Monetizing Starcraft / LordJerith rant. Thoughts? - Page 7

On February 09 2012 18:24 Maetl wrote:

I have no idea what you are trying to say, or what you think you are responding to. My little contribution was the idea that the attitude that all information and ideas ought to be easily and free accessible, including those currently "protected" by modern copyright law, is a very Good Thing.

On February 09 2012 18:23 Akta wrote:
I don't think you understand. Why couldn't my forums be a new economy? According to his arguments I should be able to make a lot of money on it.

On February 09 2012 17:19 FeiLing wrote:
Blizzard does not allow their games to be broadcasted/streamed if the only way to view it is by subscribing. There always has to be a free stream (and only higher video quality for e.g, may be charged). Just so you know, as I think some people in this thread are actually not talking about video qualities when they talk of a high quality production - they idea rather is that events like MLG etc shouldn't have a free stream and thereby be unable to be viewer without payment (which as I said is not allowed by blizzard).

On February 09 2012 18:21 budar wrote:Btw, since the UFC comparison was brought up (although it's pretty pointless), fighters there made peanuts until the whole thing exploded, and even now I'd say only the top10 fighters in each division (or most of them) are making more money than needed to make ends meet, i.e. six figures or more. Yes, their top fighters make millions each year, but the company makes millions pretty much every other week.

On February 09 2012 19:30 MrBitter wrote:
From my slightly-insiders point of view:

Right now people aren't making money. Hosting tournaments is expensive, and ad revs from the streaming platforms seldom cover just the prize pools. The only way these organizers stay in business right now is with investor/sponsor money.

I've spoken with many of these sponsors, and I've asked them the very straight question: "How the hell do you make any money in this business?", and the answer is always the same: "We don't."

The big, powerhouse sponsors - the multi-billion dollar corporations that have infinite money to throw around, continue to invest in e-sports, not for profit, but to modernize their image, and to appear "cool" in today's market. True story.

The smaller/mid-range sponsors - industry specific tech companies, peripheral manufacturers, basically companies that cater to a niche market already, are definitely trying to carve out a piece of what they perceive as a growing market, but think about how many mouse pads have to be sold to run a tournament? How many graphics cards, or notebooks have to be bought to cover JUST the prize pools?

There is definitely a day of reckoning on the horizon. A lot of people jumped into the game in hopes of cashing in on e-sports, but it's excruciatingly difficult to make money in this business.

People keep citing the GSL as the premiere league, and the only one worth paying for, but the cold truth is that they too are walking a very thin line in terms of their sustainability.

Some of these tournament organizers are eventually going to have to tap out, or drastically scale back what they've been doing. For events to continue to grow, event organizers will have to figure out a way to make money. Even if it is purely for love of the game, you can't keep playing if you can't stop bleeding cash.

PPV models are something industry people are looking at because it HAS worked in the past. It's what got UFC from grassroots to the big stage. But there were more factors in UFC rising to the level it has than just a functional PPV platform.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that you can't charge people to watch Starcraft. There's just too much free Starcraft available. What you can do is charge people to participate in chat, to access VODs, and to avoid seeing ads.

But that change alone would not make running major tournaments profitable. For that to happen, the people at the top of the industry, Sundance, David Ting, Carmac, Robert Ohlen, Russ, have got to figure out ways to sell their product to a small, niche market, without that market turning on them.

It's a very difficult problem to solve, and the answer may very well be to scale back and hold smaller events, but really, nobody wants that.

We all want bigger, better, faster, and stronger, and in the world of business, the first guy to figure out how to deliver that, while still making money, is going to be the one that survives.

On February 09 2012 21:31 Nikon wrote:
$20 or $25 price tag for a single streamed event is unreal. No one in their right mind is going to pay that. Eurosport costs like $39 for a whole year, to give you a little perspective. A whole year of everything you can think of. You want to charge for your stream? Make the pricing competetive.

Shit, forget the pricing, make the content competetive. MLG does a good job of that, with the roaming interview crew on the floor and whatnot. However, my opinion is that cramming everything in a single weekend hurts them a bit. If a game overlaps with my primary game interest that I came to watch the stream, I'm never going to check out the other one. True, there might not be a lot of viewers crossing over, but it might be worth a shot. Or not, I don't really know MLG's operating numbers. But I feel like that's another topic altogether.

I mean it's easy to call people fat asses and say shit like "Fuck Brood War". But you gotta realise that the kind of money you're asking for is an amount that only the hardcore supports are willing to pay. Sure, it might stave off your league or team or whatever disbanding for a couple of years. If you want to grow the industry, however, you have to look around a bit. See what you're competing with. Work from there. Get new people interested. New people probably won't get interested if they have to pay four times what they pay for one year of Eurosport for like 6 weekends of games. That's a huge part of the problem. Stuff right now is either free or costs too much. You have to find the middle ground. You got to be able to interest new face in paying for your product, or you drown. Maybe very slowly, but you do.

And for fuck's sake, don't get rid of the floor admission fees. Every fucking team in pretty much anything has admission fees to their stadiums, so why shouldn't MLG have one? True, MLG is not a team, but the principle is the same, the organisation that provides the venue pockets the money from the tickets. Plus you can charge more for the tickets - I feel that the current MLG price is adequate. For example, Manchester United's tickets for the whole year for their best seats work out at about $127. MLG (assuming 6 events per year) costs $150, but MLG has a varied program - i.e. it's not only Starcraft 2 - which helps their pricing be competetive in this case.

Lastly, to touch on the merchandise point. There's nothing much to say, since I agree with the guy for once. I did buy merchandise for the team that I support, so that's that. It's a great way to support a team/organisation etc. Although, I feel that is something that only the more hardcore supporters would do. Still, in order to get more people that are willing to pay for shirts, you got to expand the fanbase.