|
"Major League Gaming secures $11.3M for eSports"
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/165604/Major_League_Gaming_secures_113M_for_eSports.php
New York City-based organization Major League Gaming, which hosts tournaments and events for competitive games in North America, has raised $11.3 million in a new round of funding.
This latest financing, which brings Major League Gaming's total amount raised to nearly $70 million, hints at continued and increasing interest in professional eSports, from both gamers and investors.
...
The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year. 241,000 people tuned into its Providence National Championships event alone last November.
MLG's latest funding is part of a $13 million targeted round of financing, according to an SEC filing submitted by the company on Monday.
MLG SEC Filing 2012-02-27, Signed 2012-03-12
I hope this signifies recent success and MLG is able to bring in investors showing this growth. Travel costs is the biggest expense right now for teams and if they can keep providing that I look forward to see more players come to NA. Even if they do not win that particular tournament at least they are not going in debt to play for the fans. This is for all eSports, not just SC2. Look forward to it all growing more and more.
Edit Update:
On March 14 2012 06:00 Slasher wrote:Alex of TheNextWeb has written a pretty good perspective of MLG's new money raise, which has a rather hopeful outlook on everything: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/03/13/how-major-league-gaming-went-all-in-landed-on-its-feet-and-raised-millions/Show nested quote +As Sundance said, ‘something came along a little bit quicker than planned.’ I take this as the need to prove to investors that MLG is a viable business, or that the company just needed to raise sooner than they expected. This led to the company needing to prove that its core idea ‘had wings.’ I take Sundance to mean by that statement: ‘will people pay for what we are providing?’ So, the company went ‘all in,’ to see what would happen.
That they transformed their own office into a studio for the event was likely no accident. I would bet that MLG was looking to run the event at the highest level it could, at the lowest cost possible. Therefore, by shaving some some expense by hosting the event themselves, they could provide the same value for viewers, and show a profit, which it could take to investors as proof that competitive gaming is no fantasy.
|
hmmm seems like PPV paid off?
glad to see Esports growing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On March 14 2012 03:34 Jiddra wrote:
Who is funding?
Private investors/venture capitalists I have to assume. The sale wasn't public and MLG doesn't offer common stock. Interestingly there is another $1million available for purchase according to that filing.
|
|
|
What is AMBI LLC?
Were they the investors?
|
I'd like to buy Sundance a drink
|
Any chance Sundance will stop doomsaying now?
|
On March 14 2012 03:31 ThatGuy89 wrote:
hmmm seems like PPV paid off?
glad to see Esports growing
No this has nothing to do with PPV, they are referring to Providence in the link.
|
On March 14 2012 03:31 ThatGuy89 wrote:
hmmm seems like PPV paid off?
glad to see Esports growing
no this is a completly baseless assumption, lets assume PPV was horrible what would you do to make it look like success?
Right release press news that you increase the funding but if you really look at these figures it doesn't mean anything really since they actually don't really know what they should do with all the money they made over the last year and deal could have been made way before the mlg.
I'm still very sceptical if the PPV thing was a success they were at least break even for sure but every neutral poll showed that like 70%-80% of the people that would have watched didn't due to PPV. I don't really know if the sponsors did like this.
This news timing seems like another strategical piece towards making people believe it was a great sucess, like the tweet right before MLG saying "PPV preorders exceeded our expactations".
|
This is awesome in every respect... Glad to see PPV worked out.
|
The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year.
holy shit, THAT IS HUGE growth. regardless of whether arena did well or not, MLG is doing really well.
|
Based on the timing, I'd say this has a lot to do with the recent inclusion of e-sports at the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference and the attempt at PPV. Clearly people with means are being swayed by Sundance and the brand that is MLG, and oh how exciting it is.
|
Dominican Republic275 Posts
The recent PPV stuff might have been to convince investors that events of this sort can generate money, thus the success of this round. Or so it would seems :o
|
On March 14 2012 03:40 idonthinksobro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:31 ThatGuy89 wrote:
hmmm seems like PPV paid off?
glad to see Esports growing no this is a completly baseless assumption, lets assume PPV was horrible what would you do to make it look like success? Right release press news that you increase the funding but if you really look at these figures it doesn't mean anything really since they actually don't really know what they should do with all the money they made over the last year and deal could have been made way before the mlg. I'm still very sceptical if the PPV thing was a success they were at least break even for sure but every neutral poll showed that like 70%-80% of the people that would have watched didn't due to PPV. I don't really know if the sponsors did like this. This news timing seems like another strategical piece towards making people believe it was a great sucess, like the tweet right before MLG saying "PPV preorders exceeded our expactations".
An SEC exempted securities form and a tweet are quite possibly some of the most different things I've ever imagined. Are you serious?
|
*paging business experts*
So.. with seamingly all of their revenue coming from VC, is this good? I know many companies start up with VC and eventually get a sustainable model so they can stand on their feet, the VC's get a nice ROI and everyone walks into the sunset.
However, MLG has been around 10+ years (correct?) and it seems like they still can't generate enough internal revenue (is this the correct term?) to be sustainable. Eventually VC dries up, right? What is so different from the dreaded 'sponsorship model' and the 'VC model'? It seems about the same to a laymen like me.
I think some of the big risks MLG has taken lately like a high priced PPV is perhaps due to itchy VC's wanting to see some type of return or proof that MLG can be profitable?
What kind of longevity does MLG have if all of their funding is coming from VCs? The fact that they 'sold' another 11.3 (want 13) million in VC a good sign? Good because investors still care about MLG and think it's worth while? Or a bad sign, that MLG still can't be profitable on their own and still need to reach out to VCs?
Thanks in advance if any expert can answer my queries.
<3
|
Companies like Yelp have not even turned a profit but investors are hungry for it's IPO.
|
Kind of related, but I was wondering if MLG had released their PPV numbers yet?
|
On March 14 2012 03:49 crms wrote:
*paging business experts*
So.. with seamingly all of their revenue coming from VC, is this good? I know many companies start up with VC and eventually get a sustainable model so they can stand on their feet, the VC's get a nice ROI and everyone walks into the sunset.
However, MLG has been around 10+ years (correct?) and it seems like they still can't generate enough internal revenue (is this the correct term?) to be sustainable. Eventually VC dries up, right? What is so different from the dreaded 'sponsorship model' and the 'VC model'? It seems about the same to a laymen like me.
I think some of the big risks MLG has taken lately like a high priced PPV is perhaps due to itchy VC's wanting to see some type of return or proof that MLG can be profitable?
What kind of longevity does MLG have if all of their funding is coming from VCs? The fact that they 'sold' another 11.3 (want 13) million in VC a good sign? Good because investors still care about MLG and think it's worth while? Or a bad sign, that MLG still can't be profitable on their own and still need to reach out to VCs?
Thanks in advance if any expert can answer my queries.
<3
If they were doing so well that they didn't want VC anymore (because they didn't want to lose the partial ownership) then that would definitely be substantially better. But, given that they're not making money on their own yet, this is very good news. It means they have the money to last a while longer. It also means that these VC experts that invested in them believe that they will end up profitable enough to make it worth the money (and they've presumably gotten to see all their books and everything, so that's a pretty good sign for those of us who don't know enough to have our own opinion).
|
Raised money for MLG and their eSports products.
Good for them.
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
|
On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
They offered shares of MLG or options to purchase shares at a later date, while the company is not publically traded they are able to offer ownership in exchange for money. It's all private/venture capital investment. This is not a statement of revenue, but it is interesting to note they're in the 5-25million/year catagory.
*EDIT -- Basically this is not a statement of revnue, but a declaration that they sold ownership/options to private investors.
|
On March 14 2012 03:38 carloselcoco wrote:
What is AMBI LLC?
Were they the investors?
AMBI Limited Liability Corporation is just MLG.
|
On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing.
But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol
|
On March 14 2012 03:55 battyone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
They offered shares of MLG or options to purchase shares at a later date, while the company is not publically traded they are able to offer ownership in exchange for money. It's all private/venture capital investment. This is not a statement of revenue, but it is interesting to note they're in the 5-25million/year catagory.
Thank you, that's what i suspected.
|
Wow! That is epic news! Glad to see MLG putting eSports on the map!
|
On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol
The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth.
|
On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
Raised money for MLG and their eSports products.
Good for them.
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
Sundance said on LO3 that he needed to show investors that Esports could be profitable. MLG has said that their PPV model for the Arena was very successful which would lead you to believe that companies that were unsure of Esports are now on board or at the very least more interested and willing to throw money at MLG.
|
On March 14 2012 03:49 crms wrote:
*paging business experts*
So.. with seamingly all of their revenue coming from VC, is this good? I know many companies start up with VC and eventually get a sustainable model so they can stand on their feet, the VC's get a nice ROI and everyone walks into the sunset.
However, MLG has been around 10+ years (correct?) and it seems like they still can't generate enough internal revenue (is this the correct term?) to be sustainable. Eventually VC dries up, right? What is so different from the dreaded 'sponsorship model' and the 'VC model'? It seems about the same to a laymen like me.
I think some of the big risks MLG has taken lately like a high priced PPV is perhaps due to itchy VC's wanting to see some type of return or proof that MLG can be profitable?
What kind of longevity does MLG have if all of their funding is coming from VCs? The fact that they 'sold' another 11.3 (want 13) million in VC a good sign? Good because investors still care about MLG and think it's worth while? Or a bad sign, that MLG still can't be profitable on their own and still need to reach out to VCs?
Thanks in advance if any expert can answer my queries.
<3
I think one of the most important things to take into consideration when it comes to the possible longevity of MLG is the exponential growth they've experienced in the past year and a half or so. From online content to live events to taking better care of players monetarily, MLG has been ramping up on all fronts. From a financial perspective, the MLG of today is a very different sort of company than, say, MLG circa 2008, and a lot of potential investors are going to be smart enough to differentiate between the two in terms of forecasting success.
|
On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth.
As a counterpoint this encourages people to get friends over/share the expense. A lot more people out at barcrafts, or being with friends is not a bad thing. If you're paying $20 to watch a weekend, you're gonna call some buddies over, have some beers and maybe just maybe more people will get into it. There is a balance between free and PPV that can be acheived (look @ WWF/WWE or UFC for example), and I don't see the PPV model as determential. With that being said this is a bit derailing to the thread, maybe you can get someone from MLG on your show so we can discuss further 
|
On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth.
PPV was profitable. A profiting industry that doesn't rely solely on sponsors is good for said industry. Everyone involved with e-sports at a high level, such as EG management have all said that having financial independence will do tremendous things for the scene in general. Being so reliant on sponsorship makes the scene really fickle financially. A company like MLG showing that they can keep themselves afloat shows investors that someone competent is running the gig and that they can make money for investors. How can you say that financial independence isn't empowering to the scene?
|
Glad to MLG that they can continue running their business.
Even though I think that it ultimately is the team's job to support their players, I don't mind MLG giving them a helping hand as long as competitive gaming isn't big enough yet so that teams can attract big sponsors.
|
On March 14 2012 03:53 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:49 crms wrote:
*paging business experts*
So.. with seamingly all of their revenue coming from VC, is this good? I know many companies start up with VC and eventually get a sustainable model so they can stand on their feet, the VC's get a nice ROI and everyone walks into the sunset.
However, MLG has been around 10+ years (correct?) and it seems like they still can't generate enough internal revenue (is this the correct term?) to be sustainable. Eventually VC dries up, right? What is so different from the dreaded 'sponsorship model' and the 'VC model'? It seems about the same to a laymen like me.
I think some of the big risks MLG has taken lately like a high priced PPV is perhaps due to itchy VC's wanting to see some type of return or proof that MLG can be profitable?
What kind of longevity does MLG have if all of their funding is coming from VCs? The fact that they 'sold' another 11.3 (want 13) million in VC a good sign? Good because investors still care about MLG and think it's worth while? Or a bad sign, that MLG still can't be profitable on their own and still need to reach out to VCs?
Thanks in advance if any expert can answer my queries.
<3 If they were doing so well that they didn't want VC anymore (because they didn't want to lose the partial ownership) then that would definitely be substantially better. But, given that they're not making money on their own yet, this is very good news. It means they have the money to last a while longer. It also means that these VC experts that invested in them believe that they will end up profitable enough to make it worth the money (and they've presumably gotten to see all their books and everything, so that's a pretty good sign for those of us who don't know enough to have our own opinion).
As someone who have taken 1 finance class (so no expert) I have to say that this sounds like a correct response 
|
On March 14 2012 04:01 battyone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth. As a counterpoint this encourages people to get friends over/share the expense. A lot more people out at barcrafts, or being with friends is not a bad thing. If you're paying $20 to watch a weekend, you're gonna call some buddies over, have some beers and maybe just maybe more people will get into it. There is a balance between free and PPV that can be acheived (look @ WWF/WWE or UFC for example), and I don't see the PPV model as determential. With that being said this is a bit derailing to the thread, maybe you can get someone from MLG on your show so we can discuss further
Good point! I am not against MLG going for PPV but saying that PPV is the reason why people invest in eSports is simply not entirely true. Growth of eSports is also not directly linked to PPV. I think it's too early to really understand the effects of the model on the scene. I guess the fact that MLG was able to secure funding is a good sign for them. As long as PPV is not the norm, the model can work for certain companies.
I agree, let's not discuss this any more detail here as it is not the point of the thread.
|
any idea how much each event costs ?
|
dont know if this has anyting to do with PPV but congrats on MLG for getting money!
|
Doesn't seem right posting the info of Staff names and Addresses
|
On March 14 2012 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth. PPV was profitable. A profiting industry that doesn't rely solely on sponsors is good for said industry. Everyone involved with e-sports at a high level, such as EG management have all said that having financial independence will do tremendous things for the scene in general. Being so reliant on sponsorship makes the scene really fickle financially. A company like MLG showing that they can keep themselves afloat shows investors that someone competent is running the gig and that they can make money for investors. How can you say that financial independence isn't empowering to the scene?
It's not exactly financial independence that has been achieved here.
But I agree, financial independence is always empowering.
I was talking about growth in numbers (consumers). I also agree that the cash flow in the scene needs to change to a more stable and sustainable revenue system. PPV is one option, certainly not the only one.
I'd say we stop discussing that here as it is not necessarily the topic of this thread. Feel free to PM me if you want to keep exchanging ideas about this.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
On March 14 2012 04:06 Jellomomello wrote:
Doesn't seem right posting the info of Staff names and Addresses
It's a legally required form required to be public.
|
On March 14 2012 04:06 leecH wrote:
dont know if this has anyting to do with PPV but congrats on MLG for getting money!
As a professional in the finance world...I would conjecture that it did. Showing profitability is VERY important to VC investors. The "urgency" behind such a high PPV cost ($20, instead of trying a lower figure) could also have been an attempt to surge revenue at the last moment to appease such investors. I actually kinda suspected this was going on, given some of the words by Sundance in interviews around that time.
I'm just wondering where I can buy into their options
|
On March 14 2012 04:13 mathsucks wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:06 leecH wrote:
dont know if this has anyting to do with PPV but congrats on MLG for getting money! As a professional in the finance world...I would conjecture that it did. Showing profitability is VERY important to VC investors. The "urgency" behind such a high PPV cost ($20, instead of trying a lower figure) could also have been an attempt to surge revenue at the last moment to appease such investors. I actually kinda suspected this was going on, given some of the words by Sundance in interviews around that time. I'm just wondering where I can buy into their options
I think someone wrote earlier in the thread that they aren't public 
Edit: For a professional in the finance world you have a very interesting username
|
So private companys in the US doesn't need to have their books public? :-/ Would be interesting to look at the state of affairs.
|
And yet the prize pool is stupidly low, specially in 2011 when it was 5k for the winner...
I dont really think MLG wants to expand and popularize esport as much as they want to profit from it.
|
On March 14 2012 04:16 JOJOsc2news wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:13 mathsucks wrote:On March 14 2012 04:06 leecH wrote:
dont know if this has anyting to do with PPV but congrats on MLG for getting money! As a professional in the finance world...I would conjecture that it did. Showing profitability is VERY important to VC investors. The "urgency" behind such a high PPV cost ($20, instead of trying a lower figure) could also have been an attempt to surge revenue at the last moment to appease such investors. I actually kinda suspected this was going on, given some of the words by Sundance in interviews around that time. I'm just wondering where I can buy into their options I think someone wrote earlier in the thread that they aren't public Edit: For a professional in the finance world you have a very interesting username
Why does being public matter? Stock options? Those exist for private companies
Re: your edit.....yeah I was going through calculus in college and coincidentally happened to need a new username around the time I was doing some nasty homework.
|
Not gonna say I agree with the venture capitalists, but hey. They're the experts right?
|
On March 14 2012 04:13 mathsucks wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:06 leecH wrote:
dont know if this has anyting to do with PPV but congrats on MLG for getting money! As a professional in the finance world...I would conjecture that it did. Showing profitability is VERY important to VC investors. The "urgency" behind such a high PPV cost ($20, instead of trying a lower figure) could also have been an attempt to surge revenue at the last moment to appease such investors. I actually kinda suspected this was going on, given some of the words by Sundance in interviews around that time. I'm just wondering where I can buy into their options
If you have a spare 1.5ish million lying around that you see as 100% disposable might want to shoot them an email, looks like this round of VC didn't quite sell out.
|
On March 14 2012 04:18 Jiddra wrote:
So private companys in the US doesn't need to have their books public? :-/ Would be interesting to look at the state of affairs.
Nope, only publicly traded companies have to have their books public.
Private/VC investors are typically given financials before investing, but the numbers still remain confidential.
|
On March 14 2012 04:20 mathsucks wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:18 Jiddra wrote:
So private companys in the US doesn't need to have their books public? :-/ Would be interesting to look at the state of affairs. Nope, only publicly traded companies have to have their books public. Private/VC investors are typically given financials before investing, but the numbers still remain confidential.
Feels weird for a swede, here every company have their financial statement made public (except the smallest forms of companys).
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On March 14 2012 04:18 SuperStyle wrote:
And yet the prize pool is stupidly low, specially in 2011 when it was 5k for the winner...
I dont really think MLG wants to expand and popularize esport as much as they want to profit from it.
No shit they're a business.
|
On March 14 2012 03:40 Sprouter wrote:Show nested quote +
The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year.
holy shit, THAT IS HUGE growth. regardless of whether arena did well or not, MLG is doing really well.
Yeah, that's rather remarkable MLG doing well -> e-sports as a whole hopefully doing well ^^
|
On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth.
Yeah they should totally still have free events, and then use the revenue generated from charging their loyal customers for a premium product to provide a better free event. Brilliant idea, you should let Sundance know about this asap.
|
did anyone read the comment someone left below the article?
How absolutely wrong is that guy. ROFL
+ Show Spoiler +
User was warned for this post
|
On March 14 2012 04:26 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:18 SuperStyle wrote:
And yet the prize pool is stupidly low, specially in 2011 when it was 5k for the winner...
I dont really think MLG wants to expand and popularize esport as much as they want to profit from it. No shit they're a business.
And that makes crying about "growth of esports" and sundance calling people to save esports what?
|
On March 14 2012 04:26 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:18 SuperStyle wrote:
And yet the prize pool is stupidly low, specially in 2011 when it was 5k for the winner...
I dont really think MLG wants to expand and popularize esport as much as they want to profit from it. No shit they're a business.
I can't imagine how MLG could profit from expanding and popularizing esports...
|
Wow 11 mill is a lot
$100,000 for a 1st place should be very doable! Korean progamers would come to the U.S. in droves!
|
Additional round of investment can be good or bad. Good because it gives MLG more capital to grow the business, but bad because the investor is the same as the one that invested before. It could be a scenario that MLG has been losing money throughout the year and its initial investor wants to invest more to hopefully turn the business around, rather than lose everything altogether.
Interesting note in the SEC filing, it says MLG has revenues of $5mm-$25mm, which is somewhat telling. For some reason I had expected it to be larger, but it begs the question how viable Esports really is? MLG has been around 10 years and has yet to break $25mm in revenue. Couple that with MLG being a highly capital intensive organization, one would have to assume they barely break even/take a loss every year. You compare that to a company like Pinterest which started a year ago, doesn't make revenue but has ~10mm users already. If I were a VC investor, I know where my money is going.
|
On March 14 2012 04:32 rhs408 wrote:
Wow 11 mill is a lot
$100,000 for a 1st place should be very doable! Korean progamers would come to the U.S. in droves!
That money's not for handing to Koreans, it's for making MLG profitable.
Good luck with that...
|
On March 14 2012 04:30 Jarree wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:26 Chill wrote:On March 14 2012 04:18 SuperStyle wrote:
And yet the prize pool is stupidly low, specially in 2011 when it was 5k for the winner...
I dont really think MLG wants to expand and popularize esport as much as they want to profit from it. No shit they're a business. And that makes crying about "growth of esports" and sundance calling people to save esports what?
Brilliant marketing scheme?
If they can appease everyone and make money great.. but at the end of the day, making money is #1 for a business.
|
Really well done for MLG, I hope this will result in more exposure for e-sports.
I'm glad sundance is working to get funding from at least three different places: venture capital, PPV and sponsorships. This is great!
|
Sundance must sell a hell of a pitch, because it is hard to believe he's still able to secure more money for MLG. Since 2006, they have secured 67,6 millions in just 6 years!
2012-03-12 - equity + options - 11 300 698 dollars
2011-11-23 - debt + option -2 500 000 dollars
2011-08-12 - debt + option - 3 083 328
2010-12-30 - equity - 3 333 353 dollars
2009-08-31 - equity - 3 499 995 dollars
2008-12-31 - equity + option - 7 500 000 dollars
2007-06-18 - equity - 1 400 000 dollars
2006-11-20 - equity - 25 000 000 dollars
2006-07-31 - equity - 10 000 000 dollars
They have invested 11 millions per year for a generated revenue of what, 5 to 25 millions dollars?
|
Awesome.
please nobody confuse "Total # of viewers = 240k for one event" with "240k viewers at a given time" though.
Don't forget what the difference is, and immediately assume that MLG gets so many more viewers than stuff like HSC or Dreamhack because "the highest you ever see on viewer # for HSC is 60k" or some junk like that...
A tournament held over multiple days could have 240k unique viewers for one event while never going over 60-80k at any given time. This is a reminder so nobody makes a fool of themselves and goes home thinking that MLG gets 4 times the viewers as every other tourney.. They don't, but they're doing great for themselves and we love to see that
|
If the financial picture is absolutely rosy they don't need to offer ownership shares for VC. If the financial picture is absolutely grim, no VCs will buy ownership shares.
It's neither amazing nor terrible news.
|
On March 14 2012 04:42 caradoc wrote:
If the financial picture is absolutely rosy they don't need to offer ownership shares for VC. If the financial picture is absolutely grim, no VCs will buy ownership shares.
It's neither amazing nor terrible news.
This, though I'm feeling that the VC are seeing a light of the tunnel due to the success of 2011/SC 2/LOL.
|
Yea i guess its not bad news lol^^
|
On March 14 2012 03:49 crms wrote:
*paging business experts*
So.. with seamingly all of their revenue coming from VC, is this good? I know many companies start up with VC and eventually get a sustainable model so they can stand on their feet, the VC's get a nice ROI and everyone walks into the sunset.
However, MLG has been around 10+ years (correct?) and it seems like they still can't generate enough internal revenue (is this the correct term?) to be sustainable. Eventually VC dries up, right? What is so different from the dreaded 'sponsorship model' and the 'VC model'? It seems about the same to a laymen like me.
I think some of the big risks MLG has taken lately like a high priced PPV is perhaps due to itchy VC's wanting to see some type of return or proof that MLG can be profitable?
What kind of longevity does MLG have if all of their funding is coming from VCs? The fact that they 'sold' another 11.3 (want 13) million in VC a good sign? Good because investors still care about MLG and think it's worth while? Or a bad sign, that MLG still can't be profitable on their own and still need to reach out to VCs?
Thanks in advance if any expert can answer my queries.
<3
VC's will shovel money at anything, as long as you call yourself "Web 2.0" They know that all it takes is one good initial public offering to make it all back and then some.
The real question is, as VC's continue to eat up portions of MLG how much operational control are they going to start to exert onto MLG, because even a dumb VC that primarily destroys its investors capital at it chases the next youtube/facebook/zynga eventually is going to want to see where its money is going.
So to answer your question, if MLG suddenly announces that they have a new Chief Operating Officer or some other VC watchdog who is directly on the staff, its bad news.
|
Congrats to MLG, securing this kind of money isn't easy.
But they've basically told us the pitch already. MLG touts the fact that StarCraft 2 has attracted a large and loyal fan base and with the PPV, that many of those fans are willing to pay for events. There's no way to know if the community has taken well to advertising in relation to other sports and the tech sector. So MLG might not be profitable yet but they're growing. Their 2012 revenues are easily above where they were in 2011 at this point.
I'd be curious to know what % growth MLG is predicting though. Do they need a million viewers for the Fall Championship to meet expectations?
|
On March 14 2012 04:38 legaton wrote:
Sundance must sell a hell of a pitch, because it is hard to believe he's still able to secure more money for MLG. Since 2006, they have secured 67,6 millions in just 6 years!
2012-03-12 - equity + options - 11 300 698 dollars
2011-11-23 - debt + option -2 500 000 dollars
2011-08-12 - debt + option - 3 083 328
2010-12-30 - equity - 3 333 353 dollars
2009-08-31 - equity - 3 499 995 dollars
2008-12-31 - equity + option - 7 500 000 dollars
2007-06-18 - equity - 1 400 000 dollars
2006-11-20 - equity - 25 000 000 dollars
2006-07-31 - equity - 10 000 000 dollars
They have invested 11 millions per year for a generated revenue of what, 5 to 25 millions dollars?
Ya so? Groupon is still not profitable and they were able to do an IPO. Ditto linkedin.
As long as the VC's can find a greater fool theyll think its okay. Look at Zynga, they are just announced a secondary offering of their shares, and they've been public for less than a year.
Its just that most of us dont remember the bubble in 99, but basically the supply of idiots with money is finite but surprisingly much larger than a normal person would expect.
|
On March 14 2012 04:42 caradoc wrote:
If the financial picture is absolutely rosy they don't need to offer ownership shares for VC. If the financial picture is absolutely grim, no VCs will buy ownership shares.
It's neither amazing nor terrible news.
The question is what percentage of the company MLG had to give up.
|
Sundance won't stop the doomsday predictions because of this.
|
On March 14 2012 03:49 crms wrote:
However, MLG has been around 10+ years (correct?) and it seems like they still can't generate enough internal revenue (is this the correct term?) to be sustainable. Eventually VC dries up, right? What is so different from the dreaded 'sponsorship model' and the 'VC model'? It seems about the same to a laymen like me.
If they're still able to raise 8 figures, SOMEONE might think there's so potential still. That or the investors are of pro sports teams owners ilk and are just looking for a new toy.
On March 14 2012 04:54 mindspike wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:42 caradoc wrote:
If the financial picture is absolutely rosy they don't need to offer ownership shares for VC. If the financial picture is absolutely grim, no VCs will buy ownership shares.
It's neither amazing nor terrible news. The question is what percentage of the company MLG had to give up.
I wish Kevin O'Leary bought 51%
|
On March 14 2012 04:56 ropumar wrote:
Sundance won't stop the doomsday predictions because of this.
Even after our successful PPV we have to sell equity to stay afloat.. the Eye of Sauron still watches ESPORTS
|
On March 14 2012 04:33 kakaman wrote:
Additional round of investment can be good or bad. Good because it gives MLG more capital to grow the business, but bad because the investor is the same as the one that invested before. It could be a scenario that MLG has been losing money throughout the year and its initial investor wants to invest more to hopefully turn the business around, rather than lose everything altogether.
Interesting note in the SEC filing, it says MLG has revenues of $5mm-$25mm, which is somewhat telling. For some reason I had expected it to be larger, but it begs the question how viable Esports really is? MLG has been around 10 years and has yet to break $25mm in revenue. Couple that with MLG being a highly capital intensive organization, one would have to assume they barely break even/take a loss every year. You compare that to a company like Pinterest which started a year ago, doesn't make revenue but has ~10mm users already. If I were a VC investor, I know where my money is going.
What is wrong with previous investors investing again? If anything, that shows me that they are impressed. Most businesses are unprofitable for some time. Look at most of the recent IPOs in the US...many of them are unprofitable still, and they're being publicly invested in.
Most VC's don't chase bad money with more bad money, so it's unlikely that they're investing ANOTHER $11m if MLG was hurting that badly. Considering their stated revenue range...$11m is a considerable amount of money.
I'm familiar with the company that owns Pinterest and it's doing very well, but revenue does NOT equal profitability. With all of these companies financials private, we can only assume that the experts that did get to look over their financials (the VC guys) felt that they were worthy of pumping another $11m in.
|
How much of the money have the players received? I don't think it's more than $300k for all the MLG combined.
|
On March 14 2012 05:18 blamekilly wrote:
How much of the money have the players received? I don't think it's more than $300k for all the MLG combined.
You know nothing! Having an office in f&^#ing Manhattan will make esports explode!
|
On March 14 2012 05:18 blamekilly wrote:
How much of the money have the players received? I don't think it's more than $300k for all the MLG combined.
The big expenses are on the permanent salary, equipment, venue rental, and New York office rental. None of those things are cheap.
Lowballing everything hard:
Let's say 10 staff * $25k = $250k
$100k on streaming equipment, servers, computers, satellite truck
$100k per Pro Circuit event to rent out the convention centre = $400k this year
New York rental = $100k (gl hf finding something that low)
Considering all expenses, $1m is not unreasonable and I could see it being $3-5m if convention centre costs are higher or they have more staff (remember those people need to be employed fulltime whether an event is on or not).
The prize pool for SC2 is $100,000 for the whole Winter season, Halo $60k and fighting games $60k = $260k. So that's at least $1m in prize money this year as well.
|
On March 14 2012 05:18 blamekilly wrote:
How much of the money have the players received? I don't think it's more than $300k for all the MLG combined.
Hey remember the CEO and managers of MLG needs to eat also
|
MONEYZ!
Hope to see some sick production quality this year. Maybe even another prize pool increase.
|
On March 14 2012 05:26 Vadrigar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 05:18 blamekilly wrote:
How much of the money have the players received? I don't think it's more than $300k for all the MLG combined. You know nothing! Having an office in f&^#ing Manhattan will make esports explode!
You know nothing! Having only a $5000 prize for an event can help you pay the rent and bank much of the rest too. You want to bring up the increased prize pool this year? I counter with the increased sponsorship money and PPV money.
|
That's some serious money yo :o
Hope you'll put it to good use
|
can anyone explain this with easy english to a person that doesn't know much about economy :D?
|
|
|
more debt. Dunno if this is a good move. : /
|
On March 14 2012 05:38 0kz wrote:
can anyone explain this with easy english to a person that doesn't know much about economy :D?
Rich people are giving MLG more money with the hope that MLG will eventually be able to make money for them.
|
On March 14 2012 04:51 Sub40APM wrote:
VC's will shovel money at anything, as long as you call yourself "Web 2.0" They know that all it takes is one good initial public offering to make it all back and then some.
The real question is, as VC's continue to eat up portions of MLG how much operational control are they going to start to exert onto MLG, because even a dumb VC that primarily destroys its investors capital at it chases the next youtube/facebook/zynga eventually is going to want to see where its money is going.
So to answer your question, if MLG suddenly announces that they have a new Chief Operating Officer or some other VC watchdog who is directly on the staff, its bad news.
This is from personal experience?
Working for a IT Startup in the US that was looking into VC capital, I can only say that in our case, it was very, very difficult, and in the end, the VC company we got the furthest with turned us down because of one board member being not convinced.
|
On March 14 2012 05:40 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 05:38 0kz wrote:
can anyone explain this with easy english to a person that doesn't know much about economy :D? Rich people are giving MLG more money with the hope that MLG will eventually be able to make money for them.
In other words people see it as a worthy investment opportunity, which is good.
|
It's disappointing they recently laid off a quite a few people, then secure 11million dollars.
But who knows if they would have secured it with those people still on, excess employees reflects negatively for investors.
Either way, great job Sundance, ESPORTS is ever growing.
|
thats quite a lot of money.
good
|
This is why they had to do February's PPV. They needed to show to the VCs that PPV is possible and can generate revenue.
|
On March 14 2012 05:39 zul wrote:
more debt. Dunno if this is a good move. : /
They have actually sold very little debt based assets, like 4 millions? Most of their money come from private equity, aka they sell a part of the property of MLG to new investors.
|
|
|
On March 14 2012 04:38 legaton wrote:
Sundance must sell a hell of a pitch, because it is hard to believe he's still able to secure more money for MLG. Since 2006, they have secured 67,6 millions in just 6 years!
2012-03-12 - equity + options - 11 300 698 dollars
2011-11-23 - debt + option -2 500 000 dollars
2011-08-12 - debt + option - 3 083 328
2010-12-30 - equity - 3 333 353 dollars
2009-08-31 - equity - 3 499 995 dollars
2008-12-31 - equity + option - 7 500 000 dollars
2007-06-18 - equity - 1 400 000 dollars
2006-11-20 - equity - 25 000 000 dollars
2006-07-31 - equity - 10 000 000 dollars
They have invested 11 millions per year for a generated revenue of what, 5 to 25 millions dollars?
That guy.... Knows how to sell his shit. Let's hope it works out.
|
Well that sounds good. Glad to see investors are willing to put money into Esports!
|
So Sundance claims they have to sell their services for ludicrously high prices because of a lack of money and investors in the scene and then turns around with 11 million in funding? Can someone with an education in business or finance explain to me how they manage to lose all this money?
|
Alex of TheNextWeb has written a pretty good perspective of MLG's new money raise, which has a rather hopeful outlook on everything:
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/03/13/how-major-league-gaming-went-all-in-landed-on-its-feet-and-raised-millions/
As Sundance said, ‘something came along a little bit quicker than planned.’ I take this as the need to prove to investors that MLG is a viable business, or that the company just needed to raise sooner than they expected. This led to the company needing to prove that its core idea ‘had wings.’ I take Sundance to mean by that statement: ‘will people pay for what we are providing?’ So, the company went ‘all in,’ to see what would happen.
That they transformed their own office into a studio for the event was likely no accident. I would bet that MLG was looking to run the event at the highest level it could, at the lowest cost possible. Therefore, by shaving some some expense by hosting the event themselves, they could provide the same value for viewers, and show a profit, which it could take to investors as proof that competitive gaming is no fantasy.
|
On March 14 2012 03:38 Lumi wrote:
I'd like to buy Sundance a drink
With $11.3M maybe he could buy us drinks?
|
On March 14 2012 05:48 legaton wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 05:39 zul wrote:
more debt. Dunno if this is a good move. : / They have actually sold very little debt based assets, like 4 millions? Most of their money come from private equity, aka they sell a part of the property of MLG to new investors.
what are dept based assets?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51485 Posts
|
On March 14 2012 06:00 SupLilSon wrote:
So Sundance claims they have to sell their services for ludicrously high prices because of a lack of money and investors in the scene and then turns around with 11 million in funding? Can someone with an education in business or finance explain to me how they manage to lose all this money?
He had to prove to those guys who are forking over the 11.3m that you could MAKE money in this business.
|
On March 14 2012 04:42 teacash wrote:
Awesome.
please nobody confuse "Total # of viewers = 240k for one event" with "240k viewers at a given time" though.
Don't forget what the difference is, and immediately assume that MLG gets so many more viewers than stuff like HSC or Dreamhack because "the highest you ever see on viewer # for HSC is 60k" or some junk like that...
A tournament held over multiple days could have 240k unique viewers for one event while never going over 60-80k at any given time. This is a reminder so nobody makes a fool of themselves and goes home thinking that MLG gets 4 times the viewers as every other tourney.. They don't, but they're doing great for themselves and we love to see that
You are confused
Um MLG had 241k concurrent. That means 241k watching simultaneously. I not sure how many uniques. Yes they get 4 times amount of Homestory cup across all their games with the majority being SCII
The National Championships delivered the fifth consecutive record-breaking online broadcast of the season. More than 16,000 spectators attended the final tournament in person and 97,000 people attended Pro Circuit competitions in 2011. Traffic to www.majorleaguegaming.com for 2011 Pro Circuit weekends was also up 225% from 2010, with an average of 641,000 unique visitors to the site each weekend.
![[image loading]](http://blogs-images.forbes.com/insertcoin/files/2011/12/graphic1.jpg)
I still really want to know why MLG is based out of one of the most expensive cities to work out of in the world. It would be reasonable if NYC was centrally located or a venue location for their events but its not. They could just as easily operate out of the suburbs
|
On March 14 2012 06:04 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 05:48 legaton wrote:On March 14 2012 05:39 zul wrote:
more debt. Dunno if this is a good move. : / They have actually sold very little debt based assets, like 4 millions? Most of their money come from private equity, aka they sell a part of the property of MLG to new investors. what are dept based assets?
Basically when you take a loan.
|
United States22883 Posts
Nicely done, Sundance and co.
|
United States5162 Posts
I think this pretty much settles the MLG Winter Arena profit question. I highly doubt anyone would invest in a company that just flopped it's first PPV tournament.
|
Yes, nicely done indeed. Please use some of that money to buy comfortable chairs so that I never have to sit on the floor again when I attend MLG live. Thanks! <33
|
nice maybe they will increase the prizepool by 1k
|
Nicely done, MLG is so awesome! Use some of that money to buy chairs though! Last time i went i had to use the floor lol It was worth it though.
|
On March 14 2012 06:14 Myles wrote:
I think this pretty much settles the MLG Winter Arena profit question. I highly doubt anyone would invest in a company that just flopped it's first PPV tournament.
Was there ever any uncertainty? Sundance even said before the event that they had sold more passes than they had expected. Hard to imagine it being anything but profitably with that statement.
|
Glad they were able to receive this amount of money to pursue their endeavors. Hopefully due to this, they will now be able to again, hopefully engage in less aggressive PPV marketing, for my sake at least. However, I'm sure it's already been said, but they probably were able to attract investors by showing results of the profitability(?) of the PPV model they used for the Winter Arena.
|
On March 14 2012 06:08 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 06:00 SupLilSon wrote:
So Sundance claims they have to sell their services for ludicrously high prices because of a lack of money and investors in the scene and then turns around with 11 million in funding? Can someone with an education in business or finance explain to me how they manage to lose all this money? He had to prove to those guys who are forking over the 11.3m that you could MAKE money in this business.
Yes. If you're getting 11 million dollars from investors (most likely an i-bank) then they have to actually see some kind of return coming from the business. They expect reasonable market returns on their investment in MLG, otherwise they wouldn't have actually given them the $$.
Edit: This does not mean that MLG made 11 million dollars in profit last year. This is a very key distinction. Likely it means that MLG is going to make some kind of capital investment or business expansion soon, and this is the initial financing for it. With all the talk about building a studio, I'd say this 11 million is the capex to cover that. I wish MLG was publicly traded so I could buy some calls on it right now.
|
On March 14 2012 06:14 Joedaddy wrote:
Yes, nicely done indeed. Please use some of that money to buy comfortable chairs so that I never have to sit on the floor again when I attend MLG live. Thanks! <33
11.3m $?
+ Show Spoiler +
User was warned for this post
|
guys guys guys, i think Sundance gets it.
|
United States5162 Posts
On March 14 2012 06:21 ribboo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 06:14 Myles wrote:
I think this pretty much settles the MLG Winter Arena profit question. I highly doubt anyone would invest in a company that just flopped it's first PPV tournament. Was there ever any uncertainty? Sundance even said before the event that they had sold more passes than they had expected. Hard to imagine it being anything but profitably with that statement.
I'm pretty skeptical about any public statement regarding the event. There's every reason in the world for them to put out positive press.
On the other hand, outside investment is about as concrete as it gets bar seeing the actual financial statement that I assume the investors saw.
|
They have sc2 to largely thank now make all ur shiz free.
|
On March 14 2012 06:23 HyperionDreamer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 06:08 Zorkmid wrote:On March 14 2012 06:00 SupLilSon wrote:
So Sundance claims they have to sell their services for ludicrously high prices because of a lack of money and investors in the scene and then turns around with 11 million in funding? Can someone with an education in business or finance explain to me how they manage to lose all this money? He had to prove to those guys who are forking over the 11.3m that you could MAKE money in this business. Yes. If you're getting 11 million dollars from investors (most likely an i-bank) then they have to actually see some kind of return coming from the business. They expect reasonable market returns on their investment in MLG, otherwise they wouldn't have actually given them the $$.
A few weeks ago Sundance was pulling the sob story that MLG was losing money year after year. But congrats to him for getting the money, I may be attending the Columbus event and I hope he surprises me.
|
Can anyone explain why in most online tournaments the prize pools for LoL and SC2 are comparable. Shouldn't these reflect the viewership for the two games. Don't get me wrong, I haven't even played League of Legends and I love Starcraft. It makes me wonder, though, that why tournament organizers would invest comparable sums for two games whose average viewer counts are so different (most times I happen to check LoL streams of the same tournament average around 3 times more). Why isn't it rational for tournament organizers to focus all their attention on LoL right now?
|
On March 14 2012 06:29 Abrafred wrote:
Can anyone explain why in most online tournaments the prize pools for LoL and SC2 are comparable. Shouldn't these reflect the viewership for the two games. Don't get me wrong, I haven't even played League of Legends and I love Starcraft. It makes me wonder, though, that why tournament organizers would invest comparable sums for two games whose average viewer counts are so different (most times I happen to check LoL streams of the same tournament average around 3 times more). Why isn't it rational for tournament organizers to focus all their attention on LoL right now?
Some are, IEM kicked SC2 off the main stage and put LoL there.
As for the other part of your question, I don't think the LoL pro scene is nearly as developed as sc2 is yet.
Another part may be the LoL viewers are less likely to pay for something than the sc2 audience, since it's a free game. That's just a shot in the dark though.
|
On March 14 2012 05:39 zul wrote:
more debt. Dunno if this is a good move. : /
This isnt debt, it's an equity round.
|
On March 14 2012 06:29 Abrafred wrote:
Can anyone explain why in most online tournaments the prize pools for LoL and SC2 are comparable. Shouldn't these reflect the viewership for the two games. Don't get me wrong, I haven't even played League of Legends and I love Starcraft. It makes me wonder, though, that why tournament organizers would invest comparable sums for two games whose average viewer counts are so different (most times I happen to check LoL streams of the same tournament average around 3 times more). Why isn't it rational for tournament organizers to focus all their attention on LoL right now?
Lots of reasons; Riot is pretty much very involved in that community and supporting it. And the structure behind the community is vastly different. LoL doesn't have a lot of structure that an SC2/BW community has.
The other reason is based on the flavour-of-the-month issue. Compared to SC2 (and BW if you'd like), what RTS choices are there?
Now, what about MOBA choices?
If I'm an investor, I want something that doesn't have competition and that isn't likely to disappear. The BW (and you could even include WC3 and older RTS games) and SC2 communities have longevity and structure where newer MOBA games have smaller amounts of both.
---------------------
And as for the MLG funding, we can't tell if it's good or bad without real numbers or financial statements. All this means is that since MLG has been around, it's accumulated $70 million in funding and has what to show for it? Depending on their models and statements (and not to mention, their plans), that could bring us six more months of MLG, or another two years. Anyone saying this is good or bad has nothing to base it on.
Taking more VC can be looked at as being bad and good. Taking more means they haven't found the right revenue model/game lineup/cost structure to be profitable on their own. At the same time, more can mean that their growth and plans (say, overseas events etc...) far outweigh their profit/revenue and they need it to accomplish and hopefully capitalize on their success.
Either way, I'm weary but hopeful. MLG has made some pretty big blunders over their history; hears to hoping that they turn everything around.
|
I would totally love to buy stock in a grounded e-sports company :D
|
Taking on even more VC money. = Not a good thing to hear.
It means MLG will be giving up more control to outside investors for short-term cash.
This isn't the first time. MLG is stuck in an endless circle of dependence on Venture Capitalist money. The layoffs and handling of the PPV is because of MLG's dependence on VC's. MLG will continue to liquidate community goodwill, because they aren't in control anymore.
|
Updated post with link to a good perspective on the extent of the success of the PPV event and what the additional funding means.
|
On March 14 2012 06:40 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 06:29 Abrafred wrote:
Can anyone explain why in most online tournaments the prize pools for LoL and SC2 are comparable. Shouldn't these reflect the viewership for the two games. Don't get me wrong, I haven't even played League of Legends and I love Starcraft. It makes me wonder, though, that why tournament organizers would invest comparable sums for two games whose average viewer counts are so different (most times I happen to check LoL streams of the same tournament average around 3 times more). Why isn't it rational for tournament organizers to focus all their attention on LoL right now? Lots of reasons; Riot is pretty much very involved in that community and supporting it. And the structure behind the community is vastly different. LoL doesn't have a lot of structure that an SC2/BW community has. The other reason is based on the flavour-of-the-month issue. Compared to SC2 (and BW if you'd like), what RTS choices are there? Now, what about MOBA choices? If I'm an investor, I want something that doesn't have competition and that isn't likely to disappear. The BW (and you could even include WC3 and older RTS games) and SC2 communities have longevity and structure where newer MOBA games have smaller amounts of both.
What does it matter if Riot is behind the LoL community, if it continues supporting it what difference does it make in practice?
And why are the long term effects of focusing on a game as a tournament organizer so important? I don't understand how damaging it would be for MLG to raise the publicizing, prize pool and stream quality for LoL and once Dota 2 goes into full swing, drop it entirely.
|
On March 14 2012 06:51 Abrafred wrote:
What does it matter if Riot is behind the LoL community, if it continues supporting it what difference does it make in practice?
Depends. Primarily, it's not necessarily a bad thing; I probably shouldn't have made it sound as such. It would take a lot to explain either way.
On March 14 2012 06:51 Abrafred wrote:
And why are the long term effects of focusing on a game as a tournament organizer so important?
Because my, or anyone's, company places value in the money used for sponsorship or investment and what we can get in return. As a brand, we want to form a long-term bond with the fans and our potential customers. When I was writing articles and news for eSports, I had the chance to speak with a lot of companies and their marketing, PR and a few other departments (depending on their size).
And every single one of them had a fundamental reason as to why they weren't in eSports; the turnover was too high. Now what does that mean? Essentially, "turnover being too high" meant that games supported by organizations changed too frequently, they thought the demographic was unstable (though recent trends and research show this being eliminated or at least being alleviated), and they had little faith in some of the organizations and people that were running the show.
Now, as an eSports supporter, I obviously thought there were some issues with a few pieces of their reasoning, but from a business perspective, I completely understood their rationale and can't fault them at all; it would not have been sound business decisions to get involved. It's something that a lot of companies do monitor, especially nowadays with the aspects of Youtube and "going viral."
But there are plenty of hurdles we still have if we want to attract bigger companies, money and bigger exposure. But there are also those that like the niche-like aspect that eSports or competitive gaming occupies.
|
Great news
|
Now if only they offered a free stream too I wouldn't feel bad about supporting them. I would be paying 50$ per event if they were offering a free option for people, no free stream is a giant pet peeve of mine, not everyone has the means to take part in PPV.
|
On March 14 2012 07:34 funbooth wrote:
Now if only they offered a free stream too I wouldn't feel bad about supporting them. I would be paying 50$ per event if they were offering a free option for people, no free stream is a giant pet peeve of mine, not everyone has the means to take part in PPV.
They offer a free stream for the winter championship.
|
On March 14 2012 07:40 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:34 funbooth wrote:
Now if only they offered a free stream too I wouldn't feel bad about supporting them. I would be paying 50$ per event if they were offering a free option for people, no free stream is a giant pet peeve of mine, not everyone has the means to take part in PPV. They offer a free stream for the winter championship.
I was reffering to the arena that just happened, I haven't been following Sc2 much since then sadly.
|
On March 14 2012 07:42 funbooth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:40 RageBot wrote:On March 14 2012 07:34 funbooth wrote:
Now if only they offered a free stream too I wouldn't feel bad about supporting them. I would be paying 50$ per event if they were offering a free option for people, no free stream is a giant pet peeve of mine, not everyone has the means to take part in PPV. They offer a free stream for the winter championship. I was reffering to the arena that just happened, I haven't been following Sc2 much since then sadly.
Well guess what? You can watch the VODs free and everybody who was at the arena is seeded at the winter championship.
|
if you invest in something you want to see your that your investment pays off. First off it means that they believe MLG will increase their revenue and/or decrease some of their costlier business activities. Lets hope that it's the revenue because the it means that investors believe in the burgeoning market of pro gaming broadcasting.
|
Reading some posts in here, it feel like MLG's marketing strategy seems kinda hypocrit...
|
When I read this news, I jumped up and started doing a wild series of crotch-thrusts while shouting "ESPORTS" at the top of my lungs.
It's pretty good news, imo.
|
On March 14 2012 06:25 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 06:21 ribboo wrote:On March 14 2012 06:14 Myles wrote:
I think this pretty much settles the MLG Winter Arena profit question. I highly doubt anyone would invest in a company that just flopped it's first PPV tournament. Was there ever any uncertainty? Sundance even said before the event that they had sold more passes than they had expected. Hard to imagine it being anything but profitably with that statement. I'm pretty skeptical about any public statement regarding the event. There's every reason in the world for them to put out positive press. On the other hand, outside investment is about as concrete as it gets bar seeing the actual financial statement that I assume the investors saw.
venture capital is a very risky business though so the investors expect to take big hits and catch it up with a few golden companies that make up for everything. Add to that that there are little real economical experts in the e-sports world and they might just have gotten a totally skewed view of the amount of potential growth and how much MLG can profit from it.
It's good news that there are companies willing to invest sure but people have to be careful in seeing this as just a good thing.
|
On March 14 2012 06:09 feanor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:42 teacash wrote:
Awesome.
please nobody confuse "Total # of viewers = 240k for one event" with "240k viewers at a given time" though.
Don't forget what the difference is, and immediately assume that MLG gets so many more viewers than stuff like HSC or Dreamhack because "the highest you ever see on viewer # for HSC is 60k" or some junk like that...
A tournament held over multiple days could have 240k unique viewers for one event while never going over 60-80k at any given time. This is a reminder so nobody makes a fool of themselves and goes home thinking that MLG gets 4 times the viewers as every other tourney.. They don't, but they're doing great for themselves and we love to see that You are confused Um MLG had 241k concurrent. That means 241k watching simultaneously. I not sure how many uniques. Yes they get 4 times amount of Homestory cup across all their games with t he majority being SCII Still quite important to add that those numbers are for the event as a whole, and so include their other games, not just SC2. They even had LoL, which seems to bring quite a lot more online viewers for now, for some reason.
So I still would be hesitant to conclude that MLG gets significantly more SC2 viewers than any other major event.
|
On March 14 2012 03:39 Kyir wrote:
Any chance Sundance will stop doomsaying now?
Probably not because it makes him money
|
On March 14 2012 08:31 figq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 06:09 feanor1 wrote:On March 14 2012 04:42 teacash wrote:
Awesome.
please nobody confuse "Total # of viewers = 240k for one event" with "240k viewers at a given time" though.
Don't forget what the difference is, and immediately assume that MLG gets so many more viewers than stuff like HSC or Dreamhack because "the highest you ever see on viewer # for HSC is 60k" or some junk like that...
A tournament held over multiple days could have 240k unique viewers for one event while never going over 60-80k at any given time. This is a reminder so nobody makes a fool of themselves and goes home thinking that MLG gets 4 times the viewers as every other tourney.. They don't, but they're doing great for themselves and we love to see that You are confused Um MLG had 241k concurrent. That means 241k watching simultaneously. I not sure how many uniques. Yes they get 4 times amount of Homestory cup across all their games with t he majority being SCII Still quite important to add that those numbers are for the event as a whole, and so include their other games, not just SC2. They even had LoL, which seems to bring quite a lot more online viewers for now, for some reason. So I still would be hesitant to conclude that MLG gets significantly more SC2 viewers than any other major event.
They didn't have LoL, technical problems mean the games were not streamed at all.
|
On March 14 2012 05:40 Rimstalker wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:51 Sub40APM wrote:
VC's will shovel money at anything, as long as you call yourself "Web 2.0" They know that all it takes is one good initial public offering to make it all back and then some.
The real question is, as VC's continue to eat up portions of MLG how much operational control are they going to start to exert onto MLG, because even a dumb VC that primarily destroys its investors capital at it chases the next youtube/facebook/zynga eventually is going to want to see where its money is going.
So to answer your question, if MLG suddenly announces that they have a new Chief Operating Officer or some other VC watchdog who is directly on the staff, its bad news. This is from personal experience? Working for a IT Startup in the US that was looking into VC capital, I can only say that in our case, it was very, very difficult, and in the end, the VC company we got the furthest with turned us down because of one board member being not convinced.
How much money did you need? Where were you located? How many Silicon Valley reporters did you get to write positive reviews of your future product, for which you secretly paid them in products/money? How similar is your product to something that IPOed and threw of wads of cash for the first VC in? How many white Americans did you have vs 'other' category? Is your CEO a pure technical expert or is he also a good salesman?
Working in a field that periodically serves the people who run VCs as far as I can tell its a blind crapshoot when VCs make investments but in general there are oceans of dollars desperate for a place to put them into.
|
On March 14 2012 08:36 Soleron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:31 figq wrote:On March 14 2012 06:09 feanor1 wrote:On March 14 2012 04:42 teacash wrote:
Awesome.
please nobody confuse "Total # of viewers = 240k for one event" with "240k viewers at a given time" though.
Don't forget what the difference is, and immediately assume that MLG gets so many more viewers than stuff like HSC or Dreamhack because "the highest you ever see on viewer # for HSC is 60k" or some junk like that...
A tournament held over multiple days could have 240k unique viewers for one event while never going over 60-80k at any given time. This is a reminder so nobody makes a fool of themselves and goes home thinking that MLG gets 4 times the viewers as every other tourney.. They don't, but they're doing great for themselves and we love to see that You are confused Um MLG had 241k concurrent. That means 241k watching simultaneously. I not sure how many uniques. Yes they get 4 times amount of Homestory cup across all their games with t he majority being SCII Still quite important to add that those numbers are for the event as a whole, and so include their other games, not just SC2. They even had LoL, which seems to bring quite a lot more online viewers for now, for some reason. So I still would be hesitant to conclude that MLG gets significantly more SC2 viewers than any other major event. They didn't have LoL, technical problems mean the games were not streamed at all. Didn't know about that, but still probably the LoL fans were refreshing streams hoping it would be fixed or something. The shooters also bring non-negligible numbers.
And just as a side argument, suppose MLG was bringing significantly more SC2 viewers than any other SC2 event - why would that be? Are there really that many people who would watch MLG and not watch other SC2 events? Why would they do that? Hm.
|
Hell yeah. That's what I'm talking about. I'm gonna keep supporting MLG by going to Columbus ^_^.
|
Be good if someone was to put that kind of money into a governing body, or somehow allowed us as a community more freedom over the games themselves (ie not patching the day before an event....) Esports is still like the wild west, money being made and lost all over the place without a solid stable foundation to control it.
It's cool they have this investment, and I hope they use it wisely and look at a long term investment in something that can grow and provide year on year profits, rather than something to milk while it's fresh and then dump when something newer and shinier appears.
|
And yet Sundance will still say they don't make enough money the moment they charge for something else.
|
Of that 11.3 million, I wonder how much is from event/PPV revenue..
|
Glad to see esports growing
|
Glad to see MLG will continue on. Their gauntlet championship competitions have continued to be the most hyped events, especially for BarCrafts, which can only continue to help eSports grow bigger and bigger -- so I hope they stay successful.
I hope the Arenas continue to be successful as well, considering that they've announced 2 more before Anaheim. It can only serve to add more revenue to the eSports river.
|
|
|
On March 14 2012 03:40 Josh_rakoons wrote:
This is awesome in every respect... Glad to see PPV worked out.
The money doesn't comes from the PPV, lolz!
|
On March 14 2012 09:07 Assirra wrote:
And yet Sundance will still say they don't make enough money the moment they charge for something else.
They didn't make any money, this isn't income, this is equity investment.
Theoretically an equity investment shouldn't have any impact on their bottom line, so if they weren't making enough money before, then they aren't now.
Well, from a Finance perspective, Weighted Average Cost of Capital = Debt portion * Weight + Required Return for Equity Investors * Weight. I don't believe the Market Debt / Equity ratio has changed (not looking at Book Value here) so the WACC, required return for the company, should be the same.
|
Wouldn't this influx of investor money have been considered when budgeting the 2012 season? These new higher prize pools and payed flights were probably done while expecting this influx. I don't think this is just money falling from the sky.
|
On March 14 2012 09:30 SiguR wrote:
Wouldn't this influx of investor money have been considered when budgeting the 2012 season? These new higher prize pools and payed flights were probably done while expecting this influx. I don't think this is just money falling from the sky.
This isn't free money to give away, theoretically equity investments are infrastructure support payments that should help MLG be able to market itself better, improve operations, etc. that will help grow the business. I'm not sure increasing prize pools will be a worthwhile investment unless MLG thinks it will attract bigger names / sponsors.
|
On March 14 2012 09:22 HejaBVB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:40 Josh_rakoons wrote:
This is awesome in every respect... Glad to see PPV worked out. The money doesn't comes from the PPV, lolz!
Its not money brought in from the PPV, but the successful PPV could very well be why they received more money from investors who like that a sustainable tournament was ran.
|
On March 14 2012 09:29 FairForever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:07 Assirra wrote:
And yet Sundance will still say they don't make enough money the moment they charge for something else. They didn't make any money, this isn't income, this is equity investment. Theoretically an equity investment shouldn't have any impact on their bottom line, so if they weren't making enough money before, then they aren't now. Well, from a Finance perspective, Weighted Average Cost of Capital = Debt portion * Weight + Required Return for Equity Investors * Weight. I don't believe the Market Debt / Equity ratio has changed (not looking at Book Value here) so the WACC, required return for the company, should be the same.
I doubt you get investor's if the situation was as dire as Sundance makes it sound.
Either that or he has to best way to convince people ever.
|
On March 14 2012 09:41 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:29 FairForever wrote:On March 14 2012 09:07 Assirra wrote:
And yet Sundance will still say they don't make enough money the moment they charge for something else. They didn't make any money, this isn't income, this is equity investment. Theoretically an equity investment shouldn't have any impact on their bottom line, so if they weren't making enough money before, then they aren't now. Well, from a Finance perspective, Weighted Average Cost of Capital = Debt portion * Weight + Required Return for Equity Investors * Weight. I don't believe the Market Debt / Equity ratio has changed (not looking at Book Value here) so the WACC, required return for the company, should be the same. I doubt you get investor's if the situation was as dire as Sundance makes it sound. Either that or he has to best way to convince people ever.
Investor says "you are negative for the financial year (which ends this month i believe, financial quarters are weird). Get positive by the end of it or we won't invest in you anymore"
That is a dire situation. If they don't go positive -> no investment -> company fails. I doubt it was that serious but people investing now doesn't mean it wasn't serious before.
|
I don't know about this. It seems like having to give up equity in exchange for cash based off of a new model that was only just implemented is a little risky. Yes it worked and congrats but it certainly doesn't speak to the stability of the industry. Yes, they managed to get more funding but VCs are not going to throw away an investment that doesn't look terrible. They have already invested a lot and the presence of remaining shares suggests that it was probably current investors who stumped up more cash.
It would be great news if the funding was for something specific, such as a torunament setup or a specific playing venue or something concrete. If it just for normal cash flow, that's worrying. We can't really know without looking at the financials and the only people with access to this are those that invested. So overall I guess we should be happy, I just have this nagging feeling that they are getting pressured to produce which suggests an underlying fragility.
|
This is financing right? Not revenue?
|
On March 14 2012 04:38 legaton wrote:
Sundance must sell a hell of a pitch, because it is hard to believe he's still able to secure more money for MLG. Since 2006, they have secured 67,6 millions in just 6 years!
2012-03-12 - equity + options - 11 300 698 dollars
2011-11-23 - debt + option -2 500 000 dollars
2011-08-12 - debt + option - 3 083 328
2010-12-30 - equity - 3 333 353 dollars
2009-08-31 - equity - 3 499 995 dollars
2008-12-31 - equity + option - 7 500 000 dollars
2007-06-18 - equity - 1 400 000 dollars
2006-11-20 - equity - 25 000 000 dollars
2006-07-31 - equity - 10 000 000 dollars
They have invested 11 millions per year for a generated revenue of what, 5 to 25 millions dollars?
It's 5 to 25 million per year, not total.
|
my 20$ seems worthless now ...
|
On March 14 2012 09:53 mlspmatt wrote:
This is financing right? Not revenue?
That's the scary part. What exactly do they need an extra 11million for? Nothing wrong with capital raising if you are planning on expanding something but if it goes to operational expenses, then we have a problem.
|
On March 14 2012 09:48 Probulous wrote:
I don't know about this. It seems like having to give up equity in exchange for cash based off of a new model that was only just implemented is a little risky. Yes it worked and congrats but it certainly doesn't speak to the stability of the industry. Yes, they managed to get more funding but VCs are not going to throw away an investment that doesn't look terrible. They have already invested a lot and the presence of remaining shares suggests that it was probably current investors who stumped up more cash.
It would be great news if the funding was for something specific, such as a torunament setup or a specific playing venue or something concrete. If it just for normal cash flow, that's worrying. We can't really know without looking at the financials and the only people with access to this are those that invested. So overall I guess we should be happy, I just have this nagging feeling that they are getting pressured to produce which suggests an underlying fragility.
For sure MLG is being pressured to produce, but then again, they set up those expectations themselves of how quickly they think e-sports can grow and more importantly how much money it can generate.
But the money isn't invested for anything concrete. That's why investors give money to managers. They're trusting MLG to set up tournaments and venues that are more attractive and bring in more people, and in turn they will look at the financials later on in the year and make that judgment for themselves.
I don't think it's "good" or "bad" that MLG gave up stock in the company. It only matters how those board members use their power. If they focus MLG on profitability, then yes, some things will probably make you unhappy - things will cost more, players and consumers will get less, etc. But certainly you might prefer MLG to have a longer life than to go out in a blaze of generous glory where they give everything to the players and fans for nothing and then go bust.
|
We're actually about to talk about this and other topics on The Loser's Bracket podcast. Going to talk about MLG funding and the SEC filings behind it. We'd love everyone to join in.... if you'd like to, we'll be on the vVv Gaming Twitch TV channel.
|
On March 14 2012 09:07 Assirra wrote:
And yet Sundance will still say they don't make enough money the moment they charge for something else.
This is VC....
|
On March 14 2012 09:41 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:29 FairForever wrote:On March 14 2012 09:07 Assirra wrote:
And yet Sundance will still say they don't make enough money the moment they charge for something else. They didn't make any money, this isn't income, this is equity investment. Theoretically an equity investment shouldn't have any impact on their bottom line, so if they weren't making enough money before, then they aren't now. Well, from a Finance perspective, Weighted Average Cost of Capital = Debt portion * Weight + Required Return for Equity Investors * Weight. I don't believe the Market Debt / Equity ratio has changed (not looking at Book Value here) so the WACC, required return for the company, should be the same. I doubt you get investor's if the situation was as dire as Sundance makes it sound. Either that or he has to best way to convince people ever.
It's not dire. I think everyone knows that. Businesses can bleed money for years, even decades, and still be afloat (see: GM). You just need money, which is what MLG just got.
But it doesn't mean that MLG is doing well. They're not, financially, is my guess.
|
Woah, that's a lot of money for eSports.
Please put them for good use MLG (more events, etc).
|
On March 14 2012 10:00 coverpunch wrote:
I don't think it's "good" or "bad" that MLG gave up stock in the company. It only matters how those board members use their power. If they focus MLG on profitability, then yes, some things will probably make you unhappy - things will cost more, players and consumers will get less, etc. But certainly you might prefer MLG to have a longer life than to go out in a blaze of generous glory where they give everything to the players and fans for nothing and then go bust.
I certainly want MLG to be profitable, otherwise they die. Paying for stuff is a step in the right direction. Like I said the fact that they could secure additional funding shows investor confidence. Anything else is speculation. Now, why are the investors confident? Is it because they have already invested a lot and don't want to bail right now? Or is it because MLG looks like it will eventually show a profit. The fact that they have been pressed to show they can turn a profit suggests investors needed convincing. This again is both good and bad. Good because they succeeded, bad because they needed to show something completely different to do it.
The only other piece of information we have is that not all shares were sold. My guess would be that the money predominantly came from existing investors. Anyway, it is fun to speculate but we can't really know anything right now. I just wonder at people who are celebrating this like it is the birth of ESPORTS. Bubbles form because people have too much cash and not enough brains. If MLG is not able to produce profit, they will eventually go bust and those celebrating VC success will look really stupid.
|
increase prize pool imo 1mill for the WINNING!!!!!!!
|
I really hope MLG will success like GSL in Korea. With this lot of money, I am certain it will be.
|
Travel costs is the biggest expense right now for teams and if they can keep providing that I look forward to see more players come to NA. Even if they do not win that particular tournament at least they are not going in debt to play for the fans. This is for all eSports, not just SC2. Look forward to it all growing more and more.
not anything entirely new in the conversation, but i think MLG's willingness to cover that travel expense is definitely worthwhile-- providing players fan exposure time which directly provides the players and the teams' sponsors with exposure time without incurring the cost of travel on the team, definitely excited to see the pro circuit and other 2012 arena turnouts
|
On March 14 2012 03:40 idonthinksobro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:31 ThatGuy89 wrote:
hmmm seems like PPV paid off?
glad to see Esports growing no this is a completly baseless assumption, lets assume PPV was horrible what would you do to make it look like success? Right release press news that you increase the funding but if you really look at these figures it doesn't mean anything really since they actually don't really know what they should do with all the money they made over the last year and deal could have been made way before the mlg. I'm still very sceptical if the PPV thing was a success they were at least break even for sure but every neutral poll showed that like 70%-80% of the people that would have watched didn't due to PPV. I don't really know if the sponsors did like this. This news timing seems like another strategical piece towards making people believe it was a great sucess, like the tweet right before MLG saying "PPV preorders exceeded our expactations".
I'm pretty sure someone did the math that all MLG needed was 2% of MLG's typical viewership to make up for that 80% of cheapskates. So basically, yes?
|
this explained why they rushed out PPV ... they had to prove they could make money in time for the deadline for raising capital
|
Has anyone mentioned the tip jar idea yet? When if you could tip a player (with his tips tracked live during a game), and MLG receives 20% of that tip. Just add this functionality over the current business model, and you have an added revenue stream. It taps on crowd behavior and the fervor of the moment, and by allowing services like Pay Pay to tip, you have a very low barrier of entry.
Each dollar tipped enters the tipper into a contest where the winner gets a day to go hang out with his favorite player after the next MLG event (From a list of agreeing players). Dinner and flight is covered by MLG.
Sound good, yes?
|
Cool. Godspeed, MLG! Go ESPORTS!
|
Where's my Canada MLG than? WHERE!? = P
|
I'm curious how much of the success is due to Starcraft compared to other games. The article is focused on eSports in general, but maybe it should be a tad bit more Starcraft focused. I am saying this because people should know what is a bread winning formula instead of having the masses generalize the success of a brand of eSports that encompassing platforms that make it difficult to spectate. Any organization that might be interested in eSports should know why some games do so much better than others.
|
As long as all the money goes towards SC2 and sending over as many Koreans as possible it's okay with me.
|
On March 14 2012 09:12 ilikeredheads wrote:
Of that 11.3 million, I wonder how much is from event/PPV revenue..
None.
That money raised was purely "shares" of ownership in exchange for monies from private investors. Basically people are giving MLG money with the expectation that it will eventually become self-sustainable and profitable enough to pay them back and then some.
|
On March 14 2012 11:02 supsun wrote:
As long as all the money goes towards SC2 and sending over as many Koreans as possible it's okay with me.
It's a business decision between MLG and their investors. I don't get why it would need anyone else's approval. They can do whatever they want with their money.
|
On March 14 2012 11:20 kevinthemighty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 11:02 supsun wrote:
As long as all the money goes towards SC2 and sending over as many Koreans as possible it's okay with me. It's a business decision between MLG and their investors. I don't get why it would need anyone else's approval.
It's an opinion. I don't get why it would need your approval.
|
On March 14 2012 10:00 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:48 Probulous wrote:
I don't know about this. It seems like having to give up equity in exchange for cash based off of a new model that was only just implemented is a little risky. Yes it worked and congrats but it certainly doesn't speak to the stability of the industry. Yes, they managed to get more funding but VCs are not going to throw away an investment that doesn't look terrible. They have already invested a lot and the presence of remaining shares suggests that it was probably current investors who stumped up more cash.
It would be great news if the funding was for something specific, such as a torunament setup or a specific playing venue or something concrete. If it just for normal cash flow, that's worrying. We can't really know without looking at the financials and the only people with access to this are those that invested. So overall I guess we should be happy, I just have this nagging feeling that they are getting pressured to produce which suggests an underlying fragility. For sure MLG is being pressured to produce, but then again, they set up those expectations themselves of how quickly they think e-sports can grow and more importantly how much money it can generate. But the money isn't invested for anything concrete. That's why investors give money to managers. They're trusting MLG to set up tournaments and venues that are more attractive and bring in more people, and in turn they will look at the financials later on in the year and make that judgment for themselves. I don't think it's "good" or "bad" that MLG gave up stock in the company. It only matters how those board members use their power. If they focus MLG on profitability, then yes, some things will probably make you unhappy - things will cost more, players and consumers will get less, etc. But certainly you might prefer MLG to have a longer life than to go out in a blaze of generous glory where they give everything to the players and fans for nothing and then go bust.
You can be fairly certain that the money is for something concrete. VC's will require a detailed business plan for what MLG intends to do with the money. The scenario where the VC's are investing more just to not lose their prior investment is unlikely. As someone else said, VC's aren't in the business of throwing good money after bad. These are sophisticated investors that known when to cut bait. If they thought MLG was sucking wind, they would take that $11 million and invest it in a different business that appears to have more potential.
This investment is good news. It shows MLG has the revenue, business model, and future plans to convince sophisticated investors to invest significant money.
|
Ok well if they made this much I hope that PPV rates are either vanished or reduced. I dont have a lot of money so I cant afford $20 dollars for every MLG, and it just hurts so much to miss your favourite players (& epic games) just because I have no money. But Im happy to read this, Esports and SCII keep growing even more everyday.
|
On March 14 2012 11:23 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 11:20 kevinthemighty wrote:On March 14 2012 11:02 supsun wrote:
As long as all the money goes towards SC2 and sending over as many Koreans as possible it's okay with me. It's a business decision between MLG and their investors. I don't get why it would need anyone else's approval. It's an opinion. I don't get why it would need your approval.
? Never said it needed my approval. I made a statement in response to his comment, not ON his comment.
But thanks for trying.
|
On March 14 2012 11:27 GeezerGeek wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 10:00 coverpunch wrote:On March 14 2012 09:48 Probulous wrote:
I don't know about this. It seems like having to give up equity in exchange for cash based off of a new model that was only just implemented is a little risky. Yes it worked and congrats but it certainly doesn't speak to the stability of the industry. Yes, they managed to get more funding but VCs are not going to throw away an investment that doesn't look terrible. They have already invested a lot and the presence of remaining shares suggests that it was probably current investors who stumped up more cash.
It would be great news if the funding was for something specific, such as a torunament setup or a specific playing venue or something concrete. If it just for normal cash flow, that's worrying. We can't really know without looking at the financials and the only people with access to this are those that invested. So overall I guess we should be happy, I just have this nagging feeling that they are getting pressured to produce which suggests an underlying fragility. For sure MLG is being pressured to produce, but then again, they set up those expectations themselves of how quickly they think e-sports can grow and more importantly how much money it can generate. But the money isn't invested for anything concrete. That's why investors give money to managers. They're trusting MLG to set up tournaments and venues that are more attractive and bring in more people, and in turn they will look at the financials later on in the year and make that judgment for themselves. I don't think it's "good" or "bad" that MLG gave up stock in the company. It only matters how those board members use their power. If they focus MLG on profitability, then yes, some things will probably make you unhappy - things will cost more, players and consumers will get less, etc. But certainly you might prefer MLG to have a longer life than to go out in a blaze of generous glory where they give everything to the players and fans for nothing and then go bust. You can be fairly certain that the money is for something concrete. VC's will require a detailed business plan for what MLG intends to do with the money. The scenario where the VC's are investing more just to not lose their prior investment is unlikely. As someone else said, VC's aren't in the business of throwing good money after bad. These are sophisticated investors that known when to cut bait. If they thought MLG was sucking wind, they would take that $11 million and invest it in a different business that appears to have more potential. This investment is good news. It shows MLG has the revenue, business model, and future plans to convince sophisticated investors to invest significant money.
You have a very high opinion of venture capitalists. It is pretty big to assume they know what they are doing. Especially if they have thrown money at a company that isn't producing. Yes they will pull the plug sometime but that time is often not optimal. The fact that they required MLG to produce something profitable before they would refinance suggests their patience if wearing thin.
|
On March 14 2012 03:38 carloselcoco wrote:
What is AMBI LLC?
Were they the investors?
AMBI LLC is an old name of MLG's corporation.
|
if that worked, it means that finally you are going to take PPV off?, because PPV is the most stupid thing that MLG could have done
|
That's pretty awesome, I hope this gets rid of the PPV so everyone can enjoy it fully again!
|
On March 14 2012 12:39 FlamingTurd wrote:
That's pretty awesome, I hope this gets rid of the PPV so everyone can enjoy it fully again!
the only reason people would be investing now is that ppv was deemed to be sustainable profit, this means its more likely to continue now that they got this funding, not end.
|
hmm... So I am not too familiar with those US terms, but this is essentially equity given to MLG, right? So I assume that the investors (whoever they are) will have some interesting terms in the contracts... since it is a very high risk investment. If they pay in stages for example, and MLG fails to meet one of the milestones, the money stops flowing and is gone? Or maybe the investors are strictly controlling every move MLG makes (maybe they can even fire sundance if necessary)?
I am not so sure about this, this actually sounds more dangerous than comforting. But maybe I am wrong, dunno?!
IPL get all their money from Murdoch afaik, so they are gone as soon he considers the experiment failed... Then there is NASL, ESL (although they are way less sc2 dependent, I guess), this squid thing and those LAN events like Dreamhack and probably some stuff I forgot about now...
I might be a bit pessimistic, but I think there is oversupply in sc2... Shakeout incoming?
|
On March 14 2012 12:50 morbvs wrote:
hmm... So I am not too familiar with those US terms, but this is essentially equity given to MLG, right? So I assume that the investors (whoever they are) will have some interesting terms in the contracts... since it is a very high risk investment. If they pay in stages for example, and MLG fails to meet one of the milestones, the money stops flowing and is gone? Or maybe the investors are strictly controlling every move MLG makes (maybe they can even fire sundance if necessary)?
I am not so sure about this, this actually sounds more dangerous than comforting. But maybe I am wrong, dunno?!
IPL get all their money from Murdoch afaik, so they are gone as soon he considers the experiment failed... Then there is NASL, ESL (although they are way less sc2 dependent, I guess), this squid thing and those LAN events like Dreamhack and probably some stuff I forgot about now...
I might be a bit pessimistic, but I think there is oversupply in sc2... Shakeout incoming?
Typically VCs invest in what's called convertible preferred stock and that's what it looks like it could be here as they check both the equity and option boxes.
In general VCs don't mess with the day to day operations but may help make strategic decisions or find key personnel. As far as money flows go it should be a lump sum but if MLG needs more in the future than they will either need to hit their milestones or be prepared to pay up for more financing.
IMO the best way to look at it from a finance perspective is that it's a good thing that VCs are still interested but a bad thing that they haven't progressed beyond that stage yet since VC money is generally one of the most expensive forms of financing around. From a fan standpoint just be glad they have the cash to stick around for at least a few more years :-)
|
As a Competitor and a fan, and someone who has attended an MLG as a spectator, i have to say they put on a pretty good show. Id love to continue supporting MLG and every other player in e-sports and promote the growth of the wonderfully awesome programs they provide for us. Congrats on the Investment.
|
Dang so much $$, i wander how much of it will go prizepool!
|
damn, so little... MLG barely broke even...
|
|
|
I think PPV is the way to go - just that $20 was too much for arena
|
Im pretty sure most of this money goes into building infrastructure for hosting events - a permanent location for arena + maybe something more permanent for open events too, allowing them to run events more efficiently and making long-term profits easier to attain.
Prize pool increase can only come with revenue/profit increase - you cant spend much of investor money on prize pools unless you can assure that every extra dollar spent on prize pool will bring X amount of viewer - so im rather certain prize pools wont be raised much overall.
|
OK so is this funding dated or recent? Stop bringing up the millions they have raised over the past decade I want to know what you have raised lately.
|
On March 14 2012 03:40 Sprouter wrote:Show nested quote +
The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year.
holy shit, THAT IS HUGE growth. regardless of whether arena did well or not, MLG is doing really well.
Which is rather funny because it SURE DID SEEM like sundance was telling us MLG was NOT doing well.....
|
maybe remove the fee now? :p just a thought
|
On March 14 2012 15:39 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:40 Sprouter wrote:
The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year.
holy shit, THAT IS HUGE growth. regardless of whether arena did well or not, MLG is doing really well. Which is rather funny because it SURE DID SEEM like sundance was telling us MLG was NOT doing well.....
He "gets it" by lying
|
I hope this decision doesn't mean that future events will always be PPV. As an EU viewer, the arena simply shut us down.
Does anyone know if there are others means for MLG to get a stable income while still maintaining a free stream model?
If so what are these?
|
On March 14 2012 11:27 GeezerGeek wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 10:00 coverpunch wrote:On March 14 2012 09:48 Probulous wrote:
I don't know about this. It seems like having to give up equity in exchange for cash based off of a new model that was only just implemented is a little risky. Yes it worked and congrats but it certainly doesn't speak to the stability of the industry. Yes, they managed to get more funding but VCs are not going to throw away an investment that doesn't look terrible. They have already invested a lot and the presence of remaining shares suggests that it was probably current investors who stumped up more cash.
It would be great news if the funding was for something specific, such as a torunament setup or a specific playing venue or something concrete. If it just for normal cash flow, that's worrying. We can't really know without looking at the financials and the only people with access to this are those that invested. So overall I guess we should be happy, I just have this nagging feeling that they are getting pressured to produce which suggests an underlying fragility. For sure MLG is being pressured to produce, but then again, they set up those expectations themselves of how quickly they think e-sports can grow and more importantly how much money it can generate. But the money isn't invested for anything concrete. That's why investors give money to managers. They're trusting MLG to set up tournaments and venues that are more attractive and bring in more people, and in turn they will look at the financials later on in the year and make that judgment for themselves. I don't think it's "good" or "bad" that MLG gave up stock in the company. It only matters how those board members use their power. If they focus MLG on profitability, then yes, some things will probably make you unhappy - things will cost more, players and consumers will get less, etc. But certainly you might prefer MLG to have a longer life than to go out in a blaze of generous glory where they give everything to the players and fans for nothing and then go bust. You can be fairly certain that the money is for something concrete. VC's will require a detailed business plan for what MLG intends to do with the money. The scenario where the VC's are investing more just to not lose their prior investment is unlikely. As someone else said, VC's aren't in the business of throwing good money after bad. These are sophisticated investors that known when to cut bait. If they thought MLG was sucking wind, they would take that $11 million and invest it in a different business that appears to have more potential. This investment is good news. It shows MLG has the revenue, business model, and future plans to convince sophisticated investors to invest significant money.
It doesnt have to mean that. It could also mean that the same fund that is carrying MLG investments on their books at value x doesnt want to admit to their own investors that value x has degraded due to costs. If they throw in an extra 11 million at MLG while valuing company shares at the same price x that their previous investment was at then they can continue to account on their own books their whole investment into MLG as x.
|
Grats MLG
Glad I bought the ticket, hopefully it helped esports grow
|
On March 14 2012 13:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
IMO the best way to look at it from a finance perspective is that it's a good thing that VCs are still interested but a bad thing that they haven't progressed beyond that stage yet since VC money is generally one of the most expensive forms of financing around. From a fan standpoint just be glad they have the cash to stick around for at least a few more years :-)
What do you think MLG's effective cost of funds is? Sadly, it probably doesn't matter... MLG is a long way off an IPO and definitely too young/unproven for a substantial bank facility.
|
On March 14 2012 03:40 Sprouter wrote:Show nested quote +
The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year.
holy shit, THAT IS HUGE growth. regardless of whether arena did well or not, MLG is doing really well.
well thats not really indicitive as a whole since that was mlg picking up SC2, the previous years were pretty much halo / wow tourneys and such.
|
MLG trashing their own brand.
They used to have some good reputation, but now their true colours come out, and only 12mths after the game is released. Just a big business project.
It is NOT TYSON HEAVY WEIGHT WORLD CHAMP FIGHT, it's SC2 where every comp has free stream (accessability). Hell, IEM have replays within the hour of the match being played! ^^
I know which tournaments I will be following and which are not worth the hassle.
|
On March 14 2012 16:31 Parcelleus wrote:
MLG trashing their own brand.
They used to have some good reputation, but now their true colours come out, and only 12mths after the game is released. Just a big business project.
It is NOT TYSON HEAVY WEIGHT WORLD CHAMP FIGHT, it's SC2 where every comp has free stream (accessability). Hell, IEM have replays within the hour of the match being played! ^^
I know which tournaments I will be following and which are not worth the hassle.
The point of running tournaments is to make money... and business doesn't appear to be very good. Also, MLG is not part of a convention like IEM is.
|
On March 14 2012 04:42 teacash wrote:
Awesome.
please nobody confuse "Total # of viewers = 240k for one event" with "240k viewers at a given time" though.
Don't forget what the difference is, and immediately assume that MLG gets so many more viewers than stuff like HSC or Dreamhack because "the highest you ever see on viewer # for HSC is 60k" or some junk like that...
A tournament held over multiple days could have 240k unique viewers for one event while never going over 60-80k at any given time. This is a reminder so nobody makes a fool of themselves and goes home thinking that MLG gets 4 times the viewers as every other tourney.. They don't, but they're doing great for themselves and we love to see that
This is so wrong it's awesome.
Yes, the 240K viewers was concurrent (meaning at a given time). For unique visitors, they over like 3-4 million also. Don't know how you missed that.
MLG does multiple games, so it's hard to do a straight up comparison but the fact remains clear. MLG dwarfs all other events right now.
|
On March 14 2012 03:40 idonthinksobro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:31 ThatGuy89 wrote:
hmmm seems like PPV paid off?
glad to see Esports growing no this is a completly baseless assumption, lets assume PPV was horrible what would you do to make it look like success? Right release press news that you increase the funding but if you really look at these figures it doesn't mean anything really since they actually don't really know what they should do with all the money they made over the last year and deal could have been made way before the mlg. I'm still very sceptical if the PPV thing was a success they were at least break even for sure but every neutral poll showed that like 70%-80% of the people that would have watched didn't due to PPV. I don't really know if the sponsors did like this. This news timing seems like another strategical piece towards making people believe it was a great sucess, like the tweet right before MLG saying "PPV preorders exceeded our expactations".
Your first sentence is pretty ironic considering your the one who ends up making a completely baseless assumption...
|
On March 14 2012 16:31 Parcelleus wrote:
MLG trashing their own brand.
They used to have some good reputation, but now their true colours come out, and only 12mths after the game is released. Just a big business project.
It is NOT TYSON HEAVY WEIGHT WORLD CHAMP FIGHT, it's SC2 where every comp has free stream (accessability). Hell, IEM have replays within the hour of the match being played! ^^
I know which tournaments I will be following and which are not worth the hassle.
The fact that it's "a big business project" is only positive. Means there's a real possibility for long term growth. Which is what everyone wants to achieve.
MLG keeps improving! If they're also making money then thats a positive thing, if not then I'm concerned for the future. Hope they have/will find a model that allows for MLG to sustain itself with growth over the next 5-10 years. That would be amazing. I'd be very happy to see MLG still hosting this many SC2 tournaments in 10 years. That should be the hope of everyone.
|
it wasn't too long ago people were bashing on MLG and threatening a boycott, now there is praise for how much money they've made and how it's a good thing. it is a good thing, and maybe the next time there is a price for MLG the community won't go on a rampage.
|
On March 14 2012 16:31 Parcelleus wrote:
MLG trashing their own brand.
They used to have some good reputation, but now their true colours come out, and only 12mths after the game is released. Just a big business project.
It is NOT TYSON HEAVY WEIGHT WORLD CHAMP FIGHT, it's SC2 where every comp has free stream (accessability). Hell, IEM have replays within the hour of the match being played! ^^
I know which tournaments I will be following and which are not worth the hassle.
MLG is a business. It couldn't survive otherwise.
Why is everybody shocked that a business's goal is to make money? In order to make money, it is in MLG's best interest to grow esports and Starcraft 2, because that will make more money. They win, we win, everybody wins.
You think they can just print money to hand to the top players, to hire the best casters, to have top notch production?
|
United States216 Posts
Enough money perhaps to not charge so much for their tournaments? Probably not.
|
I don't understand how so many of you can misinterpret this as "maybe MLG won't charge as much" or "maybe MLG won't have forced PPV now".
This is Venture Capitalist money. As MLG continues to accept and be dependent on VC money, they will continue to lose control of their company to outside investors who want to milk esports for as much money as they can.
|
On March 14 2012 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth. PPV was profitable. A profiting industry that doesn't rely solely on sponsors is good for said industry. Everyone involved with e-sports at a high level, such as EG management have all said that having financial independence will do tremendous things for the scene in general. Being so reliant on sponsorship makes the scene really fickle financially. A company like MLG showing that they can keep themselves afloat shows investors that someone competent is running the gig and that they can make money for investors. How can you say that financial independence isn't empowering to the scene?
He said it doesn't bring growth to eSport. Which is what I've said in the original discussion about PPV as well. What you are describing is "How efficient can MLG and EG etc. milk the three cows that they have until they are bonedry."
That is not growth. Don't let anyone tell you that. Growth is getting more cows to milk. Get it? I know Sundance doesn't. Or his investors at least.
|
On March 14 2012 18:25 ShinobiX wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth. PPV was profitable. A profiting industry that doesn't rely solely on sponsors is good for said industry. Everyone involved with e-sports at a high level, such as EG management have all said that having financial independence will do tremendous things for the scene in general. Being so reliant on sponsorship makes the scene really fickle financially. A company like MLG showing that they can keep themselves afloat shows investors that someone competent is running the gig and that they can make money for investors. How can you say that financial independence isn't empowering to the scene? He said it doesn't bring growth to eSport. Which is what I've said in the original discussion about PPV as well. What you are describing is "How efficient can MLG and EG etc. milk the three cows that they have until they are bonedry." That is not growth. Don't let anyone tell you that. Growth is getting more cows to milk. Get it? I know Sundance doesn't. Or his investors at least.
And how do you get more cows? $$$$
|
On March 14 2012 18:31 Chained wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 18:25 ShinobiX wrote:On March 14 2012 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth. PPV was profitable. A profiting industry that doesn't rely solely on sponsors is good for said industry. Everyone involved with e-sports at a high level, such as EG management have all said that having financial independence will do tremendous things for the scene in general. Being so reliant on sponsorship makes the scene really fickle financially. A company like MLG showing that they can keep themselves afloat shows investors that someone competent is running the gig and that they can make money for investors. How can you say that financial independence isn't empowering to the scene? He said it doesn't bring growth to eSport. Which is what I've said in the original discussion about PPV as well. What you are describing is "How efficient can MLG and EG etc. milk the three cows that they have until they are bonedry." That is not growth. Don't let anyone tell you that. Growth is getting more cows to milk. Get it? I know Sundance doesn't. Or his investors at least. And how do you get more cows? $$$$
This is where the analogy gets weird. So I will ask you... does MLG buy viewers with money? Nope. So of course I can't answer your question. But I can elaborate on the current situation. MLG is doing jack shit to attract new viewers. And in the end, the viewership decides how much money is in the pool of the industry. That is why in football players, teams etc. earn millions and in eSports we are asking if we are profitable.
You can of course take the 250k viewers that big events have on average and try to invent new ways to exploit their pockets, but at some point you are reaching a limit. And I think if you want to have long term success, it's smarter to increase the viewership instead of increasing the load the current viewership has to carry to keep eSports going.
Know what I mean?
|
But it's good i guess?!? (As long as they spend it on the right things)
|
Nice, gratz to MLG, this is good for all of us.
(And lol at all the business experts on TL.net....oh the internets.)
|
"The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year. 241,000 people tuned into its Providence National Championships event alone last November."
It's because they added LoL to their roster.. LoL right now is the biggest esport in terms of viewers, recently IEM LoL stream had 250k+ viewers at one time.
|
On March 14 2012 18:36 ShinobiX wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 18:31 Chained wrote:On March 14 2012 18:25 ShinobiX wrote:On March 14 2012 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth. PPV was profitable. A profiting industry that doesn't rely solely on sponsors is good for said industry. Everyone involved with e-sports at a high level, such as EG management have all said that having financial independence will do tremendous things for the scene in general. Being so reliant on sponsorship makes the scene really fickle financially. A company like MLG showing that they can keep themselves afloat shows investors that someone competent is running the gig and that they can make money for investors. How can you say that financial independence isn't empowering to the scene? He said it doesn't bring growth to eSport. Which is what I've said in the original discussion about PPV as well. What you are describing is "How efficient can MLG and EG etc. milk the three cows that they have until they are bonedry." That is not growth. Don't let anyone tell you that. Growth is getting more cows to milk. Get it? I know Sundance doesn't. Or his investors at least. And how do you get more cows? $$$$ This is where the analogy gets weird. So I will ask you... does MLG buy viewers with money? Nope. So of course I can't answer your question. But I can elaborate on the current situation. MLG is doing jack shit to attract new viewers. And in the end, the viewership decides how much money is in the pool of the industry. That is why in football players, teams etc. earn millions and in eSports we are asking if we are profitable. You can of course take the 250k viewers that big events have on average and try to invent new ways to exploit their pockets, but at some point you are reaching a limit. And I think if you want to have long term success, it's smarter to increase the viewership instead of increasing the load the current viewership has to carry to keep eSports going. Know what I mean?
You don't think 11.3 million will help MLG to secure growth? What if this new funding is a result of the success of the PPV? Doesn't that kind of prove his argument? And do you realize only the Arenas will be PPV, the main MLG events will still be free? Do you think all 11.3 million will be put into the Arenas?
|
On March 14 2012 20:28 SuperFanBoy wrote:
"The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year. 241,000 people tuned into its Providence National Championships event alone last November."
It's because they added LoL to their roster.. LoL right now is the biggest esport in terms of viewers, recently IEM LoL stream had 250k+ viewers at one time.
Aren't LoL stream numbers inflated by the fact that everyone with the game open can watch? Do they actually count people idly sitting in the game's main menu as viewers?
|
On March 14 2012 20:46 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 20:28 SuperFanBoy wrote:
"The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year. 241,000 people tuned into its Providence National Championships event alone last November."
It's because they added LoL to their roster.. LoL right now is the biggest esport in terms of viewers, recently IEM LoL stream had 250k+ viewers at one time. Aren't LoL stream numbers inflated by the fact that everyone with the game open can watch? Do they actually count people idly sitting in the game's main menu as viewers?
So is MLG quad view.
|
On March 14 2012 21:00 Frankon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 20:46 Doodsmack wrote:On March 14 2012 20:28 SuperFanBoy wrote:
"The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year. 241,000 people tuned into its Providence National Championships event alone last November."
It's because they added LoL to their roster.. LoL right now is the biggest esport in terms of viewers, recently IEM LoL stream had 250k+ viewers at one time. Aren't LoL stream numbers inflated by the fact that everyone with the game open can watch? Do they actually count people idly sitting in the game's main menu as viewers? So is MLG quad view.
I believe it was stated that people watching the quad view were counted as only one concurrent viewer. Not that that's even comparable to the LoL situation in the first place.
|
On March 14 2012 20:46 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 20:28 SuperFanBoy wrote:
"The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year. 241,000 people tuned into its Providence National Championships event alone last November."
It's because they added LoL to their roster.. LoL right now is the biggest esport in terms of viewers, recently IEM LoL stream had 250k+ viewers at one time. Aren't LoL stream numbers inflated by the fact that everyone with the game open can watch? Do they actually count people idly sitting in the game's main menu as viewers?
No that is wrong, I play LoL and at no point in time does the stream open.. The stream is advertised on the LoL main menu which you can click and open it if you wish to watch (its merely a link).. I don't think people realize how big of a magnitude LoL is.. if the stream automatically opened for everyone playing LoL the viewer count would be in the millions. Riot Games are taking esports to a whole new level, Blizzard should take notes.
The other day on LoL there was message saying please restart your launcher for new patch, because of everyone logging in at the same time after the patch people had to wait in a queue.. while I was in the queue there was 120,000 people lined up in the queue and the login was taking in about 500 people in per second. I think in peak times LoL might reach an average of 2-3 million players playing at once.
|
amazing and awsome GO E SPORTS!!!
|
On March 14 2012 21:03 SuperFanBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 20:46 Doodsmack wrote:On March 14 2012 20:28 SuperFanBoy wrote:
"The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year. 241,000 people tuned into its Providence National Championships event alone last November."
It's because they added LoL to their roster.. LoL right now is the biggest esport in terms of viewers, recently IEM LoL stream had 250k+ viewers at one time. Aren't LoL stream numbers inflated by the fact that everyone with the game open can watch? Do they actually count people idly sitting in the game's main menu as viewers? No that is wrong, I play LoL and at no point in time does the stream open.. The stream is advertised on the LoL main menu which you can click and open it if you wish to watch (its merely a link).. I don't think people realize how big of a magnitude LoL is.. if the stream automatically opened for everyone playing LoL the viewer count would be in the millions. Riot Games are taking esports to a whole new level, Blizzard should take notes. The other day on LoL there was message saying please restart your launcher for new patch, because of everyone logging in at the same time after the patch people had to wait in a queue.. while I was in the queue there was 120,000 people lined up in the queue and the login was taking in about 500 people in per second. I think in peak times LoL might reach an average of 2-3 million players playing at once.
Yeah, LoL has like 30 million players and 11 million of those are active, compared to about 5 million for SC2 and 550,000 or so active on ladder (based on SCranks.com data of all active players within the last 3 months). Of course it's going to get more raw numbers, it's ratio of players to esports viewers however is much lower, not to mention that SC2 does have a lot of people who do not actively play or don't even own the game, who will watch SC2. I've played a lot of LoL and I've got to say I think the appeal to non-players is close to zero.
|
On March 14 2012 05:44 Jinsho wrote:
This is why they had to do February's PPV. They needed to show to the VCs that PPV is possible and can generate revenue.
As correct as this statement is, the filing tells us absolutely nothing about the success of said PPV event. The filing will be identical if 1 person paid versus 1 million. It is information exclusively about 2011.
|
Thinking about it, this investment is a pretty good explanation why the Winter Arena was rolled out as PPV so quickly and haphazardly.Probably there was a long term plan to implement some kind of PPV, but the investors wanted to see that it worked now before they ponied up any money.
MLG being stuck between a rock and a hard place, in a span of weeks they come up with a new PPV event on the same weekend as another one, pay all the expenses of the players to get them there and proceed to ignore (or "I get it") the protests of their pre-paid subscribers to show that PPV works.
I guess it does; at least enough for the investors.
|
On March 14 2012 03:31 ThatGuy89 wrote:
hmmm seems like PPV paid off?
glad to see Esports growing
PPV covered ONLY the costs of THAT turney. Stop daydreaming.
Put it like this. If they had a record-high and almost imposible online viewership number of 100k viewers (just for starcraft) * 20$ = 2 mil dolors. Keep in mind they didn't have 100k viewers for starcraft only. Maybe 25-50k? So max 1 mil dolors they made from that event.
Now deduct the hotel rezervations + airplain transport + interwebz/stream (not sure about this one) + MC's burgers (sry iNcontrol, had to throw it in there :D ) + prizes + casters + (very important) the casts made for the qualifiers + production (which includes paying the ppl hierd to make this event possible). Everything costs....including breathing air.
.... and u have about enough money for a "0.5l Cola" left.
Those 11.3m$ are strictly from investors and THAT is a good thing.
|
is MLG ever going to turn a profit.... 
|
That is a lot... then again MLG is huge so :/
|
On March 14 2012 22:56 purecarnagge wrote:is MLG ever going to turn a profit....
If they cobble together short-term revenue bursts whenever VCs want them to it won't matter!
|
Hurray for MLG. Always wishing for more recognition and sponsors from corporates.
|
On March 14 2012 03:40 idonthinksobro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:31 ThatGuy89 wrote:
hmmm seems like PPV paid off?
glad to see Esports growing no this is a completly baseless assumption, lets assume PPV was horrible what would you do to make it look like success? Right release press news that you increase the funding but if you really look at these figures it doesn't mean anything really since they actually don't really know what they should do with all the money they made over the last year and deal could have been made way before the mlg. I'm still very sceptical if the PPV thing was a success they were at least break even for sure but every neutral poll showed that like 70%-80% of the people that would have watched didn't due to PPV. I don't really know if the sponsors did like this. This news timing seems like another strategical piece towards making people believe it was a great sucess, like the tweet right before MLG saying "PPV preorders exceeded our expactations".
I'm pretty sure I remember hearing an MLG employee mention that it wasn't a 70% failure right like you suggest. Polls are often terrible sources of info. If you're looking at TL polls for example, which asked if people would pay, well remember that TL is only part of the SC2 fanbase, and the answers given were only speculation. The only true info to go off would be to see flat out how many tickets were purchased on MLG's end, not a poll on a website.
|
On March 14 2012 21:28 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 21:03 SuperFanBoy wrote:On March 14 2012 20:46 Doodsmack wrote:On March 14 2012 20:28 SuperFanBoy wrote:
"The company had its biggest year in 2011, as the number of unique visitors during its Pro Circuit Season increased by 225 percent over the previous year. 241,000 people tuned into its Providence National Championships event alone last November."
It's because they added LoL to their roster.. LoL right now is the biggest esport in terms of viewers, recently IEM LoL stream had 250k+ viewers at one time. Aren't LoL stream numbers inflated by the fact that everyone with the game open can watch? Do they actually count people idly sitting in the game's main menu as viewers? No that is wrong, I play LoL and at no point in time does the stream open.. The stream is advertised on the LoL main menu which you can click and open it if you wish to watch (its merely a link).. I don't think people realize how big of a magnitude LoL is.. if the stream automatically opened for everyone playing LoL the viewer count would be in the millions. Riot Games are taking esports to a whole new level, Blizzard should take notes. The other day on LoL there was message saying please restart your launcher for new patch, because of everyone logging in at the same time after the patch people had to wait in a queue.. while I was in the queue there was 120,000 people lined up in the queue and the login was taking in about 500 people in per second. I think in peak times LoL might reach an average of 2-3 million players playing at once. Yeah, LoL has like 30 million players and 11 million of those are active, compared to about 5 million for SC2 and 550,000 or so active on ladder (based on SCranks.com data of all active players within the last 3 months). Of course it's going to get more raw numbers, it's ratio of players to esports viewers however is much lower, not to mention that SC2 does have a lot of people who do not actively play or don't even own the game, who will watch SC2. I've played a lot of LoL and I've got to say I think the appeal to non-players is close to zero.
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor.
|
On March 14 2012 21:49 bonifaceviii wrote:
Thinking about it, this investment is a pretty good explanation why the Winter Arena was rolled out as PPV so quickly and haphazardly.Probably there was a long term plan to implement some kind of PPV, but the investors wanted to see that it worked now before they ponied up any money.
MLG being stuck between a rock and a hard place, in a span of weeks they come up with a new PPV event on the same weekend as another one, pay all the expenses of the players to get them there and proceed to ignore (or "I get it") the protests of their pre-paid subscribers to show that PPV works.
I guess it does; at least enough for the investors.
Good point. even if the PPV was done shoddily (whether you agree with the idea or not), it's a good thing if MLG is able to prove itself to investors. More investment in tourneys = more and longer term pro SC2 for us all to enjoy.
I know one thing is for certain: MLG didn't raise this money to support future tournaments from people using adblock or bitching about a ticket price that's no more than a decent meal.
|
On March 14 2012 22:56 ReboundEU wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:31 ThatGuy89 wrote:
hmmm seems like PPV paid off?
glad to see Esports growing PPV covered ONLY the costs of THAT turney. Stop daydreaming. Put it like this. If they had a record-high and almost imposible online viewership number of 100k viewers (just for starcraft) * 20$ = 2 mil dolors. Keep in mind they didn't have 100k viewers for starcraft only. Maybe 25-50k? So max 1 mil dolors they made from that event. Now deduct the hotel rezervations + airplain transport + interwebz/stream (not sure about this one) + MC's burgers (sry iNcontrol, had to throw it in there :D ) + prizes + casters + (very important) the casts made for the qualifiers + production (which includes paying the ppl hierd to make this event possible). Everything costs....including breathing air. .... and u have about enough money for a "0.5l Cola" left. Those 11.3m$ are strictly from investors and THAT is a good thing.
A lot of the viewers could watch for free too, so you an substract that from the revenue's.
|
Yeah I agree, the entirely of the LoL phenomenon is generated out of Riot these days, prize pools, flights, viewership, they're holding it up right now with both hands, and the trick will be seeing if they can let go without it collapsing.
Or they might not need to. They have a good business model where more eyes means more players means more revenue. So who knows?
|
On March 14 2012 23:07 Sphen5117 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 21:49 bonifaceviii wrote:
Thinking about it, this investment is a pretty good explanation why the Winter Arena was rolled out as PPV so quickly and haphazardly.Probably there was a long term plan to implement some kind of PPV, but the investors wanted to see that it worked now before they ponied up any money.
MLG being stuck between a rock and a hard place, in a span of weeks they come up with a new PPV event on the same weekend as another one, pay all the expenses of the players to get them there and proceed to ignore (or "I get it") the protests of their pre-paid subscribers to show that PPV works.
I guess it does; at least enough for the investors. Good point. even if the PPV was done shoddily (whether you agree with the idea or not), it's a good thing if MLG is able to prove itself to investors. More investment in tourneys = more and longer term pro SC2 for us all to enjoy. I know one thing is for certain: MLG didn't raise this money to support future tournaments from people using adblock or bitching about a ticket price that's no more than a decent meal.
But, is it only the SC2 crowd that will be paying? Where is the LoL PPV, Halo PPV, MK PPV etc. Have MLG raised ticket costs for attending events live?
IF the SC2 crowd is the only part of their viewers that can be relied on to pay for content and for MLG being alive, Im a bit worried for the future.
|
Great job MLG!
I look forward to great production quality in the future. Hopefully it will stay as the best Starcraft tournament for me. :D
|
On March 14 2012 23:09 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 22:56 ReboundEU wrote:On March 14 2012 03:31 ThatGuy89 wrote:
hmmm seems like PPV paid off?
glad to see Esports growing PPV covered ONLY the costs of THAT turney. Stop daydreaming. Put it like this. If they had a record-high and almost imposible online viewership number of 100k viewers (just for starcraft) * 20$ = 2 mil dolors. Keep in mind they didn't have 100k viewers for starcraft only. Maybe 25-50k? So max 1 mil dolors they made from that event. Now deduct the hotel rezervations + airplain transport + interwebz/stream (not sure about this one) + MC's burgers (sry iNcontrol, had to throw it in there :D ) + prizes + casters + (very important) the casts made for the qualifiers + production (which includes paying the ppl hierd to make this event possible). Everything costs....including breathing air. .... and u have about enough money for a "0.5l Cola" left. Those 11.3m$ are strictly from investors and THAT is a good thing. A lot of the viewers could watch for free too, so you an substract that from the revenue's.
That is correct, thx for pointing it out, i forgot about that issue. Well consider i took "ideal numbers" or "maximum profit possible" And yes if u put in the REAL viewership numbers things look even more grimm.
Thx for that RvB
|
A lot of praising MLG for being able to raise more money but we have no idea what the shares were valued out for this deal. We would need to know what the price of shares was throughout each funding period to see if MLG, is improving and thus more attractive to investors (willing to pay more per share, accept lower returns because they view the risk as lower)...
|
On March 14 2012 05:18 blamekilly wrote:
How much of the money have the players received? I don't think it's more than $300k for all the MLG combined.
The combined prizepool for all games at Providence was over $600,000.
Total prizepool for 2011 for all events was over $1.1 million.
For Starcraft 2 alone it was around $210,000.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 14 2012 16:12 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 11:27 GeezerGeek wrote:On March 14 2012 10:00 coverpunch wrote:On March 14 2012 09:48 Probulous wrote:
I don't know about this. It seems like having to give up equity in exchange for cash based off of a new model that was only just implemented is a little risky. Yes it worked and congrats but it certainly doesn't speak to the stability of the industry. Yes, they managed to get more funding but VCs are not going to throw away an investment that doesn't look terrible. They have already invested a lot and the presence of remaining shares suggests that it was probably current investors who stumped up more cash.
It would be great news if the funding was for something specific, such as a torunament setup or a specific playing venue or something concrete. If it just for normal cash flow, that's worrying. We can't really know without looking at the financials and the only people with access to this are those that invested. So overall I guess we should be happy, I just have this nagging feeling that they are getting pressured to produce which suggests an underlying fragility. For sure MLG is being pressured to produce, but then again, they set up those expectations themselves of how quickly they think e-sports can grow and more importantly how much money it can generate. But the money isn't invested for anything concrete. That's why investors give money to managers. They're trusting MLG to set up tournaments and venues that are more attractive and bring in more people, and in turn they will look at the financials later on in the year and make that judgment for themselves. I don't think it's "good" or "bad" that MLG gave up stock in the company. It only matters how those board members use their power. If they focus MLG on profitability, then yes, some things will probably make you unhappy - things will cost more, players and consumers will get less, etc. But certainly you might prefer MLG to have a longer life than to go out in a blaze of generous glory where they give everything to the players and fans for nothing and then go bust. You can be fairly certain that the money is for something concrete. VC's will require a detailed business plan for what MLG intends to do with the money. The scenario where the VC's are investing more just to not lose their prior investment is unlikely. As someone else said, VC's aren't in the business of throwing good money after bad. These are sophisticated investors that known when to cut bait. If they thought MLG was sucking wind, they would take that $11 million and invest it in a different business that appears to have more potential. This investment is good news. It shows MLG has the revenue, business model, and future plans to convince sophisticated investors to invest significant money. It doesnt have to mean that. It could also mean that the same fund that is carrying MLG investments on their books at value x doesnt want to admit to their own investors that value x has degraded due to costs. If they throw in an extra 11 million at MLG while valuing company shares at the same price x that their previous investment was at then they can continue to account on their own books their whole investment into MLG as x.
Is this possible? Yes. But the scenario you sketch it tantamount to fraud, and it's not how successful VC funds are typically run. Obviously we're all speculating somewhat here, but odds are MLG had a concrete plan that for what to do with the funds and sophisticated investors looked at current operations and the future business plan and agreed there is a good chance of substantial profits.
Like others have said, we don't know the terms of the investment, which would give us a much better clue as to how MLG is doing, but the fact that they can still attract VC capital in this economy is, overall, a good sign.
|
On March 14 2012 23:12 Jiddra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 23:07 Sphen5117 wrote:On March 14 2012 21:49 bonifaceviii wrote:
Thinking about it, this investment is a pretty good explanation why the Winter Arena was rolled out as PPV so quickly and haphazardly.Probably there was a long term plan to implement some kind of PPV, but the investors wanted to see that it worked now before they ponied up any money.
MLG being stuck between a rock and a hard place, in a span of weeks they come up with a new PPV event on the same weekend as another one, pay all the expenses of the players to get them there and proceed to ignore (or "I get it") the protests of their pre-paid subscribers to show that PPV works.
I guess it does; at least enough for the investors. Good point. even if the PPV was done shoddily (whether you agree with the idea or not), it's a good thing if MLG is able to prove itself to investors. More investment in tourneys = more and longer term pro SC2 for us all to enjoy. I know one thing is for certain: MLG didn't raise this money to support future tournaments from people using adblock or bitching about a ticket price that's no more than a decent meal. But, is it only the SC2 crowd that will be paying? Where is the LoL PPV, Halo PPV, MK PPV etc. Have MLG raised ticket costs for attending events live? IF the SC2 crowd is the only part of their viewers that can be relied on to pay for content and for MLG being alive, Im a bit worried for the future.
I completely understand that concern, but the reason I myself am not too worried is I trust (possibly naively) that the income generated from each game will be approximately proportional to what is put back in to it.
The state of competitive SC2 as a whole in 2011 seemed to be one with alot of exciting new opportunities arising for the first time, and the first full year of operation for many. Alot of these like MLG had alot of explosive growth, but now we're going to start seeing what is sustainable. Other games may have their scenes a little more rooted (even if they are smaller or larger), and out of fear of not having this fervor for SC2 "stick", it's always safest to secure this kind of data about it, namely how much revenue can be generated from it so that they know how much they can afford to spend on it.
Atleast, this is the conclusion I would come to. 2011 was indeed an amazing year for SC2, but now we're all sort of holding our breath and letting the dust settle to make absolutely sure that much of this can stick around and quite possibly explode even more (or slowly and steadily grow, also good)
|
On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor.
They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything.
|
On March 14 2012 20:45 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 18:36 ShinobiX wrote:On March 14 2012 18:31 Chained wrote:On March 14 2012 18:25 ShinobiX wrote:On March 14 2012 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth. PPV was profitable. A profiting industry that doesn't rely solely on sponsors is good for said industry. Everyone involved with e-sports at a high level, such as EG management have all said that having financial independence will do tremendous things for the scene in general. Being so reliant on sponsorship makes the scene really fickle financially. A company like MLG showing that they can keep themselves afloat shows investors that someone competent is running the gig and that they can make money for investors. How can you say that financial independence isn't empowering to the scene? He said it doesn't bring growth to eSport. Which is what I've said in the original discussion about PPV as well. What you are describing is "How efficient can MLG and EG etc. milk the three cows that they have until they are bonedry." That is not growth. Don't let anyone tell you that. Growth is getting more cows to milk. Get it? I know Sundance doesn't. Or his investors at least. And how do you get more cows? $$$$ This is where the analogy gets weird. So I will ask you... does MLG buy viewers with money? Nope. So of course I can't answer your question. But I can elaborate on the current situation. MLG is doing jack shit to attract new viewers. And in the end, the viewership decides how much money is in the pool of the industry. That is why in football players, teams etc. earn millions and in eSports we are asking if we are profitable. You can of course take the 250k viewers that big events have on average and try to invent new ways to exploit their pockets, but at some point you are reaching a limit. And I think if you want to have long term success, it's smarter to increase the viewership instead of increasing the load the current viewership has to carry to keep eSports going. Know what I mean? You don't think 11.3 million will help MLG to secure growth? What if this new funding is a result of the success of the PPV? Doesn't that kind of prove his argument? And do you realize only the Arenas will be PPV, the main MLG events will still be free? Do you think all 11.3 million will be put into the Arenas?
You Don't get it. I Don'z give a shit about mlg's financial growth. Sundance said he wanted to help esport. The post i replied to talked about esport. You also equate the success of mlg to esport. That is bullshit. Mlg does not equal esport. That is what gets me into this debate. None of this has furthered esport in any way. Not even the poor excuse that travel expenses for Teams have been taken care of. Who gives a fuck. This has Not promoted esport to a new audience at all, so no growth was achieved. Period.
|
On March 15 2012 00:37 DeaDoXFighting wrote:
esports FOR LIFE!
exactly this :D
|
On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything.
This. SC2 players are, thus far, stingy with their money and expect everything to be free.
If they made tournament gold subscriptions purchasable with RP, the revenue would be gargantuan. It's even easier to rationalize than buy a new skin, since you can buy the next RP bundle up, and get some new champs and skins WITH your tourney access.
|
MLG is taking in so much money, yet so few of it is going to the players.
I dont like their business model.
|
On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything.
And i am very happy about that...
For you it is an industry and your job. For most people here it is not. It is something we do in our free time to have fun.
Its not about making esport big or about having great business success. Its about having fun, watching and playing a game.
And there is no need to spend money for this.
|
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
|
I don't think this is good for esport. At least not the way I would like esport to go.
These 11.3m are an investment, not a sponsorship. This means they want us to eventually pay it back.
MLG is investing way too much, and after that they explain to us that they need PPV to survive.
There is currently more content than people can watch. There is a competition among events,
If a compagny keep investing and loosing money, it's just bad for the scene because it prevents other events to grow.
Sundance says he wants more and more. But the scene is already saturated.
I personnaly don't want more. I prefer a modest event like homestory cup for free, than a big event like winter arena for 20$.
MLG is just creating a bubble.
|
On March 15 2012 02:19 Crownlol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. This. SC2 players are, thus far, stingy with their money and expect everything to be free. If they made tournament gold subscriptions purchasable with RP, the revenue would be gargantuan. It's even easier to rationalize than buy a new skin, since you can buy the next RP bundle up, and get some new champs and skins WITH your tourney access.
Plenty of the sc2 community pay for HD streams so no they do not expect everything to be free. They just expect a free LQ stream and in the case of MLG a lot of people didn't find 20$ worth it which is a totally valid opinion considering the competition is cheaper.
|
On March 15 2012 02:31 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. And i am very happy about that... For you it is an industry and your job. For most people here it is not. It is something we do in our free time to have fun. Its not about making esport big or about having great business success. Its about having fun, watching and playing a game. And there is no need to spend money for this.
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.
|
On March 15 2012 02:42 Sphen5117 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 02:31 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. And i am very happy about that... For you it is an industry and your job. For most people here it is not. It is something we do in our free time to have fun. Its not about making esport big or about having great business success. Its about having fun, watching and playing a game. And there is no need to spend money for this. 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.
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.
|
This many years going and still taking venture capital. Not good.
|
On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything.
riot can just throw in a free teemo skin for people who pay for a ppv thing each mlg, or even more simply give a few hundred riot points as an incentive and people will be throwing money at it.
|
On March 15 2012 01:42 ShinobiX wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 20:45 Doodsmack wrote:On March 14 2012 18:36 ShinobiX wrote:On March 14 2012 18:31 Chained wrote:On March 14 2012 18:25 ShinobiX wrote:On March 14 2012 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:
How exactly did they accumulate this money?
Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV.
PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth. PPV was profitable. A profiting industry that doesn't rely solely on sponsors is good for said industry. Everyone involved with e-sports at a high level, such as EG management have all said that having financial independence will do tremendous things for the scene in general. Being so reliant on sponsorship makes the scene really fickle financially. A company like MLG showing that they can keep themselves afloat shows investors that someone competent is running the gig and that they can make money for investors. How can you say that financial independence isn't empowering to the scene? He said it doesn't bring growth to eSport. Which is what I've said in the original discussion about PPV as well. What you are describing is "How efficient can MLG and EG etc. milk the three cows that they have until they are bonedry." That is not growth. Don't let anyone tell you that. Growth is getting more cows to milk. Get it? I know Sundance doesn't. Or his investors at least. And how do you get more cows? $$$$ This is where the analogy gets weird. So I will ask you... does MLG buy viewers with money? Nope. So of course I can't answer your question. But I can elaborate on the current situation. MLG is doing jack shit to attract new viewers. And in the end, the viewership decides how much money is in the pool of the industry. That is why in football players, teams etc. earn millions and in eSports we are asking if we are profitable. You can of course take the 250k viewers that big events have on average and try to invent new ways to exploit their pockets, but at some point you are reaching a limit. And I think if you want to have long term success, it's smarter to increase the viewership instead of increasing the load the current viewership has to carry to keep eSports going. Know what I mean? You don't think 11.3 million will help MLG to secure growth? What if this new funding is a result of the success of the PPV? Doesn't that kind of prove his argument? And do you realize only the Arenas will be PPV, the main MLG events will still be free? Do you think all 11.3 million will be put into the Arenas? You Don't get it. I Don'z give a shit about mlg's financial growth. Sundance said he wanted to help esport. The post i replied to talked about esport. You also equate the success of mlg to esport. That is bullshit. Mlg does not equal esport. That is what gets me into this debate. None of this has furthered esport in any way. Not even the poor excuse that travel expenses for Teams have been taken care of. Who gives a fuck. This has Not promoted esport to a new audience at all, so no growth was achieved. Period.
I'm pretty sure the players/teams give a fuck about their travel expenses. MLG is effectively giving them money by paying for their tickets (apparently it's difficult to understand that plane tickets cost money).
Yes PPV is not directly growing the viewer base but most of MLG events are and you have to be really narrow minded to think that this PPV arena is a totally isolated event.
|
Nice to see that the PPV and all the talk that followed it wasn't all for nothing.
|
On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything.
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.
|
Good fun was had by all, except those who refused to pay and were left out of the festivities.
even by these guys tbh
|
On March 15 2012 03:16 SimDawg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. 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.
|
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.
|
Great job sundance Sundance and MLG and American E-sports hwaiting ~~~
|
On March 15 2012 03:40 ShinobiX wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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
|
On March 15 2012 02:42 Sphen5117 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 02:31 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. And i am very happy about that... For you it is an industry and your job. For most people here it is not. It is something we do in our free time to have fun. Its not about making esport big or about having great business success. Its about having fun, watching and playing a game. And there is no need to spend money for this. 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.
|
On March 15 2012 02:42 Sphen5117 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 02:31 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. And i am very happy about that... For you it is an industry and your job. For most people here it is not. It is something we do in our free time to have fun. Its not about making esport big or about having great business success. Its about having fun, watching and playing a game. And there is no need to spend money for this. 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.
|
Someone has been sucking some dinkydongs
|
On March 15 2012 03:40 Secret05 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:16 SimDawg wrote:On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. 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.
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.
|
On March 15 2012 02:45 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 02:42 Sphen5117 wrote:On March 15 2012 02:31 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. And i am very happy about that... For you it is an industry and your job. For most people here it is not. It is something we do in our free time to have fun. Its not about making esport big or about having great business success. Its about having fun, watching and playing a game. And there is no need to spend money for this. 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. 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.
|
Micro payments ARE extremely profitable. If you want to argue against it you had better look hard for evidence. I know for a fact i can find a ton of psychological studies, business plans and just appeal to stocks of various companies to back what i'm saying up.
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.
|
On March 15 2012 04:00 MrTortoise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:40 ShinobiX wrote: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. 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.
|
I distinguished between sponsors and investors I then showed a line of reasoning as to why focusing on sponsors as being the investors is really the only sane argument a viewer sohuld be making.
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.
|
On March 15 2012 04:19 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:00 MrTortoise wrote:On March 15 2012 03:40 ShinobiX wrote: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. 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". Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On March 15 2012 04:26 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:19 Kaitlin wrote:On March 15 2012 04:00 MrTortoise wrote:On March 15 2012 03:40 ShinobiX wrote: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. 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. 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.
|
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.
|
On March 15 2012 04:32 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:26 RvB wrote:On March 15 2012 04:19 Kaitlin wrote:On March 15 2012 04:00 MrTortoise wrote:On March 15 2012 03:40 ShinobiX wrote: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. 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. 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.
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.
|
On March 15 2012 02:33 Elean wrote:
I don't think this is good for esport. At least not the way I would like esport to go.
These 11.3m are an investment, not a sponsorship. This means they want us to eventually pay it back.
MLG is investing way too much, and after that they explain to us that they need PPV to survive.
There is currently more content than people can watch. There is a competition among events,
If a compagny keep investing and loosing money, it's just bad for the scene because it prevents other events to grow.
Sundance says he wants more and more. But the scene is already saturated.
I personnaly don't want more. I prefer a modest event like homestory cup for free, than a big event like winter arena for 20$.
MLG is just creating a bubble.
if your a player do you play/practice for homestory or do you play and practice for MLG?
I think there price point is off..but the real question is do you want more viewers for advertising or do you want more $$ per person. it comes down to who do you gain and lose if you do 15 dollars instead of 20... what happens at 10?
These are the questions they have to answer/figure out. If its a quality broadcast and not just a bunch of fill time...and its done with anywhere near the quality of blizzcon...then i'd pay 20.00 for the sc2 stuff.
|
On March 15 2012 04:15 Sphen5117 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 02:45 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 02:42 Sphen5117 wrote:On March 15 2012 02:31 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. And i am very happy about that... For you it is an industry and your job. For most people here it is not. It is something we do in our free time to have fun. Its not about making esport big or about having great business success. Its about having fun, watching and playing a game. And there is no need to spend money for this. 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. 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.
In DOTA2 BETA (the fricken' BETA) I can watch top players duke it out, in the best quality for free. If you want players to be able to make a living off of SC2 then you should be giving your money to them and their teams instead of MLG. Hurr durr
|
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.
I want this product.
I never was into RTS, red alert was the last RTS i played. Last summer i heard something about big gaming tourneys and professional gaming - since FPS and fighters ( except virtua fighter ) were even further down my game interest list i naturally stumbled upon starcraft2. First watched few husky, hdstarcraft and day9 videos and then got into watching my first live event MLG Anaheim - having that kind of big event with rather ok production values and fun casting got me hooked - i bought starcraft right afterwards.
I want even better product.
There is still lot of room for improvement. I believe if tournament organizers, blizzard, casters, professional teams and players all work on improving "the product" sc2 could see million+ concurrent viewers in 2-4 years.
While not everyone wants esports to grow bad and just cares about having better game - a growth in esports can help towards improving the game. If the amount of people, who buy the game just because they were introduced to it by esports events, grows significant enough compared to "regular buyers" - blizzard starcraft2 team has better arguments to get owners to invest even more to improve SC2 years after its release - better battlenet, new custom games, extra content ( say new free missions for all WoL, HoTS and LotV after they have been released for more replayability), better ladder, better 1vs1, better 4vs4 and so on.
Why should large amounts of people who (yet) have no interest in RTS, dont understand the action on screen in tourneys be enticed to buy SC2 and its expansions just because the tourneys had better show/products and sc2 itself had more content? - is a good question.
I think my feelings towards iPad would be a semi-related analogy to explore this.
I would *kind of* like to have something to conveniently read ebooks/game manuals/browse the web with in bed/train/couch.
The "proper" device would be an ereader or a cheap tablet. But i dont want them - i want an iPad, because its nearly flawless - its touchscreen is snappy, good viewing angle IPS screen, its screen is large enough ( c-moon 6"-7" is smaller then real pocketsized books) it looks good, its small&light - i would almost buy it even if i dont actually need/want it that bad - nor understand what use is it to me, except reading stuff.
Same way, a tourney with no downtime ( or downtime *filled* with fun content ) , good audio ( volume levels equal on all streams - music/casting/game levels good etc), no video lag/hiccups, fun talented casters ( i like hearing Tastosis cast just because they sometimes fill the downtime with crazy random facts like strawberries having more potassium than bananas), great back and forth games where there is often some action happening (mostly blizzard can help making this happen more often ), huge crowds, flashy graphics and stages - if done really good, this all could captivate attention of a tons more people who have played a bit of computer/console/browser games
Which could lead into them buying the game, but if the content is not good enough ( non-social battle.net - hard time finding good custom games, lack of good casual custom games ) - they wont buy the expansion ( this is where the incentive to make the game better comes in). If esports is gets to million+ concurrent viewers, it might be worth it for blizzard to make battlenet the best place to be in - with newsfeed on the latest esports events, ingame replays/VODs of the latest hottest matches/strats etc...(this is where iPad has failed me, i just dont see any other reason to buy it except its a good product for reading stuff )
So to conclude this rant
As long as the venture money goes on improving the show and blizzard succeeds in improving the game - i find this news good for both esports and the game.
|
On March 15 2012 04:59 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:15 Sphen5117 wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 02:42 Sphen5117 wrote:On March 15 2012 02:31 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. And i am very happy about that... For you it is an industry and your job. For most people here it is not. It is something we do in our free time to have fun. Its not about making esport big or about having great business success. Its about having fun, watching and playing a game. And there is no need to spend money for this. 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. 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. In DOTA2 BETA (the fricken' BETA) I can watch top players duke it out, in the best quality for free. If you want players to be able to make a living off of SC2 then you should be giving your money to them and their teams instead of MLG. Hurr durr
I am, honey, don't you worry. I only buy computer parts/accessories from companies that support teams/esports organizations.
However, what's the point of having a team if there are no competitions like MLG to win? Does a sponsor like Razer want to sponsor a team if all they're going to do is sat at home and stream? Does that return anything on Razer's investment? How does sponsoring a team help Razer if they get no representation from it?
How can your response be so vapid? I am obviously not saying that we need specifically MLG for the sake of esports. But if you give a shit about it, then it's stupid to suggest that they shouldn't be doing well.
Now you say "top" players, and that's quite possibly true, but are these players that make a living playing a game? Do they have 40 hour work-week careers ASIDE from playing Dota 2? If so, I promise you that the top end play you're seeing isn't everything it could be. If they are making a living from Dota 2 and get to play it full time, where do you think the money comes from?
NFL players aren't paid just to scrimmage each other during practice. (despite the fact that analogies are risky to use in debate, I felt this one fit.)
Is this the part of my post where I put in the "Hurr Durr" even thought I'm the one that failed to account for all factors in a situation?
|
On March 15 2012 05:52 Sphen5117 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:59 SupLilSon wrote:On March 15 2012 04:15 Sphen5117 wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 02:42 Sphen5117 wrote:On March 15 2012 02:31 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. And i am very happy about that... For you it is an industry and your job. For most people here it is not. It is something we do in our free time to have fun. Its not about making esport big or about having great business success. Its about having fun, watching and playing a game. And there is no need to spend money for this. 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. 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. In DOTA2 BETA (the fricken' BETA) I can watch top players duke it out, in the best quality for free. If you want players to be able to make a living off of SC2 then you should be giving your money to them and their teams instead of MLG. Hurr durr I am, honey, don't you worry. I only buy computer parts/accessories from companies that support teams/esports organizations. However, what's the point of having a team if there are no competitions like MLG to win? Does a sponsor like Razer want to sponsor a team if all they're going to do is sat at home and stream? Does that return anything on Razer's investment? How does sponsoring a team help Razer if they get no representation from it? How can your response be so vapid? I am obviously not saying that we need specifically MLG for the sake of esports. But if you give a shit about it, then it's stupid to suggest that they shouldn't be doing well. Now you say "top" players, and that's quite possibly true, but are these players that make a living playing a game? Do they have 40 hour work-week careers ASIDE from playing Dota 2? If so, I promise you that the top end play you're seeing isn't everything it could be. If they are making a living from Dota 2 and get to play it full time, where do you think the money comes from? NFL players aren't paid just to scrimmage each other during practice. (despite the fact that analogies are risky to use in debate, I felt this one fit.) Is this the part of my post where I put in the "Hurr Durr" even thought I'm the one that failed to account for all factors in a situation?
What factors in what situation? I think you've lost me, as well as yourself. Bottom line, you said not throwing your money at "e-sports" companies will lead to the extinction of SC2. As many have pointed out, that's completely false and many video game communities existed and continue to exist without large corporate sponsors or hundreds of thousands of spectators.
|
great, MLG has more debts and everybody is happy about it.
|
On March 15 2012 02:45 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 02:42 Sphen5117 wrote:On March 15 2012 02:31 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. And i am very happy about that... For you it is an industry and your job. For most people here it is not. It is something we do in our free time to have fun. Its not about making esport big or about having great business success. Its about having fun, watching and playing a game. And there is no need to spend money for this. 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. 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.
I think you actually speak without thinking about the consequences of what you are saying. It's pretty clear you don't really care about the quality of games and innovation in SC2. Without big prize pool and sponsors , there is no incentive for players to work on their game and improve, and the game would have never progressed beyond what we saw in GSL 1 (1 base all ins lol). Did you actually "enjoy" watching those games? Would you still "enjoy" watching those types of games today? If you do, then I feel really sorry for you.
Without sponsorship and big money most players would play for a couple of hours and then log out because they have no incentive to try and go professional or go to some other game. This leads to an overall stagnation in skill level. Look at the current foreign BW scene for instance. All the skilled players have left for SC2, and what you have left are folks who aren't as good as the older big named pros. Eventually less and less people will pick up the game, and while a few people will still be remaining and play the game, it will most likely be like a ghost town.
|
On March 15 2012 06:08 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 05:52 Sphen5117 wrote:On March 15 2012 04:59 SupLilSon wrote:On March 15 2012 04:15 Sphen5117 wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 02:42 Sphen5117 wrote:On March 15 2012 02:31 skeldark wrote:On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything. And i am very happy about that... For you it is an industry and your job. For most people here it is not. It is something we do in our free time to have fun. Its not about making esport big or about having great business success. Its about having fun, watching and playing a game. And there is no need to spend money for this. 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. 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. In DOTA2 BETA (the fricken' BETA) I can watch top players duke it out, in the best quality for free. If you want players to be able to make a living off of SC2 then you should be giving your money to them and their teams instead of MLG. Hurr durr I am, honey, don't you worry. I only buy computer parts/accessories from companies that support teams/esports organizations. However, what's the point of having a team if there are no competitions like MLG to win? Does a sponsor like Razer want to sponsor a team if all they're going to do is sat at home and stream? Does that return anything on Razer's investment? How does sponsoring a team help Razer if they get no representation from it? How can your response be so vapid? I am obviously not saying that we need specifically MLG for the sake of esports. But if you give a shit about it, then it's stupid to suggest that they shouldn't be doing well. Now you say "top" players, and that's quite possibly true, but are these players that make a living playing a game? Do they have 40 hour work-week careers ASIDE from playing Dota 2? If so, I promise you that the top end play you're seeing isn't everything it could be. If they are making a living from Dota 2 and get to play it full time, where do you think the money comes from? NFL players aren't paid just to scrimmage each other during practice. (despite the fact that analogies are risky to use in debate, I felt this one fit.) Is this the part of my post where I put in the "Hurr Durr" even thought I'm the one that failed to account for all factors in a situation? What factors in what situation? I think you've lost me, as well as yourself. Bottom line, you said not throwing your money at "e-sports" companies will lead to the extinction of SC2. As many have pointed out, that's completely false and many video game communities existed and continue to exist without large corporate sponsors or hundreds of thousands of spectators.
The situation of MLG in relation to Esports, in relation to the game itself.
I did not say that not throwing money at esports companies will lead to the extinction of SC2(as a game, I'm assuming). At all. You're right, that's false. That's why I didn't say it. You are wrong.
I will re-state myself in even more depth then:
Blizzard will still be around if MLG dies. Easy to see.
People like the game of SC2 itself, regardless of the competitive side (such as yourself and skeldark). Easy to see.
HOWEVER. For those of us who enjoy watching the game played at it's highest level, as a SPORT, beyond just someone who's "really good on the ladder when they get off work in the evenings", the fate of MLG (or IPL, NASL, GSL, etc) is important.
If you only care about the game itself and get enough enjoyment from watching casual play, why do you care? I assume you didn't mind that MLG charged 20 dollars then, becuase you don't need MLG-quality games to get your jollies.
It's a bit irresponsible to want to watch this beautiful game played at the level that only pros can play it at, but then not want them to have the financial backing to do so.
To want them to have the financial backing to do so means you want teams to have sponsors, that you want tournament organizations to have investors(or other support), and therefore for the players to be able to make a living playing the game rather than spending 40 hours a week in the cubicle I am typing this from.
If you don't care about the competitive scene at all and simply like the game as a game rather than as a sport, that is your choice, but then why do you care about any of this? If you do care about the competitive scene and the quality of entertainment it provides, why wouldn't you want MLG to be successful (whether or not MLG is making correct business decisions, etc is besides the point on this)?
The last two questions are more general, rather than directed at just you, SupLilSon. Directing them at you would be making assumptions, and I'm not going to lurk your post history to get your entire view on this.
Also, thanks for not putting in an insult at the end. I apologize for my own.
EDIT: Grammar n' shitz.
|
Awesome, they deserve some more funding
|
On March 15 2012 06:14 CaptainApe wrote:
great, MLG has more debts and everybody is happy about it.
As I stated many pages back, this is an equity round of financing, not debt. MLG has no more debt from this than they did before this.
|
On March 15 2012 06:54 mathsucks wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 06:14 CaptainApe wrote:
great, MLG has more debts and everybody is happy about it. As I stated many pages back, this is an equity round of financing, not debt. MLG has no more debt from this than they did before this.
Yeah, right, the investors will never want their money back (+interest)...
|
On March 15 2012 06:57 CaptainApe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 06:54 mathsucks wrote:On March 15 2012 06:14 CaptainApe wrote:
great, MLG has more debts and everybody is happy about it. As I stated many pages back, this is an equity round of financing, not debt. MLG has no more debt from this than they did before this. Yeah, right, the investors will never want their money back (+interest)...
It is called an investment which is a gamble, they might never see their money back.
|
On March 15 2012 06:57 CaptainApe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 06:54 mathsucks wrote:On March 15 2012 06:14 CaptainApe wrote:
great, MLG has more debts and everybody is happy about it. As I stated many pages back, this is an equity round of financing, not debt. MLG has no more debt from this than they did before this. Yeah, right, the investors will never want their money back (+interest)...
Equity means they are buying into ownership of the company. They are depending on profitability for their investment to pay off, otherwise it wont.
Debt means they give money and expect it returned with interest at a certain time. This investment vehicle just requires the company to repay their debts and has no dilution of ownership.
True story.
|
This just means more funding for MLG Ultimate Gaming House ^_^
|
Looks like is who spiel about MLG going under and how he needs 20 dollars for the event and how he had to fuck gold members over was a big joke, which we all fell for...
|
|
|
On March 15 2012 04:58 purecarnagge wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 02:33 Elean wrote:
I don't think this is good for esport. At least not the way I would like esport to go.
These 11.3m are an investment, not a sponsorship. This means they want us to eventually pay it back.
MLG is investing way too much, and after that they explain to us that they need PPV to survive.
There is currently more content than people can watch. There is a competition among events,
If a compagny keep investing and loosing money, it's just bad for the scene because it prevents other events to grow.
Sundance says he wants more and more. But the scene is already saturated.
I personnaly don't want more. I prefer a modest event like homestory cup for free, than a big event like winter arena for 20$.
MLG is just creating a bubble. if your a player do you play/practice for homestory or do you play and practice for MLG? I think there price point is off..but the real question is do you want more viewers for advertising or do you want more $$ per person. it comes down to who do you gain and lose if you do 15 dollars instead of 20... what happens at 10? These are the questions they have to answer/figure out. If its a quality broadcast and not just a bunch of fill time...and its done with anywhere near the quality of blizzcon...then i'd pay 20.00 for the sc2 stuff.
I don't really get your question.
A simple player don't play/practice for neither homestory nor MLG.
A pro gamer practice for potentially any tournament.
Now it's clear that MLG is one of the least interesting tournament for foreign player, the fact that MLG pays the flight for 30 players from all over the world increases the difficulty of the competition for a given prize pool.
For progaming teams, homestory cup is probably better, because there are more viewers.
Just compare HSC4 with winter arena. The ro8 of HSC4 has top tier players just like winter arena.
So for people like me who have more than enough content with ro8-BO5, ro4-bo5, and finals bo7, winter arena has nothing more to offer.
And I would definately pay less for MLG than for HSC4 because MLG shedule is plainly awfull for europeans, but that's not the point.
The point is for people who don't want to watch 20 hours of starcraft in the same week end, it's much better to have a smaller event.
That's why I don't want esport to go in the direction MLG is taking. There is no need to fly over 25 people from other continents, just half a dozen is more than fine. And I really prefer sponsors paying for the event than myself.
|
On March 15 2012 01:32 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 23:05 Jiddra wrote:
The real test will be when the LoL audience need to pay for something. The LoL viewers are hard to value for a sponsor. They've proven more than willing to spend $5-$10 for a skin for their hero, getting them to pay for something seems far easier than getting SC2 players to pay for anything.
You don't know that the people watching are buying skins or just using the free version of LoL. And ingame content can not be compared to paying 20 dollars for 3 days of viewing some games, buy a new computer or joing the army.
|
On March 15 2012 06:54 mathsucks wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 06:14 CaptainApe wrote:
great, MLG has more debts and everybody is happy about it. As I stated many pages back, this is an equity round of financing, not debt. MLG has no more debt from this than they did before this.
Wish more people would understand this.
|
On March 14 2012 03:49 crms wrote:
*paging business experts*
So.. with seamingly all of their revenue coming from VC, is this good? I know many companies start up with VC and eventually get a sustainable model so they can stand on their feet, the VC's get a nice ROI and everyone walks into the sunset.
However, MLG has been around 10+ years (correct?) and it seems like they still can't generate enough internal revenue (is this the correct term?) to be sustainable. Eventually VC dries up, right? What is so different from the dreaded 'sponsorship model' and the 'VC model'? It seems about the same to a laymen like me.
I think some of the big risks MLG has taken lately like a high priced PPV is perhaps due to itchy VC's wanting to see some type of return or proof that MLG can be profitable?
What kind of longevity does MLG have if all of their funding is coming from VCs? The fact that they 'sold' another 11.3 (want 13) million in VC a good sign? Good because investors still care about MLG and think it's worth while? Or a bad sign, that MLG still can't be profitable on their own and still need to reach out to VCs?
Thanks in advance if any expert can answer my queries.
<3
VCs are not providing revenue to MLG, they are providing funding which is just a different form of capital. As you mention, MLG needs this round of funding to continue operations until they are self-sufficient, so I would consider it a good thing that they are getting access to capital. The downside is that you probably have board members from various VCs that funded it who might make decisions that viewers won't necessarily like. PPV is one feature that potentially emerged from VC management intervention.
The fact that MLG received another round of funding may be a signal that there is potential for eSports to evolve into a profitable business (or someone at MLG is good at writing compelling pitch decks). I am not bothered by the fact that MLG has been around for 10+ years because 3G/4G networks were not around/prevalent until about 3 years ago. There's definitely a rise for streaming content as well as VODs, so that entire market will grow and eSports can ride along with it.
At some point, MLG will need to demonstrate that they can be profitable (or at least generate good returns from an IPO) or investors will start pulling out. PPV was not well-received by the fans so I hope they have some other product offerings in their pipeline.
|
What up TL. I've just scanned much of the last few pages of this thread (as my article was added to the OP, I feel the itch to contribute), and I have to say that if you are unfamiliar with how venture capital works, I heartily recommend a read of the Wiki compendium on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capital. It's not comprehensive, but it's a start. Fighting!
|
hopefully this means no PPV which I doubt...
|
should tell us funders so we can thank and hug them!
|
On March 15 2012 09:57 Mvrio wrote:
hopefully this means no PPV which I doubt...
If anything it means the opposite of that. It mens 11.3 million dollars worth of people looked at what MLG just did and said "this model could give me signifigant return on investment"
|
hopefully players can get bigger prize pools.
|
On March 15 2012 15:10 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 09:57 Mvrio wrote:
hopefully this means no PPV which I doubt... If anything it means the opposite of that. It mens 11.3 million dollars worth of people looked at what MLG just did and said "this model could give me signifigant return on investment"
Exactly, I don't mind the PPV though. Actually, I think it's a good thing.
|
I don't understand why people think that PPV is going to hurt the growth of eSports when most profitable sports started as "PPV" long before they could sustain a free TV model. Plenty of sports required you to pay at the gate to watch or read the results in your local newspaper the next day which basically listed who won. Eventually once people started seeing the money in it radio's picked up and started broadcasting the games which was basically television at the time and they made a boatload of money through advertisement but still maintained the core PPV model which you had to pay tickets to view the sporting event.
|
On March 15 2012 16:32 Hipsv wrote:
I don't understand why people think that PPV is going to hurt the growth of eSports when most profitable sports started as "PPV" long before they could sustain a free TV model.
They don't. They just want it for free because they would rather "somebody else" (the sponsors) pay for it. Self-entitled. It's not about what's good for eSports. It's about what's better for themselves.
|
On March 15 2012 17:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 16:32 Hipsv wrote:
I don't understand why people think that PPV is going to hurt the growth of eSports when most profitable sports started as "PPV" long before they could sustain a free TV model. They don't. They just want it for free because they would rather "somebody else" (the sponsors) pay for it. Self-entitled. It's not about what's good for eSports. It's about what's better for themselves.
You surely aren't garnering any new fans for MLG and Esports by generalizing and patronizing an entire population of people you've only known through the internet. What's so wrong about looking out for one's self? Get off your high horse and donate 2000 dollars to TL. Not wanting to pay for overpriced products and for poor business handling has nothing to do with being spoiled rich brats. If you really give a fuck about Esports then MLG is surely not the first place you invest your money.
|
Are there any numbers realeased on ppv?
|
On March 15 2012 17:41 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 17:27 Kaitlin wrote:On March 15 2012 16:32 Hipsv wrote:
I don't understand why people think that PPV is going to hurt the growth of eSports when most profitable sports started as "PPV" long before they could sustain a free TV model. They don't. They just want it for free because they would rather "somebody else" (the sponsors) pay for it. Self-entitled. It's not about what's good for eSports. It's about what's better for themselves. You surely aren't garnering any new fans for MLG and Esports by generalizing and patronizing an entire population of people you've only known through the internet. What's so wrong about looking out for one's self? Get off your high horse and donate 2000 dollars to TL. Not wanting to pay for overpriced products and for poor business handling has nothing to do with being spoiled rich brats. If you really give a fuck about Esports then MLG is surely not the first place you invest your money.
You said you didn't understand something. I attempted to explain it. Then you jump me, that I'm not garnering support for eSports, and assuming I have a problem with people acting in their own interest. No. I support eSports when there is a product or service that I worth my money. I bought a Razer Keyboard and Mouse. I am all for people acting in their own best interest. That is human nature and I'm puzzled when others can't understand why people don't act for the benefit of others, instead of themselves (even though it permeates these boards). I was not judging people not wanting to purchase particular products, but that wasn't really what you were asking. You mentioned 'why people think PP is going to hurt the growth of eSports'. I answered that very question. Also, this entitlement generation is not the same as "spoiled rich brats". Entitlement is the sense that you have things coming to you, generally shit that belongs to other people.
|
propellor hats for everyone!
|
On March 15 2012 18:06 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 17:41 SupLilSon wrote:On March 15 2012 17:27 Kaitlin wrote:On March 15 2012 16:32 Hipsv wrote:
I don't understand why people think that PPV is going to hurt the growth of eSports when most profitable sports started as "PPV" long before they could sustain a free TV model. They don't. They just want it for free because they would rather "somebody else" (the sponsors) pay for it. Self-entitled. It's not about what's good for eSports. It's about what's better for themselves. You surely aren't garnering any new fans for MLG and Esports by generalizing and patronizing an entire population of people you've only known through the internet. What's so wrong about looking out for one's self? Get off your high horse and donate 2000 dollars to TL. Not wanting to pay for overpriced products and for poor business handling has nothing to do with being spoiled rich brats. If you really give a fuck about Esports then MLG is surely not the first place you invest your money. You said you didn't understand something. I attempted to explain it. Then you jump me, that I'm not garnering support for eSports, and assuming I have a problem with people acting in their own interest. No. I support eSports when there is a product or service that I worth my money. I bought a Razer Keyboard and Mouse. I am all for people acting in their own best interest. That is human nature and I'm puzzled when others can't understand why people don't act for the benefit of others, instead of themselves (even though it permeates these boards). I was not judging people not wanting to purchase particular products, but that wasn't really what you were asking. You mentioned 'why people think PP is going to hurt the growth of eSports'. I answered that very question. Also, this entitlement generation is not the same as "spoiled rich brats". Entitlement is the sense that you have things coming to you, generally shit that belongs to other people.
I'm not the person you were talking to earlier. Read. It's helpful on internet forums.
|
That is awesome. Sundance knows his shit, can't wait to see where this takes us in 2012!
|
On March 15 2012 17:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 16:32 Hipsv wrote:
I don't understand why people think that PPV is going to hurt the growth of eSports when most profitable sports started as "PPV" long before they could sustain a free TV model. They don't. They just want it for free because they would rather "somebody else" (the sponsors) pay for it. Self-entitled. It's not about what's good for eSports. It's about what's better for themselves.
I like you, you're funny. Earlier you said, MLG's only interest is the bottom line. That seems to be very true with the PPV model. Also you ignore the lie that Sundance told us when he said "I want to help eSport grow."
What you seem to ignore is that PPV does not attract new viewers. Sidestep here: Did european football charge PPV in its early days? Nope, around 1900 they certainly did not charge PPV as there was no television. Did american football do that? Doubt it, pretty old sport as well. Basketball? Baseball? Tennis? Shit none of these great sports charged PPV, so whatever sport Hipsv was talking about, I'd sure like an example that is not some obscure new age x-game sport.
And again, when I think of my buddies and if MLG would attract them, I'd have to say YES! If it's free to watch. They don't know SC2, they don't give a shit about an Idra or a Huk. Now if I went to them and said "Hey, let's watch this fun tournament, it's about SC2 and once you get to know it, it's really fun to watch." they might even say "Heck, why not..." But then I'd have to say "Oh darn, this great event is PPV, could you cough up 10 bucks so we can share the PPV?" - "Errr, you're kidding right?"
What I mean to say is, they don't even know what they are paying for. I don't see how this is growing eSport. No PPV event will attract new viewers. So basically you're left on your current viewer numbers and have to develop new ways to milk their pockets for money.
HOW IS THAT GOOD FOR ESPORT? It's not. It's only good for MLGs pockets and indirectly for their investors. MLG is in the process of selling out eSport and Sundance has the guts to get on LO3 and say "I want to help eSport". And the really funny bit is that people on here justify him and say he's a genius. Huh?
Of course, you can call this a big community entitlement party, but honestly? I don't give a flying fuck. I don't own eSport, MLG, any team and certainly nothing else. I'm a mere viewer. I don't even play that much, because I suck too much. But this platform enables me to say my mind. And I'm saying right now PPV is the wrong business model if you want to help eSport grow. Because the majority of western culture knows fuck all about eSport or SC2. If Sundance or anyone else wants to help eSport grow, he should go out and promote it. AND NOT TO THE TL COMMUNITY, because the people here obviously know what it's all about.
He should get on fucking talkshows and tell people what a spectacle it can be. And please stop nerding out on "outside" events just like that conference of sports analysis. That was so very close to being a nerdfest. Kudos to Day9 and Sundance for keeping it somewhat focused on media and viewership issues and business as well. If Sundance did more of those events, he'd do more for eSport than this PPV thing did. Because as much as I detest his need to lie about his intentions, I'd bet he could sell truckloads of horsepoo, if he needs to. He's that type of person.
|
On March 15 2012 18:28 how wrote:
That is awesome. Sundance knows his shit, can't wait to see where this takes us in 2012!
You know that with each such action Sundance loses more and more control of MLG. He literary becomes a guy who "get it" but can't do anything about it.
|
225% growth and more funding for mlg, doesnt matter which way you cut it, thats a big win for esports. ^.^
|
MLG PPV doesn't hurt eSports/SC2 scene. This scene is so oversaturated with content. It doesn't matter if MLG went PPV. You can always bring new ppl into the scene by showing them other free content streams.
|
On March 15 2012 21:16 zaii wrote:
MLG PPV doesn't hurt eSports/SC2 scene. This scene is so oversaturated with content. It doesn't matter if MLG went PPV. You can always bring new ppl into the scene by showing them other free content streams.
Actually, that is the first argument pro PPV that makes sense to me. Thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
On March 15 2012 15:20 songohan wrote:
hopefully players can get bigger prize pools.
This must be a joke. Of course they wont.
|
On March 15 2012 21:18 ShinobiX wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 21:16 zaii wrote:
MLG PPV doesn't hurt eSports/SC2 scene. This scene is so oversaturated with content. It doesn't matter if MLG went PPV. You can always bring new ppl into the scene by showing them other free content streams. Actually, that is the first argument pro PPV that makes sense to me. Thanks for sharing!
It actually doesn't make sense, because if everyone would apply that way of thinking (IGN, MLG, DreamHack, GSL, and every tournament out there) then you would only have PPV content.
It would've made sense if a globalization of that argument wouldn't ruin the argument itself.
|
PPV doesn't GROW e-sports - but it does directly benefit the organiser financially, and indirectly the players with more/better tournaments with larger prize pools.
It doesn't grow e-sports because it does not draw new viewers - Rabid Fans doing barcrafts etc publicly GROWS esports because it exposes non-gamers to the gaming environment.
so, Barcrafts are doing MORE for esports than PPV does, hands down.
This is a good move for MLG - a service based company with limited hard assets - and cash which is secured by very little. A very risky investment as far as risk assessment goes.
|
On March 15 2012 21:10 tsango wrote:
225% growth and more funding for mlg, doesnt matter which way you cut it, thats a big win for MLG. ^.^
fixed.
|
On March 15 2012 21:56 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 21:18 ShinobiX wrote:On March 15 2012 21:16 zaii wrote:
MLG PPV doesn't hurt eSports/SC2 scene. This scene is so oversaturated with content. It doesn't matter if MLG went PPV. You can always bring new ppl into the scene by showing them other free content streams. Actually, that is the first argument pro PPV that makes sense to me. Thanks for sharing! It actually doesn't make sense, because if everyone would apply that way of thinking (IGN, MLG, DreamHack, GSL, and every tournament out there) then you would only have PPV content. It would've made sense if a globalization of that argument wouldn't ruin the argument itself.
What why would that not make sense. You actually think other leagues that saw all the backlash MLG received will be happy to receive the same by copying them exactly? Get this through your head this scene is the most over-saturated out of any of the eSports scene. 1 -2 leagues trying PPV won't hurt the scene in the slightest. It will most likely hurt the butthurt entitled ppl, but it will benefit teams/players.
|
On March 15 2012 20:55 ShinobiX wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 17:27 Kaitlin wrote:On March 15 2012 16:32 Hipsv wrote:
I don't understand why people think that PPV is going to hurt the growth of eSports when most profitable sports started as "PPV" long before they could sustain a free TV model. They don't. They just want it for free because they would rather "somebody else" (the sponsors) pay for it. Self-entitled. It's not about what's good for eSports. It's about what's better for themselves. I like you, you're funny. Earlier you said, MLG's only interest is the bottom line. That seems to be very true with the PPV model. Also you ignore the lie that Sundance told us when he said "I want to help eSport grow." What you seem to ignore is that PPV does not attract new viewers. Sidestep here: Did european football charge PPV in its early days? Nope, around 1900 they certainly did not charge PPV as there was no television. Did american football do that? Doubt it, pretty old sport as well. Basketball? Baseball? Tennis? Shit none of these great sports charged PPV, so whatever sport Hipsv was talking about, I'd sure like an example that is not some obscure new age x-game sport. And again, when I think of my buddies and if MLG would attract them, I'd have to say YES! If it's free to watch. They don't know SC2, they don't give a shit about an Idra or a Huk. Now if I went to them and said "Hey, let's watch this fun tournament, it's about SC2 and once you get to know it, it's really fun to watch." they might even say "Heck, why not..." But then I'd have to say "Oh darn, this great event is PPV, could you cough up 10 bucks so we can share the PPV?" - "Errr, you're kidding right?" What I mean to say is, they don't even know what they are paying for. I don't see how this is growing eSport. No PPV event will attract new viewers. So basically you're left on your current viewer numbers and have to develop new ways to milk their pockets for money. HOW IS THAT GOOD FOR ESPORT? It's not. It's only good for MLGs pockets and indirectly for their investors. MLG is in the process of selling out eSport and Sundance has the guts to get on LO3 and say "I want to help eSport". And the really funny bit is that people on here justify him and say he's a genius. Huh? Of course, you can call this a big community entitlement party, but honestly? I don't give a flying fuck. I don't own eSport, MLG, any team and certainly nothing else. I'm a mere viewer. I don't even play that much, because I suck too much. But this platform enables me to say my mind. And I'm saying right now PPV is the wrong business model if you want to help eSport grow. Because the majority of western culture knows fuck all about eSport or SC2. If Sundance or anyone else wants to help eSport grow, he should go out and promote it. AND NOT TO THE TL COMMUNITY, because the people here obviously know what it's all about. He should get on fucking talkshows and tell people what a spectacle it can be. And please stop nerding out on "outside" events just like that conference of sports analysis. That was so very close to being a nerdfest. Kudos to Day9 and Sundance for keeping it somewhat focused on media and viewership issues and business as well. If Sundance did more of those events, he'd do more for eSport than this PPV thing did. Because as much as I detest his need to lie about his intentions, I'd bet he could sell truckloads of horsepoo, if he needs to. He's that type of person.
Actually, you're the funny one. One counter-example derails your entire PPV argument (*cough UFC cough*). UFC continues to grow and can hardly be defined as "some obscure new age x-age sport."
You also conveniently disregard the many other events and games that MLG sponsors. I neither explicitly support Sundance nor MLG, but your blatantly myopic perspective insinuates that MLG's decision to institute a PPV business model is the harbinger of esports. Grow up. If anything, MLG feels confident that esports, and particularly SCII, has matured to the point where PPV is viable. Profits entice investors, investors offer capital, capital leads to more viewers.
|
UFC PPV buy rates have been trending downward for the last 1.5 years. It doesn't continue to grow. It peaked some time ago
|
On March 16 2012 00:37 floor exercise wrote:
UFC PPV buy rates have been trending downward for the last 1.5 years. It doesn't continue to grow. It peaked some time ago
And what model did UFC employ to obtain over one million viewers? Case closed.
|
Whoaaa that's huge news for mlg and esports. And with lol getting big numbers it's looking good!
|
TIL MLG is about to waste another $11.3M...
|
Winter Arena would have done gangbusters if they charged $10 and allowed limited advertising...We have no idea what the numbers are but hopefully they will find the perfect pricing model. They had a good lineup...I didn't mind the lack of crowd being there, not really a big deal to me at all. In any case the fact that they can raise funding means that esports is viable and people believe in it so that is a good thing...Realistically though I wonder what the realy PPV numbers where...if they were really great they would have just given us the real numbers...not trying to be too negative but just an observation..
|
It may be a waste of millions, but if Esports have ever shown promise it is now. Viewer numbers on LoL are massive and growing with every tournament. IEM had 250k and tons of live audience viewers as well. With DoTA 2, LoL, SC2, and hopefully SCGO 2012 should be massive for esports.
|
Excellent, a title with the abbreviation MLG in it! I'm sure at least 16 of these 17 pages have a mention of PPV in them.
As to the money... good, I guess? I don't know the stats behind MLG's business, so I don't know how much it costs to set it all up. I would imagine that 11.3million is a fair chunk of money to boost their production, however. I also hope to see a slightly more fair distribution of prize pools, with the ranks behind 1/2/3 recieving more money. It's too top-heavy as is.
|
On March 15 2012 17:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 16:32 Hipsv wrote:
I don't understand why people think that PPV is going to hurt the growth of eSports when most profitable sports started as "PPV" long before they could sustain a free TV model. They don't. They just want it for free because they would rather "somebody else" (the sponsors) pay for it. Self-entitled. It's not about what's good for eSports. It's about what's better for themselves.
If we're talking about "growth of esports" a ppv business model is horrible. Only the diehard fans would pay for it. It's still a video game, how many people actually pay to watch a video game? Especially at this time when the casual viewers are being absorbed by a certain other game and new spectators are more and more difficult to obtain. What do the sponsors think about having 1/10th the viewer count a free tournament has? How do they feel about marketing their products to only 10% of the potential viewers? Not to mention that I imagine that many people only paid for the first PPV as a "test" but I don't think all that many people could drop like a hundred bucks on it yearly(that's like subscribing to WoW) especially with precense of other paid tournaments that are generally preferred by the fans(GSL) and plenty of free content.
I just don't think this is sustainable, and it is difficult for me to imagine that sponsors would in the long term be interested in sponsoring a tournament with far less viewers than a LoL player just had while streaming himself eating dinner
Also this basically means MLG can't sustain itself yet properly and hmm I don't see the great positivity in this unless they really up their game(Or spam PPV tournaments and hope people will keep paying, I guess that works).
|
On March 16 2012 00:49 Pasargadae wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 00:37 floor exercise wrote:
UFC PPV buy rates have been trending downward for the last 1.5 years. It doesn't continue to grow. It peaked some time ago And what model did UFC employ to obtain over one million viewers? Case closed.
So you think people were attracted to the UFC because it cost them $50 to view it? Is that what you're saying?
|
On March 16 2012 01:47 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 00:49 Pasargadae wrote:On March 16 2012 00:37 floor exercise wrote:
UFC PPV buy rates have been trending downward for the last 1.5 years. It doesn't continue to grow. It peaked some time ago And what model did UFC employ to obtain over one million viewers? Case closed. So you think people were attracted to the UFC because it cost them $50 to view it? Is that what you're saying?
That's an incredibly obtuse way to interpret what he was saying. No way you actually thought about it and came to the conclusion that what you said is what Pasargadae meant.
|
that's an insane amount of money. I'm not surprised tho.. MLG is a pretty big organization
|
Hmm to bad they didnt give more info.
Where this shares in MLG, wich where sold or emitted by MLG (according to the sec its not a loan)
And if so, how much % of mlg did they buy for 11.3m,
Or is this some other equity wich does not give ownership of MLG?
To thoose who say"woot 11.3m secured for esports"
They are wrong, MLG is a profit based organisation and in the end the investors will want to get back their full investment+interest from the public.
They do take a calculated risk though, to make esports take off and for that i aplaud them.
Its good that mlg has more titles then sc btw, since sc2 seems to have peaked or at least stagnated in popularity/vieuwers.
Still a realy risky investment to make, based on only 1 ppv event at arguably a peak moment in popularity
Hope for them it works out well.
Espors has a huge future and there not that manny options to invest in it atm.
Top players should definatly get paid alot better.
If you think about that they give up their prime time for education and with that lower their changes to get a well paid job later on in live
Top players should make way over 5k a month tbh to make up for the sacrifice they make.
|
I had no idea SC2 had so many business experts. Maybe I should come here for advice If I want to start my own business.
|
|
|
11.3 million. Sounds good, a good first addition to the huge pot they had before. They'll need more soon.
|
this thread is epic fun
you guys arguing around not even knowing what money they made with ppv
|
On March 16 2012 00:20 Pasargadae wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 20:55 ShinobiX wrote:On March 15 2012 17:27 Kaitlin wrote:On March 15 2012 16:32 Hipsv wrote:
I don't understand why people think that PPV is going to hurt the growth of eSports when most profitable sports started as "PPV" long before they could sustain a free TV model. They don't. They just want it for free because they would rather "somebody else" (the sponsors) pay for it. Self-entitled. It's not about what's good for eSports. It's about what's better for themselves. I like you, you're funny. Earlier you said, MLG's only interest is the bottom line. That seems to be very true with the PPV model. Also you ignore the lie that Sundance told us when he said "I want to help eSport grow." What you seem to ignore is that PPV does not attract new viewers. Sidestep here: Did european football charge PPV in its early days? Nope, around 1900 they certainly did not charge PPV as there was no television. Did american football do that? Doubt it, pretty old sport as well. Basketball? Baseball? Tennis? Shit none of these great sports charged PPV, so whatever sport Hipsv was talking about, I'd sure like an example that is not some obscure new age x-game sport. And again, when I think of my buddies and if MLG would attract them, I'd have to say YES! If it's free to watch. They don't know SC2, they don't give a shit about an Idra or a Huk. Now if I went to them and said "Hey, let's watch this fun tournament, it's about SC2 and once you get to know it, it's really fun to watch." they might even say "Heck, why not..." But then I'd have to say "Oh darn, this great event is PPV, could you cough up 10 bucks so we can share the PPV?" - "Errr, you're kidding right?" What I mean to say is, they don't even know what they are paying for. I don't see how this is growing eSport. No PPV event will attract new viewers. So basically you're left on your current viewer numbers and have to develop new ways to milk their pockets for money. HOW IS THAT GOOD FOR ESPORT? It's not. It's only good for MLGs pockets and indirectly for their investors. MLG is in the process of selling out eSport and Sundance has the guts to get on LO3 and say "I want to help eSport". And the really funny bit is that people on here justify him and say he's a genius. Huh? Of course, you can call this a big community entitlement party, but honestly? I don't give a flying fuck. I don't own eSport, MLG, any team and certainly nothing else. I'm a mere viewer. I don't even play that much, because I suck too much. But this platform enables me to say my mind. And I'm saying right now PPV is the wrong business model if you want to help eSport grow. Because the majority of western culture knows fuck all about eSport or SC2. If Sundance or anyone else wants to help eSport grow, he should go out and promote it. AND NOT TO THE TL COMMUNITY, because the people here obviously know what it's all about. He should get on fucking talkshows and tell people what a spectacle it can be. And please stop nerding out on "outside" events just like that conference of sports analysis. That was so very close to being a nerdfest. Kudos to Day9 and Sundance for keeping it somewhat focused on media and viewership issues and business as well. If Sundance did more of those events, he'd do more for eSport than this PPV thing did. Because as much as I detest his need to lie about his intentions, I'd bet he could sell truckloads of horsepoo, if he needs to. He's that type of person. Actually, you're the funny one. One counter-example derails your entire PPV argument (*cough UFC cough*). UFC continues to grow and can hardly be defined as "some obscure new age x-age sport." You also conveniently disregard the many other events and games that MLG sponsors. I neither explicitly support Sundance nor MLG, but your blatantly myopic perspective insinuates that MLG's decision to institute a PPV business model is the harbinger of esports. Grow up. If anything, MLG feels confident that esports, and particularly SCII, has matured to the point where PPV is viable. Profits entice investors, investors offer capital, capital leads to more viewers.
First off, don't take offense, but who the fuck is UFC? I'm talking Football where one of several tournaments this year throws out 800 mill in prize money, and you're coming with some local exotic bullshit that half the world has no clue about? Ok, if you want eSport to be like that, great idea to go for PPV!
I only wish eSport would end up where you can say "Yep, we have the Champions League and sooner rather than later we can say we are giving out 1 billion in prize money. Why? Because a whole fucking continent watches it, not just 250k people..."
And I'm not disregarding what else MLG does, I like MLG and I find Sundance a rather amiable person. In my opinion, though, he's taking the wrong turn way too soon. That's all, dude. Oh and I can't stand it when people lie to my face (or "The people's face", rather) and expect me to believe the bullshit they're yapping. It insults my intelligence and I wonder why the fuck I bother. Makes me want to go back to Football even more. At least their bullshit is traditional and I can relate to that.
Edit: I HAVE to come back to this. How exactly equals capital = more viewers? I mean really, HOW does that work? Do I want to tune in more, because they got their 11m funding? Erm, no idea why you watch shows, but I don't give a fuck how much money they just got. Either I like the content, or I don't.
The only way this is going to work is if he dumps the whole investment into massive marketing. For MLG and primarily for eSport. Once he does that, I'll take everything back and say he's da man. But I highly doubt that's going to happen. It never does in business. Fairy Tales don't happen irl.
|
^ The only fairy tale here is you wanting esports to be as big as soccer rofl...do you realize SC2 viewer numbers have stagnated or gone down even as prize money and investment into tournaments has gone up? And do you realize that in order to get to the point where millions of people watched SC2 we would need to dumb it down to the non-players and have the likes of John Yoo (or whatever that GSL guy's name was) casting? When the casual non-player hears the jokes that Tastosis put out there (which are funny to us because of how intentionally terrible they are) they don't see the humor.
|
I hate how sundance was talking like mlg is under hard times in that state of the game talk (or was it live on 3?) and now we see this.
|
why do people still argue about how much money mlg made? pretty simple math; according to thispoll about 58% of the people that watched paid(take note;the people who watched a restream are not counted because they did not add to the viewer count on twitch.) the stream had about 40k viewers at peek. so thats approximately 23k people who paid. not taking into account the amount of people who paid and where not watching(ie. not every single person who paid was watching at the same time.)
mlg said that they paid $100,000 for the players travel expenses. add the 26k prize pool, and you have your base possible profit this of course can not take into account unknown expenses but i doubt the would be more than 100k.
tldr;
$460k - from paid subscriptions
-100k -players travel
-26k - prize pool
=
$334,000 profit .
now obviously this is innaccurate, not taking into account the cost of admins and paying the rent of their offices and possible revenue sharing with twitch / caster wages. also this is a conservative estimate on the amount of people that paid considering there is no accurate way to conclude this from live viewers, eg providence had 240k concurrent viewers but over 1 million different viewers over the whole event.
|
Considering a lot of SC2 tournaments have trouble breaking the 50k i find it hard to believe 40k watched the winter arena without official numbers.
|
On March 17 2012 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Considering a lot of SC2 tournaments have trouble breaking the 50k i find it hard to believe 40k watched the winter arena without official numbers.
considering mlg's previous tournament leading into this hit the highest number out of any sc2 tournament ever, besides (possibly) gsl. i dont know why you would think they couldnt post the same numbers as a mid size tourny. i guess you can believe what you want, but the fact is they did hit almost 40k at the highest i counted.
|
A "Freemium" model would probably work best. Let everyone watch the main stream but give the real fanboys say another 10 cameras to switch between. Allow pause/rewind/forward controls. Give premium access cameras of individual players, hear player voice chat as they play live, perform simultaneous additional side interviews (let them listen the interview of their favorite team, not the most popular team from the main stream), and any other innovative behind the scenes content that would enhance the experience for viewers who strongly follow a particular player. Also include full access to the content at a later date via multiple viewing platforms.
|
On March 03 2014 14:25 denverprogaming wrote:
A "Freemium" model would probably work best. Let everyone watch the main stream but give the real fanboys say another 10 cameras to switch between. Allow pause/rewind/forward controls. Give premium access cameras of individual players, hear player voice chat as they play live, perform simultaneous additional side interviews (let them listen the interview of their favorite team, not the most popular team from the main stream), and any other innovative behind the scenes content that would enhance the experience for viewers who strongly follow a particular player. Also include full access to the content at a later date via multiple viewing platforms.
Well that was out of no where...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aF2Gl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QrEZQ.jpg)
