|
On May 01 2013 07:41 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 06:18 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2013 05:52 BronzeKnee wrote:You're making basic mistakes in your understanding of capitalism, mistaking who are the consumers (fans) and who are the providers (players and organizations). You're also making a mistake with your writing. Each statement you write should be valid and should stand on it's own, unless it is sarcasm, in which case it should be obvious sarcasm even if someone quote it alone. That is a good writing. To illustrate this, please quote me out of context. Let's take a look at what you said... I didn't say that prize pools were removed from the free market. I said they are not set by the free market, which is detailed in the parts you removed. I don't think you said that earlier. In fact let me quote you... On May 01 2013 05:31 Plansix wrote:
Prize pools have nothing to do with a free market in any way. You were quite clear they have nothing to do with the free market in any way. Now you're just dancing around semantically. Either way, it doesn't matter. Blizzard is investing in E-Sports because they expect a return, that is how the free market works. When you put stock into a company, you think that company can use your money to make even more and money, and you think that company is going to do well. This is exactly the same to Blizzard's investment into E-Sports. They believe that higher prize pools will result in better players and more fans which means more money and sponsors for them. Otherwise they wouldn't have raised the prize pools in the first place. Blizzard believes this WCS thing is going to work out, and is backing it with it's money, the same way someone backs Google with the money by buying stock.
That is how the free market works.
Do you argue like this in real life? Jump on one sentence in a whole paragraph and then talk down to the person, using phrases like "basic mistakes in your understanding of capitalism"? I am citing Adam Smith, who coined the phrase "free market", so maybe I might not be totally clueless. Once again, I stated that the way prize pools are set is not done in the same way that a pair of shoes are priced. Prize pools are not a retail product and the amount they are worth is not reflective of the amount of work put in. The post I was responding to stated that Blizzard was trying to "control the market", which is a silly thing to say. There is no prize pool market that Blizzard is controlling or leagues are fighting over. I argue like this on the internet, because this is the internet. I do enjoy debating in real life greatly, but that has nothing to do with this. The free market is far more than pricing of retail products or basic services. Take stocks for example. The stock price itself it based purely on supply and demand. The higher the demand for a stock, the lower the supply and the higher the price goes. Simple economics. But what about the decision to buy a stock... that is where it becomes complex. Obviously, if you knew what each stock going to do in value, you'd put all you money into the stock that was going to make you the most money, and only that stock. But people generally don't do that, because no one can say with certainty what each stock is going to do in value. So we spread out our portfolios to mitigate risk. That decision is related to supply and demand in some ways(related in that you might not buy a stock that you think will do well because the demand for it is high, and thus the price is more than you can afford or in the sense that you believe the future demand for a stock will increase, and thus it's price will increase) but supply and demand isn't the be all end all there. Yet, you can make different decisions in the free market because it is unhindered by external regulation or control by the government. No one is telling what stocks you must buy or can't buy. And thus, the decision about whether or not to buy a stock, (which is connected the free market) is analogous to what Blizzard is doing here with prize pools. Blizzard is free and unhindered by external regulation or control by the government, to feed E-Sports with high prize pools, with the belief that these prize pools will ultimately lead them to make more money in the end by developing a better player base which in turn makes the game more fun to watch. Blizzard is investing as much as money as they are believe is necessary (up to the point they can afford) to make as much money as possible, and they free to do so. They believe they can create a higher demand for E-Sports with this action. This has become overly complex. The entire point of this argument was to show that the free market controls prize pools. While you haven't outright admitted that it was a poor choice of words on your part, I believe I've shown that.
So its blizzards project where they dump what they deem an appropiate ammount of funds, which shows that prize pools are a free market?
Big mouth, lots of side examples, little substance!
|
On May 01 2013 08:01 Nuzoybot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 07:41 BronzeKnee wrote:On May 01 2013 06:18 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2013 05:52 BronzeKnee wrote:You're making basic mistakes in your understanding of capitalism, mistaking who are the consumers (fans) and who are the providers (players and organizations). You're also making a mistake with your writing. Each statement you write should be valid and should stand on it's own, unless it is sarcasm, in which case it should be obvious sarcasm even if someone quote it alone. That is a good writing. To illustrate this, please quote me out of context. Let's take a look at what you said... I didn't say that prize pools were removed from the free market. I said they are not set by the free market, which is detailed in the parts you removed. I don't think you said that earlier. In fact let me quote you... On May 01 2013 05:31 Plansix wrote:
Prize pools have nothing to do with a free market in any way. You were quite clear they have nothing to do with the free market in any way. Now you're just dancing around semantically. Either way, it doesn't matter. Blizzard is investing in E-Sports because they expect a return, that is how the free market works. When you put stock into a company, you think that company can use your money to make even more and money, and you think that company is going to do well. This is exactly the same to Blizzard's investment into E-Sports. They believe that higher prize pools will result in better players and more fans which means more money and sponsors for them. Otherwise they wouldn't have raised the prize pools in the first place. Blizzard believes this WCS thing is going to work out, and is backing it with it's money, the same way someone backs Google with the money by buying stock.
That is how the free market works.
Do you argue like this in real life? Jump on one sentence in a whole paragraph and then talk down to the person, using phrases like "basic mistakes in your understanding of capitalism"? I am citing Adam Smith, who coined the phrase "free market", so maybe I might not be totally clueless. Once again, I stated that the way prize pools are set is not done in the same way that a pair of shoes are priced. Prize pools are not a retail product and the amount they are worth is not reflective of the amount of work put in. The post I was responding to stated that Blizzard was trying to "control the market", which is a silly thing to say. There is no prize pool market that Blizzard is controlling or leagues are fighting over. I argue like this on the internet, because this is the internet. I do enjoy debating in real life greatly, but that has nothing to do with this. The free market is far more than pricing of retail products or basic services. Take stocks for example. The stock price itself it based purely on supply and demand. The higher the demand for a stock, the lower the supply and the higher the price goes. Simple economics. But what about the decision to buy a stock... that is where it becomes complex. Obviously, if you knew what each stock going to do in value, you'd put all you money into the stock that was going to make you the most money, and only that stock. But people generally don't do that, because no one can say with certainty what each stock is going to do in value. So we spread out our portfolios to mitigate risk. That decision is related to supply and demand in some ways(related in that you might not buy a stock that you think will do well because the demand for it is high, and thus the price is more than you can afford or in the sense that you believe the future demand for a stock will increase, and thus it's price will increase) but supply and demand isn't the be all end all there. Yet, you can make different decisions in the free market because it is unhindered by external regulation or control by the government. No one is telling what stocks you must buy or can't buy. And thus, the decision about whether or not to buy a stock, (which is connected the free market) is analogous to what Blizzard is doing here with prize pools. Blizzard is free and unhindered by external regulation or control by the government, to feed E-Sports with high prize pools, with the belief that these prize pools will ultimately lead them to make more money in the end by developing a better player base which in turn makes the game more fun to watch. Blizzard is investing as much as money as they are believe is necessary (up to the point they can afford) to make as much money as possible, and they free to do so. They believe they can create a higher demand for E-Sports with this action. This has become overly complex. The entire point of this argument was to show that the free market controls prize pools. While you haven't outright admitted that it was a poor choice of words on your part, I believe I've shown that. So its blizzards project where they dump what they deem an appropiate ammount of funds, which shows that prize pools are a free market? Big mouth, lots of side examples, little substance!
You got it wrong. Read it again. Prize Pools are the result of a free market where people can dump what they deem an appropriate amount of funds into.
Actually, I think we are just arguing about different things and I'd like to apologize for my involvement in this twisted conversation.
It all started with this: On April 30 2013 22:27 poorcloud wrote:
Isn't it weird that the quality of the competition in this tournament is evidently lower but the prize pool is the same???
It almost seems like Blizzard is trying to manipulate and regulate the market rather than allowing free competition.
I agree with Plansix that this is a foolish comparison but my reason is because Blizzard can improve the market greatly without free competition. In other words, E-Sports is not dependent on free competition to succeed as many people argue that markets are (as poorcloud suggests). However, I disagree with most of Plansix reasoning, but I agree with some of his conclusion. And thus it lead to a strange argument where I was reaching the same conclusion partly, but by different means (that is actually kind of neat). Blizzard is simply trying to promote it's game as it should as Plansix was stating, and it in doing so it is controlling the prize pool market, which Plansix doesn't believe is happening, because he doesn't believe they are driven by supply and demand economics, yet I believe they are as poorcloud suggest. On the other hand Plansix is right in that in end the this will result in a better overall player pool skill wise.
And I will say that this kind of thing happens all the time in business. It is part of the free market.
|
On May 01 2013 08:03 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 08:01 Nuzoybot wrote:On May 01 2013 07:41 BronzeKnee wrote:On May 01 2013 06:18 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2013 05:52 BronzeKnee wrote:You're making basic mistakes in your understanding of capitalism, mistaking who are the consumers (fans) and who are the providers (players and organizations). You're also making a mistake with your writing. Each statement you write should be valid and should stand on it's own, unless it is sarcasm, in which case it should be obvious sarcasm even if someone quote it alone. That is a good writing. To illustrate this, please quote me out of context. Let's take a look at what you said... I didn't say that prize pools were removed from the free market. I said they are not set by the free market, which is detailed in the parts you removed. I don't think you said that earlier. In fact let me quote you... On May 01 2013 05:31 Plansix wrote:
Prize pools have nothing to do with a free market in any way. You were quite clear they have nothing to do with the free market in any way. Now you're just dancing around semantically. Either way, it doesn't matter. Blizzard is investing in E-Sports because they expect a return, that is how the free market works. When you put stock into a company, you think that company can use your money to make even more and money, and you think that company is going to do well. This is exactly the same to Blizzard's investment into E-Sports. They believe that higher prize pools will result in better players and more fans which means more money and sponsors for them. Otherwise they wouldn't have raised the prize pools in the first place. Blizzard believes this WCS thing is going to work out, and is backing it with it's money, the same way someone backs Google with the money by buying stock.
That is how the free market works.
Do you argue like this in real life? Jump on one sentence in a whole paragraph and then talk down to the person, using phrases like "basic mistakes in your understanding of capitalism"? I am citing Adam Smith, who coined the phrase "free market", so maybe I might not be totally clueless. Once again, I stated that the way prize pools are set is not done in the same way that a pair of shoes are priced. Prize pools are not a retail product and the amount they are worth is not reflective of the amount of work put in. The post I was responding to stated that Blizzard was trying to "control the market", which is a silly thing to say. There is no prize pool market that Blizzard is controlling or leagues are fighting over. I argue like this on the internet, because this is the internet. I do enjoy debating in real life greatly, but that has nothing to do with this. The free market is far more than pricing of retail products or basic services. Take stocks for example. The stock price itself it based purely on supply and demand. The higher the demand for a stock, the lower the supply and the higher the price goes. Simple economics. But what about the decision to buy a stock... that is where it becomes complex. Obviously, if you knew what each stock going to do in value, you'd put all you money into the stock that was going to make you the most money, and only that stock. But people generally don't do that, because no one can say with certainty what each stock is going to do in value. So we spread out our portfolios to mitigate risk. That decision is related to supply and demand in some ways(related in that you might not buy a stock that you think will do well because the demand for it is high, and thus the price is more than you can afford or in the sense that you believe the future demand for a stock will increase, and thus it's price will increase) but supply and demand isn't the be all end all there. Yet, you can make different decisions in the free market because it is unhindered by external regulation or control by the government. No one is telling what stocks you must buy or can't buy. And thus, the decision about whether or not to buy a stock, (which is connected the free market) is analogous to what Blizzard is doing here with prize pools. Blizzard is free and unhindered by external regulation or control by the government, to feed E-Sports with high prize pools, with the belief that these prize pools will ultimately lead them to make more money in the end by developing a better player base which in turn makes the game more fun to watch. Blizzard is investing as much as money as they are believe is necessary (up to the point they can afford) to make as much money as possible, and they free to do so. They believe they can create a higher demand for E-Sports with this action. This has become overly complex. The entire point of this argument was to show that the free market controls prize pools. While you haven't outright admitted that it was a poor choice of words on your part, I believe I've shown that. So its blizzards project where they dump what they deem an appropiate ammount of funds, which shows that prize pools are a free market? Big mouth, lots of side examples, little substance! You got it wrong. Read it again. Prize Pools are the result of a free market where people can dump what they deem an appropriate amount of funds into. Actually, I think we are just arguing about different things and I'd like to apologize for my involvement in this twisted conversation. It all started with this: Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 22:27 poorcloud wrote:
Isn't it weird that the quality of the competition in this tournament is evidently lower but the prize pool is the same???
It almost seems like Blizzard is trying to manipulate and regulate the market rather than allowing free competition. I agree with Plansix that this is a foolish comparison. However, I disagree with his reasoning (there is a product being provided to the player, money, in exchange for his ability to play the game), but I agree with his conclusion. And thus it lead to a strange argument where I was reaching the same conclusion, but by different means. Blizzard is simply trying to promote it's game as it should as Plansix was stating. And I will say that this kind of thing happens all the time in business. It is part of the free market.
A) Free market = an economic system in which prices are determined by competition between privately owned businesses = open market
B) When there is a single supplier (blizzard) or monopolist, the different tournaments are product diversification not competition.
C) tournaments dont compete in terms of price pool, MLG has shown that in the past, and IPL went broke trying to.
For future reference: google define the term you are discussing, before telling other ppl they are wrong
Gg no re
|
You should probably practice what you preach and Google the terms.
A is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
"A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies"
Prices are set based on supply and demand in a free market, not competition. Huge difference. You don't need competition to set prices based on and supply and demand. Note, that no competition doesn't mean there is necessarily a monopoly is present! There can be lots of companies that sell said product, but if the supply is low, the price is going to be high regardless of competition, and may not even depend on competition at all.
To illustrate the difference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
"Early forms of market socialism consisted of proposals for cooperative enterprises operating in a free-market economy, so that exploitation would be eliminated and individuals would receive the full product of their labor. "
Also individual compete and help set prices, not just businesses.
Google B and C too, the logic behind them is wrong. Tournaments certainly compete in terms of prize pool. But that doesn't mean having a larger or smaller prize pool is necessarily worse or better.
|
It seems to me that a lot of people have not really understood the actual purpose of the new WCS scheme. I understand people in North America wanting WCS to be a regional competition to foster local talent. Maybe for this reason, with the WCS America announcement, many jumped to the conclusion that this was Blizzard's attempt to improve the North American scene... so much that if you read most of the posts they still call it "WCS NA" instead of "WCS America".
One thing is what you wanted WCS America to be. Another thing is what WCS America is meant to be. Based on Blizzard's view (which I base on their CM's words during the last episode of State of the Game), their main aims with WCS are to grow the sport globally (World > USA) and to create a unique storyline for a better viewer experience.
The best way to have an easy to follow storyline is to have an ongoing league (vs random tournaments). It turns out that league already existed and it was called GSL. However, even though GSL receives any players with open arms, it's not practically accessible to foreign players.
Their next step: expand GSL to allow more players and to make it more accessible around the world. Obviously the ideal would be having one league per country, but I can see that at the moment that would not be sustainable. Thus, we have three regions which are meant to accommodate players around the globe: WCS KR, WCS EU, WCS AM. Their names only indicate where they are located, they do not imply any kind of restrictions on the participants (same as GSL).
Obviously there is still a huge gap for tournaments or leagues which foster regional talent. But, in my humble opinion, that is the responsibility of each region's community and not Blizzard's (at least at the moment). What we need is less people complaining that WCS should be for NA and more people with initiatives like TotalBiscuit's ShoutCraft: promoting regional competition to foster local talent and improve the legitimacy of each ladder.
On a side note, even if regional competition is not the main goal of WCS, I am almost confident that once the leagues start becoming offline, as is clearly Blizzard's intent, these leagues will in fact feel like regional competitions. In the same way not many foreigners are willing to commit and move to Korea to play GSL, not many Koreans will be willing to leave their country, their culture, and abandon the dreams of participating in GSL. And, even if some do, they will be entirely participating in the American scene, enriching the ladder and improving the level of games (like Messi does for the Spanish League).
|
On May 01 2013 01:15 Dirkzor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 00:44 Thor.Rush wrote:On May 01 2013 00:26 Rostam wrote: TheStC  Snute ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/flags/ro.png) Boanerges Shoulda put the Swedish flag since Sweden = Switzerland but ya, I still laughed. Someone clearly doesn't know the Romanian joke... 
I'm new here so I don't know either... and now I'm really curious 
Anyone cares to explain this to a TL noob? Or link me to the proper thread?
|
On May 01 2013 08:54 Asfer wrote:
It seems to me that a lot of people have not really understood the actual purpose of the new WSC scheme. I understand people in North America wanting WCS to be a regional competition to foster local talent. Maybe for this reason, with the WCS America announcement, many jumped to the conclusion that this was Blizzard's attempt to improve the North American scene... so much that if you read most of the posts they still call it "WCS NA" instead of "WCS America".
One thing is what you wanted WCS America to be. Another thing is what WCS America is meant to be. Based on Blizzard's view (which I base on their CM's words during the last episode of State of the Game), their main aims with WCS are to grow the sport globally (World > USA) and to create a unique storyline for a better viewer experience.
The best way to have an easy to follow storyline is to have an ongoing league (vs random tournaments). It turns out that league already existed and it was called GSL. However, even though GSL receives any players with open arms, it's not practically accessible to foreign players.
Their next step: expand GSL to allow more players and to make it more accessible around the world. Obviously the ideal would be having one league per country, but I can see that at the moment that would not be sustainable. Thus, we have three regions which are meant to accommodate players around the globe: WCS KR, WCS EU, WCS AM. Their names only indicate where they are located, they do not imply any kind of restrictions on the participants (same as GSL).
Obviously there is still a huge gap for tournaments or leagues which foster regional talent. But, in my humble opinion, that is the responsibility of each region's community and not Blizzard's (at least at the moment). What we need is less people complaining that WCS should be for NA and more people with initiatives like TotalBiscuit's ShoutCraft: promoting regional competition to foster local talent and improve the legitimacy of each ladder.
On a side note, even if regional competition is not the main goal of WCS, I am almost confident that once the leagues start becoming offline, as is clearly Blizzard's intent, these leagues will in fact feel like regional competitions. In the same way not many foreigners are willing to commit and move to Korea to play GSL, not many Koreans will be willing to leave their country, their culture, and abandon the dreams of participating in GSL. And, even if some do, they will be entirely participating in the American scene, enriching the ladder and improving the level of games (like Messi does for the Spanish League).
This might be the best 5 posts post on this forum. I agree 100%.
|
On May 01 2013 08:54 Asfer wrote:
Obviously there is still a huge gap for tournaments or leagues which foster regional talent. But, in my humble opinion, that is the responsibility of each region's community and not Blizzard's (at least at the moment). What we need is less people complaining that WCS should be for NA and more people with initiatives like TotalBiscuit's ShoutCraft: promoting regional competition to foster local talent and improve the legitimacy of each ladder.
On a side note, even if regional competition is not the main goal of WCS, I am almost confident that once the leagues start becoming offline, as is clearly Blizzard's intent, these leagues will in fact feel like regional competitions. In the same way not many foreigners are willing to commit and move to Korea to play GSL, not many Koreans will be willing to leave their country, their culture, and abandon the dreams of participating in GSL. And, even if some do, they will be entirely participating in the American scene, enriching the ladder and improving the level of games (like Messi does for the Spanish League).
Here is the issue though, I watch the Koreans in the GSL and Proleague. I enjoy watching them play.
I also enjoy watching players other parts of the world compete, not just against Koreans, but against each other.
This new WCS format means I'll be seeing a lot more Koreans and less foreigners (especially in WCS America) in the short term which reduces my interest in watching SC2 in general, because the variety of the product has been reduced. The result is that it may end damaging the foreign scene in the long term as foreigners like me now are less interested, and thus we are even farther away from the goal that Blizzard wants, which is enticing regional competitions that lead up to a global finale. I know I would watch more WCS if it there were more foreigners, especially if foreigners versus Koreans weren't an everyday occurrence. The novelty of it makes it interesting, and it why I enjoy the World Cup so much more than any regional soccer league, where people from all over the world play.
So it seems like a very risky move that Blizzard is making to me. Hopefully, in the end you are right and people will devote themselves to the regions they live in as the tournaments move offline. But I'm worried about the moves they are making to get there will actually put them farther away from their goal as Koreans take over these regional tournaments in short term, and drive people from these regions away from wanting to compete or watch.
|
On May 01 2013 08:28 Nuzoybot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 08:03 BronzeKnee wrote:On May 01 2013 08:01 Nuzoybot wrote:On May 01 2013 07:41 BronzeKnee wrote:On May 01 2013 06:18 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2013 05:52 BronzeKnee wrote:You're making basic mistakes in your understanding of capitalism, mistaking who are the consumers (fans) and who are the providers (players and organizations). You're also making a mistake with your writing. Each statement you write should be valid and should stand on it's own, unless it is sarcasm, in which case it should be obvious sarcasm even if someone quote it alone. That is a good writing. To illustrate this, please quote me out of context. Let's take a look at what you said... I didn't say that prize pools were removed from the free market. I said they are not set by the free market, which is detailed in the parts you removed. I don't think you said that earlier. In fact let me quote you... On May 01 2013 05:31 Plansix wrote:
Prize pools have nothing to do with a free market in any way. You were quite clear they have nothing to do with the free market in any way. Now you're just dancing around semantically. Either way, it doesn't matter. Blizzard is investing in E-Sports because they expect a return, that is how the free market works. When you put stock into a company, you think that company can use your money to make even more and money, and you think that company is going to do well. This is exactly the same to Blizzard's investment into E-Sports. They believe that higher prize pools will result in better players and more fans which means more money and sponsors for them. Otherwise they wouldn't have raised the prize pools in the first place. Blizzard believes this WCS thing is going to work out, and is backing it with it's money, the same way someone backs Google with the money by buying stock.
That is how the free market works.
Do you argue like this in real life? Jump on one sentence in a whole paragraph and then talk down to the person, using phrases like "basic mistakes in your understanding of capitalism"? I am citing Adam Smith, who coined the phrase "free market", so maybe I might not be totally clueless. Once again, I stated that the way prize pools are set is not done in the same way that a pair of shoes are priced. Prize pools are not a retail product and the amount they are worth is not reflective of the amount of work put in. The post I was responding to stated that Blizzard was trying to "control the market", which is a silly thing to say. There is no prize pool market that Blizzard is controlling or leagues are fighting over. I argue like this on the internet, because this is the internet. I do enjoy debating in real life greatly, but that has nothing to do with this. The free market is far more than pricing of retail products or basic services. Take stocks for example. The stock price itself it based purely on supply and demand. The higher the demand for a stock, the lower the supply and the higher the price goes. Simple economics. But what about the decision to buy a stock... that is where it becomes complex. Obviously, if you knew what each stock going to do in value, you'd put all you money into the stock that was going to make you the most money, and only that stock. But people generally don't do that, because no one can say with certainty what each stock is going to do in value. So we spread out our portfolios to mitigate risk. That decision is related to supply and demand in some ways(related in that you might not buy a stock that you think will do well because the demand for it is high, and thus the price is more than you can afford or in the sense that you believe the future demand for a stock will increase, and thus it's price will increase) but supply and demand isn't the be all end all there. Yet, you can make different decisions in the free market because it is unhindered by external regulation or control by the government. No one is telling what stocks you must buy or can't buy. And thus, the decision about whether or not to buy a stock, (which is connected the free market) is analogous to what Blizzard is doing here with prize pools. Blizzard is free and unhindered by external regulation or control by the government, to feed E-Sports with high prize pools, with the belief that these prize pools will ultimately lead them to make more money in the end by developing a better player base which in turn makes the game more fun to watch. Blizzard is investing as much as money as they are believe is necessary (up to the point they can afford) to make as much money as possible, and they free to do so. They believe they can create a higher demand for E-Sports with this action. This has become overly complex. The entire point of this argument was to show that the free market controls prize pools. While you haven't outright admitted that it was a poor choice of words on your part, I believe I've shown that. So its blizzards project where they dump what they deem an appropiate ammount of funds, which shows that prize pools are a free market? Big mouth, lots of side examples, little substance! You got it wrong. Read it again. Prize Pools are the result of a free market where people can dump what they deem an appropriate amount of funds into. Actually, I think we are just arguing about different things and I'd like to apologize for my involvement in this twisted conversation. It all started with this: On April 30 2013 22:27 poorcloud wrote:
Isn't it weird that the quality of the competition in this tournament is evidently lower but the prize pool is the same???
It almost seems like Blizzard is trying to manipulate and regulate the market rather than allowing free competition. I agree with Plansix that this is a foolish comparison. However, I disagree with his reasoning (there is a product being provided to the player, money, in exchange for his ability to play the game), but I agree with his conclusion. And thus it lead to a strange argument where I was reaching the same conclusion, but by different means. Blizzard is simply trying to promote it's game as it should as Plansix was stating. And I will say that this kind of thing happens all the time in business. It is part of the free market. A) Free market = an economic system in which prices are determined by competition between privately owned businesses = open market B) When there is a single supplier (blizzard) or monopolist, the different tournaments are product diversification not competition. C) tournaments dont compete in terms of price pool, MLG has shown that in the past, and IPL went broke trying to. For future reference: google define the term you are discussing, before telling other ppl they are wrong Gg no re
That is not the definition of a free market
blizzard is not the only supplier of tournaments (!?!?!?!?) not sure where the hell you think you are going with that one, there are a number of independent suppliers of tournaments
*prize pool and no that is not the only reason ipl has not continued business operations in sc2 tournaments
for future reference, maybe YOU should google definition the terms you are using beforehand and
never gg no re again after making a stupid ass idiot out of yourself
|
On May 01 2013 09:11 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 08:54 Asfer wrote:
Obviously there is still a huge gap for tournaments or leagues which foster regional talent. But, in my humble opinion, that is the responsibility of each region's community and not Blizzard's (at least at the moment). What we need is less people complaining that WCS should be for NA and more people with initiatives like TotalBiscuit's ShoutCraft: promoting regional competition to foster local talent and improve the legitimacy of each ladder.
On a side note, even if regional competition is not the main goal of WCS, I am almost confident that once the leagues start becoming offline, as is clearly Blizzard's intent, these leagues will in fact feel like regional competitions. In the same way not many foreigners are willing to commit and move to Korea to play GSL, not many Koreans will be willing to leave their country, their culture, and abandon the dreams of participating in GSL. And, even if some do, they will be entirely participating in the American scene, enriching the ladder and improving the level of games (like Messi does for the Spanish League). Here is the issue though, I watch the Koreans in the GSL and Proleague. I enjoy watching them play. I also enjoy watching players other parts of the world compete, not just against Koreans, but against each other. This new WCS format means I'll be seeing a lot more Koreans and less foreigners (especially in WCS America) in the short term which reduces my interest in watching SC2 in general, because the variety of the product has been reduced. The result is that it may end damaging the foreign scene in the long term as foreigners like me now are less interested, and thus we are even farther away from the goal that Blizzard wants, which is enticing regional competitions that lead up to a global finale. I know I would watch more WCS if it there were more foreigners, especially if foreigners versus Koreans weren't an everyday occurrence. The novelty of it makes it interesting, and it why I enjoy the World Cup so much more than any regional soccer league, where people from all over the world play. So it seems like a very risky move that Blizzard is making to me. Hopefully, in the end you are right and people will devote themselves to the regions they live in as the tournaments move offline. But I'm worried about the moves they are making to get there will actually put them farther away from their goal as Koreans take over these regional tournaments in short term, and drive people from this regions away from wanting to compete or watch.
All valid points, and yes it is a risk... but sometimes you have to take a few steps back to make a jump.
In regards to people loosing interest I guess if they haven't by now they can wait one or two seasons more. I'm pretty optimistic things will only get better. This season was pretty much a test case. As much as people complain about Blizzard I for one think they do listen to the community and will try to correct their short term course without compromising their ultimate goal.
Furthermore, even if we are still far from having fully offline leagues, the fact that from now on players have to commit to a region for the full year will make them think twice... but the truth is we will have to wait and see and help as we can.
|
Clearly they were the better American players last night.
|
Oh shit! I came here to talk about Starcraft - I seem to be in the wrong place...
On May 01 2013 09:38 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
Clearly they were the better American players last night.
I agree. I really think they should have led with .... not Group F. Something like Group C or Group G to build up some more hype. the games looked sloppy to me :/
|
Regardless of the current Immigration arguments right now, we need to make these guys, and any other Koreans that want in, citizens stat! USA!
|
On May 01 2013 10:26 TheTreeKing wrote:Oh shit! I came here to talk about Starcraft - I seem to be in the wrong place... Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 09:38 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
Clearly they were the better American players last night. I agree. I really think they should have led with .... not Group F. Something like Group C or Group G to build up some more hype. the games looked sloppy to me :/
EDIT: nvm
|
I predicted right. Wasn't very difficult for this group.
|
Is there a reason why results are spoilered in title?
|
I was expecting theognis to do better hope he can come back through challenger league.
|
On May 01 2013 00:01 Arnstein wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 23:13 Surili wrote:
Can someone tell me WHY snute is competing in america? Same reasons koreans are competing there, I guess: easy money 
Now, I don't exactly know how the individual player power balances go right now on the EU ladder, but zerg IS struggling here..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
