPV might be a good decission but in the long term it's questionable at best. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On March 15 2012 04:16 MrTortoise wrote: Also if i start paying for things and the stream is laggy, they start running late, production value problems I GET ANGRY because i was ripped off. Right now things go wrong and its endearing, they are human and doing their best and i love them for it. In UK its only £50 to start a small claims settlement, if i buy a years subscription and i feel ripped off things get VERY expensive for MLG. Its a silly idea. It's attitudes like this that hurt anyone trying to produce anything. Nobody is perfect, but there sure are plenty of assholes in the world ready to stomp them down for their efforts. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On March 15 2012 04:26 MrTortoise wrote: I distinguished between sponsors and investors. Hence my focus on sponsors as I think that is the best source of revenue if MLG wants long term success. What is MLG's main source of revenue do you think? As a viewer where do you want it to be? My argument is that you do not want it funded by us the fans. Maybe you do, but i think that has no respect for the idea of online gaming as being something that people actually want to watch and will sustain itself. That is why i say people *wanting* ppv have no self respect. I think the community is stronger than that. You consider investors a source of income ? They are not. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
If they didnt give you money then you wouldnt use them. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On March 15 2012 04:26 RvB wrote: You realize that by growing the scene it will only allow MLG to be a sustainable business in the future. So while in the short term PPV might be a good decission but in the long term it's questionable at best. The only thing that will enable MLG to be a sustainable business in the future is MLG's ability to operate at a profit. Short-term losses can be sustained, but if they aren't on a path of long-term profit, they fail just like any other business. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On March 15 2012 04:29 MrTortoise wrote: investors are a very short term source of income - they float you and then own part of you. If they didnt give you money then you wouldnt use them. They are a source of funds. They provide capitalization. They do not provide INCOME. Income is received in exchange for the product or service provided by the business. Investors are not buying subscriptions to streams, they are not contributing to the bottom line. They are investing, based on the assumption of making a profit off that investment. Customers are not paid back. Investors, generally, are. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6252 Posts
On March 15 2012 04:32 Kaitlin wrote: The only thing that will enable MLG to be a sustainable business in the future is MLG's ability to operate at a profit. Short-term losses can be sustained, but if they aren't on a path of long-term profit, they fail just like any other business. Yes and there's more than 1 way to achieve that. The best one is obviously to grow the scene as a whole since that will guarantee that there will be a market in 5 years or even 10 years. The PPV model does nothing more than stagnate the growth which like I and someone else said earlier is only bad for them in the long term. | ||
| ||
