|
|
|
Hong Kong9148 Posts
On October 17 2012 07:37 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:46 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 04:32 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 03:58 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 03:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 16 2012 18:49 itsjustatank wrote:On October 16 2012 18:44 Fyodor wrote:
1) There are 14 competing tournaments in Starcraft 2
2) We need a single tournament so good that everyone will tune in!
3) There are 15 competing tournaments in Starcraft 2 And your impact to this is.. what exactly? If you imply it is bad, what I've written serves as built-in offense against this. Supply collusion in restraint of trade is a market failure. Increased competition within any market can only be a benefit, unless you are a monopolist. This is just an assertion based on unarticulated assumptions. First of all, what is beneficial and to whom? (I'm not trying to argue about free markets, let's focus on esports.) A better product at a better price produced more cost effectively would be a benefit. Larger market would be a benefit. So far competition has done little if anything to affect these things. These things were happening anyway due to the vision and passion of content producers. Most consumers seem to feel like meaningful improvement has stagnated, and that's as "competition" has increased. Maybe it's just a phase, but I don't see economic competition as a driving force. The things underpinning esports are passion for the content and a vague promise of a larger market at some point in the future. Esports is a hobby pretending to be a business because it's the best way for it to prolong its existence as a hobby. (Like you say elsewhere, this value statement doesn't change any of the calculations but tell me I'm wrong.) Concerted restriction of supply on an industry-wide basis and limitation of entry into the market, which is what people who point towards oversaturation want, is a market failure and also illegal. ...? This doesn't address anything I said about competition. I don't disagree with you about the proper way to proceed, but that's not what I was talking about. But if you want to take it there, I don't think you can evaluate the economics of esports as though it were a generic commercial enterprise. I would refer to established sports industries if you want to talk about it. Established sports industries have statutory exemptions to antitrust law built over decades of lobbying effort and billions of dollars paid. I'm also not treating this on an individual company (microeconomic) basis, but rather putting a macroeconomic perspective on things. I appreciate that, I do. But I'm confused by your responses. Are you dodging me because you don't want to be wrong? Do you think this isn't worth discussing? Or do you not understand what I'm saying? Competition is not in effect in an appreciable way.
What I am saying is that if you believe in a free market, demand-side approaches work here. As I've said before, the only way to restrict supply effectively in the economy of ESPORTS is to engage in illegal anti-competitive practices. Economic competition is the keystone of a free market. Since you clearly don't believe in it, you are in the camp where market failure is an acceptable expression of our activity. There is no middle ground between these two points.
On October 17 2012 07:44 Barrin wrote:
I think I basically agree with what you wrote. But you mentioned the possibility of a 'collapse' of ESPORTS; if something like this were to happen I really don't think it would be as dramatic as you made it seem. Some organizations can weather the storm much longer than others, and as those others drop away guess what.. it's not oversaturated anymore!
The 'collapse' is more of an 'even if'' scenario, although it is very possible if the global economy actually does make a turn for the worse like it looks to be doing in the coming year. The point I was trying to make is that increasing viewership and engagement makes sense economically, but it also just makes sense in terms of being fans of competitive gaming and increasing its visibility.
If you ask me the real problem of oversaturation is that it discourages newcomers already. Newcomers that could potentially have a fresh new perspective on things, or be big enough to bring ESPORTS to the next level. Entrepreneurs and big business are not interested in oversaturated markets, that's the real problem IMO. Untold opportunity cost.
I don't necessarily say that increased supply is necessary, I think. What I do say is that the free market should dictate the amount of supply, and that oversaturation is a smokescreen by which a cartel of large players that hide flaws within our system in order to justify monopolistic actions. Oversaturation does not exist now, but what does exist is the fact that producers are not doing a good enough job competing and improving their product. We as a community are not doing a good enough job increasing education of the activity and especially not doing a good enough job in spreading or reviving passion around the games we enjoy.
The industry should focus on dealing with the existence of competition, not whine about the fact that they aren't monopolies yet. The fact that new players continue to enter the field, and that existing players continue to whine about it, demonstrate that in the economy of ESPORTS, things are still enticing. Only the point at which producers begin to shut down, not because of cartel action but because of their inability to compete, will that be the point of diminishing returns for new entrants.
|
On October 17 2012 08:15 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 07:37 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 04:32 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 03:58 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 03:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 16 2012 18:49 itsjustatank wrote:On October 16 2012 18:44 Fyodor wrote:
1) There are 14 competing tournaments in Starcraft 2
2) We need a single tournament so good that everyone will tune in!
3) There are 15 competing tournaments in Starcraft 2 And your impact to this is.. what exactly? If you imply it is bad, what I've written serves as built-in offense against this. Supply collusion in restraint of trade is a market failure. Increased competition within any market can only be a benefit, unless you are a monopolist. This is just an assertion based on unarticulated assumptions. First of all, what is beneficial and to whom? (I'm not trying to argue about free markets, let's focus on esports.) A better product at a better price produced more cost effectively would be a benefit. Larger market would be a benefit. So far competition has done little if anything to affect these things. These things were happening anyway due to the vision and passion of content producers. Most consumers seem to feel like meaningful improvement has stagnated, and that's as "competition" has increased. Maybe it's just a phase, but I don't see economic competition as a driving force. The things underpinning esports are passion for the content and a vague promise of a larger market at some point in the future. Esports is a hobby pretending to be a business because it's the best way for it to prolong its existence as a hobby. (Like you say elsewhere, this value statement doesn't change any of the calculations but tell me I'm wrong.) Concerted restriction of supply on an industry-wide basis and limitation of entry into the market, which is what people who point towards oversaturation want, is a market failure and also illegal. ...? This doesn't address anything I said about competition. I don't disagree with you about the proper way to proceed, but that's not what I was talking about. But if you want to take it there, I don't think you can evaluate the economics of esports as though it were a generic commercial enterprise. I would refer to established sports industries if you want to talk about it. Established sports industries have statutory exemptions to antitrust law built over decades of lobbying effort and billions of dollars paid. I'm also not treating this on an individual company (microeconomic) basis, but rather putting a macroeconomic perspective on things. I appreciate that, I do. But I'm confused by your responses. Are you dodging me because you don't want to be wrong? Do you think this isn't worth discussing? Or do you not understand what I'm saying? Competition is not in effect in an appreciable way. What I am saying is that if you believe in a free market, demand-side approaches work here. As I've said before, the only way to restrict supply effectively in the economy of ESPORTS is to engage in illegal anti-competitive practices. Economic competition is the keystone of a free market. Since you clearly don't believe in it, you are in the camp where market failure is an acceptable expression of our activity. There is no middle ground between these two points.
You seem to be battling a spectre. I think it's my fault for not being more detailed. I am trying to get at two things in relation to the sustainability of content producers (the main point of this discussion?) and competition:
1) Content producers have been improving their product steadily since each began their sc2 life. I am saying this would happen anyway without competition; hence it is not the driving force for better content (right now). If so, this suggests the sustainability of producers based on the quality of their product is not related to competition between producers but a general expectation of the consumer regardless of product choices.
2) From what you've said in the OP and in thread posts, it seems like you recommend that content producers try to build the market in order to be sustainable. But there can only be so much top-level starcraft. So it's self-evident that they should work towards having enough consumers that they'd be sustainable at the least. Beyond this the content is just inferior or novelty quality starcraft. Should we build the market for that? I think that's what a lot of people have a problem with, although they've not quite articulated it in their own thoughts or outward expression.
Aside from this there is a whole discussion about the finite supply of top-level starcraft based on players, and, to a certain extent, the idea itself of a premier level of competition.
In short, it's a no-brainer that we should "increase demand", and I laud your writeup. My personal view about competition in a free market doesn't really have any bearing on what I am trying to say though.
|
Hong Kong9148 Posts
On October 17 2012 09:18 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:15 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 04:32 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 03:58 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 03:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 16 2012 18:49 itsjustatank wrote:On October 16 2012 18:44 Fyodor wrote:
1) There are 14 competing tournaments in Starcraft 2
2) We need a single tournament so good that everyone will tune in!
3) There are 15 competing tournaments in Starcraft 2 And your impact to this is.. what exactly? If you imply it is bad, what I've written serves as built-in offense against this. Supply collusion in restraint of trade is a market failure. Increased competition within any market can only be a benefit, unless you are a monopolist. This is just an assertion based on unarticulated assumptions. First of all, what is beneficial and to whom? (I'm not trying to argue about free markets, let's focus on esports.) A better product at a better price produced more cost effectively would be a benefit. Larger market would be a benefit. So far competition has done little if anything to affect these things. These things were happening anyway due to the vision and passion of content producers. Most consumers seem to feel like meaningful improvement has stagnated, and that's as "competition" has increased. Maybe it's just a phase, but I don't see economic competition as a driving force. The things underpinning esports are passion for the content and a vague promise of a larger market at some point in the future. Esports is a hobby pretending to be a business because it's the best way for it to prolong its existence as a hobby. (Like you say elsewhere, this value statement doesn't change any of the calculations but tell me I'm wrong.) Concerted restriction of supply on an industry-wide basis and limitation of entry into the market, which is what people who point towards oversaturation want, is a market failure and also illegal. ...? This doesn't address anything I said about competition. I don't disagree with you about the proper way to proceed, but that's not what I was talking about. But if you want to take it there, I don't think you can evaluate the economics of esports as though it were a generic commercial enterprise. I would refer to established sports industries if you want to talk about it. Established sports industries have statutory exemptions to antitrust law built over decades of lobbying effort and billions of dollars paid. I'm also not treating this on an individual company (microeconomic) basis, but rather putting a macroeconomic perspective on things. I appreciate that, I do. But I'm confused by your responses. Are you dodging me because you don't want to be wrong? Do you think this isn't worth discussing? Or do you not understand what I'm saying? Competition is not in effect in an appreciable way. What I am saying is that if you believe in a free market, demand-side approaches work here. As I've said before, the only way to restrict supply effectively in the economy of ESPORTS is to engage in illegal anti-competitive practices. Economic competition is the keystone of a free market. Since you clearly don't believe in it, you are in the camp where market failure is an acceptable expression of our activity. There is no middle ground between these two points. You seem to be battling a spectre. I think it's my fault for not being more detailed. I am trying to get at two things in relation to the sustainability of content producers (the main point of this discussion?) and competition: 1) Content producers have been improving their product steadily since each began their sc2 life. I am saying this would happen anyway without competition; hence it is not the driving force for better content (right now). If so, this suggests the sustainability of producers based on the quality of their product is not related to competition between producers but a general expectation of the consumer regardless of product choices. 2) From what you've said in the OP and in thread posts, it seems like you recommend that content producers try to build the market in order to be sustainable. But there can only be so much top-level starcraft. So it's self-evident that they should work towards having enough consumers that they'd be sustainable at the least. Beyond this the content is just inferior or novelty quality starcraft. Should we build the market for that? I think that's what a lot of people have a problem with, although they've not quite articulated it in their own thoughts or outward expression. Aside from this there is a whole discussion about the finite supply of top-level starcraft based on players, and, to a certain extent, the idea itself of a premier level of competition. In short, it's a no-brainer that we should "increase demand", and I laud your writeup. My personal view about competition in a free market doesn't really have any bearing on what I am trying to say though.
Ah yes this is more clear. On your first point, what I am trying to say is that 'oversaturation' is being articulated in order to justify cutting corners and fail to improve. Without a competitive free market, there is no incentive to improve the product. What we have now are producers being enticed with the potential of developing a cartel because it would ensure a price floor for supply and establish significant barriers to entry. Establishment of such a cartel will tend towards a lack of innovation and improvement. However, if the status quo holds, I agree that producers will be forced to innovate because they operate in a competitive market.
In terms of building more than just the top-level of StarCraft, I do say we should build the market for that. I disagree with your description of such a scene as being 'inferior or novelty quality.' One of the biggest reasons for the current levels of disengagement I feel is that people don't actually play the game anymore. Building an amateur and a pro-amateur scene can create a path to progaming. It at least provides a space for people who want to play the game but cannot do so at a top, top, level still have a place to have some amount of comparable competitive space. It also ensures continuity in case the current producers of top-level StarCraft competition decide to up and leave the market.
The biggest example I think of an organization trying to do this now (and having worked at this for quite some time) is the Collegiate Starleague. I can see them building almost something like what the NCAA does for many professional sports, and their efforts will certainly stimulate demand.
|
This is a very wordy way of saying something very simple: "There are two ways to solve over-saturation: remove some of the dissolved material or add more solvent. We should be adding more solvent, not removing material." Thus the analogy works itself out.
|
On October 17 2012 09:32 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:18 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 08:15 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 04:32 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 03:58 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 03:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 16 2012 18:49 itsjustatank wrote:On October 16 2012 18:44 Fyodor wrote:
1) There are 14 competing tournaments in Starcraft 2
2) We need a single tournament so good that everyone will tune in!
3) There are 15 competing tournaments in Starcraft 2 And your impact to this is.. what exactly? If you imply it is bad, what I've written serves as built-in offense against this. Supply collusion in restraint of trade is a market failure. Increased competition within any market can only be a benefit, unless you are a monopolist. This is just an assertion based on unarticulated assumptions. First of all, what is beneficial and to whom? (I'm not trying to argue about free markets, let's focus on esports.) A better product at a better price produced more cost effectively would be a benefit. Larger market would be a benefit. So far competition has done little if anything to affect these things. These things were happening anyway due to the vision and passion of content producers. Most consumers seem to feel like meaningful improvement has stagnated, and that's as "competition" has increased. Maybe it's just a phase, but I don't see economic competition as a driving force. The things underpinning esports are passion for the content and a vague promise of a larger market at some point in the future. Esports is a hobby pretending to be a business because it's the best way for it to prolong its existence as a hobby. (Like you say elsewhere, this value statement doesn't change any of the calculations but tell me I'm wrong.) Concerted restriction of supply on an industry-wide basis and limitation of entry into the market, which is what people who point towards oversaturation want, is a market failure and also illegal. ...? This doesn't address anything I said about competition. I don't disagree with you about the proper way to proceed, but that's not what I was talking about. But if you want to take it there, I don't think you can evaluate the economics of esports as though it were a generic commercial enterprise. I would refer to established sports industries if you want to talk about it. Established sports industries have statutory exemptions to antitrust law built over decades of lobbying effort and billions of dollars paid. I'm also not treating this on an individual company (microeconomic) basis, but rather putting a macroeconomic perspective on things. I appreciate that, I do. But I'm confused by your responses. Are you dodging me because you don't want to be wrong? Do you think this isn't worth discussing? Or do you not understand what I'm saying? Competition is not in effect in an appreciable way. What I am saying is that if you believe in a free market, demand-side approaches work here. As I've said before, the only way to restrict supply effectively in the economy of ESPORTS is to engage in illegal anti-competitive practices. Economic competition is the keystone of a free market. Since you clearly don't believe in it, you are in the camp where market failure is an acceptable expression of our activity. There is no middle ground between these two points. You seem to be battling a spectre. I think it's my fault for not being more detailed. I am trying to get at two things in relation to the sustainability of content producers (the main point of this discussion?) and competition: 1) Content producers have been improving their product steadily since each began their sc2 life. I am saying this would happen anyway without competition; hence it is not the driving force for better content (right now). If so, this suggests the sustainability of producers based on the quality of their product is not related to competition between producers but a general expectation of the consumer regardless of product choices. 2) From what you've said in the OP and in thread posts, it seems like you recommend that content producers try to build the market in order to be sustainable. But there can only be so much top-level starcraft. So it's self-evident that they should work towards having enough consumers that they'd be sustainable at the least. Beyond this the content is just inferior or novelty quality starcraft. Should we build the market for that? I think that's what a lot of people have a problem with, although they've not quite articulated it in their own thoughts or outward expression. Aside from this there is a whole discussion about the finite supply of top-level starcraft based on players, and, to a certain extent, the idea itself of a premier level of competition. In short, it's a no-brainer that we should "increase demand", and I laud your writeup. My personal view about competition in a free market doesn't really have any bearing on what I am trying to say though. Ah yes this is more clear. On your first point, what I am trying to say is that 'oversaturation' is being articulated in order to justify cutting corners and fail to improve. Without a competitive free market, there is no incentive to improve the product. What we have now are producers being enticed with the potential of developing a cartel because it would ensure a price floor for supply and establish significant barriers to entry. Establishment of such a cartel will tend towards a lack of innovation and improvement. However, if the status quo holds, I agree that producers will be forced to innovate because they operate in a competitive market. In terms of building more than just the top-level of StarCraft, I do say we should build the market for that. I disagree with your description of such a scene as being 'inferior or novelty quality.' One of the biggest reasons for the current levels of disengagement I feel is that people don't actually play the game anymore. Building an amateur and a pro-amateur scene can create a path to progaming. It at least provides a space for people who want to play the game but cannot do so at a top, top, level still have a place to have some amount of comparable competitive space. It also ensures continuity in case the current producers of top-level StarCraft competition decide to up and leave the market. The biggest example I think of an organization trying to do this now (and having worked at this for quite some time) is the Collegiate Starleague. I can see them building almost something like what the NCAA does for many professional sports, and their efforts will certainly stimulate demand.
Okay. There'd be a whole lot to discuss if we got into it about all this stuff. But I am satisfied that at least we are on the same page vis a vis what the topic is, and I think we differ on the first point only in the time scale we are thinking in.
As to sub-pro starcraft, I think it's important to recognize that there is a hardcore... well, core of fans who are here to see the very best starcraft that is possible, and aren't really interested if that isn't present. (They might follow other things from time to time provided the mainstay top-level play is there.) The defining characteristic of this group is love of the game, in arguably its truest form. Now I'm theorizing, but I feel like if you dislocate this core, things will start to unravel. Following that thought, it's important that any sub-pro starcraft funnels people into pro starcraft. (Naturally I wouldn't expect otherwise, but I worry.) And if mediocre competition is acceptable content, then mediocre platforms are economically viable. I don't want a world where game companies make shitty games that the kiddies flock to every development cycle provided the requisite marketing, which I suppose is the root of my obstinancy in pursuing this thought.
|
Hong Kong9148 Posts
On October 17 2012 11:49 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:32 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 09:18 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 08:15 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 04:32 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 03:58 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 03:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 16 2012 18:49 itsjustatank wrote:
[quote]
And your impact to this is.. what exactly? If you imply it is bad, what I've written serves as built-in offense against this. Supply collusion in restraint of trade is a market failure. Increased competition within any market can only be a benefit, unless you are a monopolist. This is just an assertion based on unarticulated assumptions. First of all, what is beneficial and to whom? (I'm not trying to argue about free markets, let's focus on esports.) A better product at a better price produced more cost effectively would be a benefit. Larger market would be a benefit. So far competition has done little if anything to affect these things. These things were happening anyway due to the vision and passion of content producers. Most consumers seem to feel like meaningful improvement has stagnated, and that's as "competition" has increased. Maybe it's just a phase, but I don't see economic competition as a driving force. The things underpinning esports are passion for the content and a vague promise of a larger market at some point in the future. Esports is a hobby pretending to be a business because it's the best way for it to prolong its existence as a hobby. (Like you say elsewhere, this value statement doesn't change any of the calculations but tell me I'm wrong.) Concerted restriction of supply on an industry-wide basis and limitation of entry into the market, which is what people who point towards oversaturation want, is a market failure and also illegal. ...? This doesn't address anything I said about competition. I don't disagree with you about the proper way to proceed, but that's not what I was talking about. But if you want to take it there, I don't think you can evaluate the economics of esports as though it were a generic commercial enterprise. I would refer to established sports industries if you want to talk about it. Established sports industries have statutory exemptions to antitrust law built over decades of lobbying effort and billions of dollars paid. I'm also not treating this on an individual company (microeconomic) basis, but rather putting a macroeconomic perspective on things. I appreciate that, I do. But I'm confused by your responses. Are you dodging me because you don't want to be wrong? Do you think this isn't worth discussing? Or do you not understand what I'm saying? Competition is not in effect in an appreciable way. What I am saying is that if you believe in a free market, demand-side approaches work here. As I've said before, the only way to restrict supply effectively in the economy of ESPORTS is to engage in illegal anti-competitive practices. Economic competition is the keystone of a free market. Since you clearly don't believe in it, you are in the camp where market failure is an acceptable expression of our activity. There is no middle ground between these two points. You seem to be battling a spectre. I think it's my fault for not being more detailed. I am trying to get at two things in relation to the sustainability of content producers (the main point of this discussion?) and competition: 1) Content producers have been improving their product steadily since each began their sc2 life. I am saying this would happen anyway without competition; hence it is not the driving force for better content (right now). If so, this suggests the sustainability of producers based on the quality of their product is not related to competition between producers but a general expectation of the consumer regardless of product choices. 2) From what you've said in the OP and in thread posts, it seems like you recommend that content producers try to build the market in order to be sustainable. But there can only be so much top-level starcraft. So it's self-evident that they should work towards having enough consumers that they'd be sustainable at the least. Beyond this the content is just inferior or novelty quality starcraft. Should we build the market for that? I think that's what a lot of people have a problem with, although they've not quite articulated it in their own thoughts or outward expression. Aside from this there is a whole discussion about the finite supply of top-level starcraft based on players, and, to a certain extent, the idea itself of a premier level of competition. In short, it's a no-brainer that we should "increase demand", and I laud your writeup. My personal view about competition in a free market doesn't really have any bearing on what I am trying to say though. Ah yes this is more clear. On your first point, what I am trying to say is that 'oversaturation' is being articulated in order to justify cutting corners and fail to improve. Without a competitive free market, there is no incentive to improve the product. What we have now are producers being enticed with the potential of developing a cartel because it would ensure a price floor for supply and establish significant barriers to entry. Establishment of such a cartel will tend towards a lack of innovation and improvement. However, if the status quo holds, I agree that producers will be forced to innovate because they operate in a competitive market. In terms of building more than just the top-level of StarCraft, I do say we should build the market for that. I disagree with your description of such a scene as being 'inferior or novelty quality.' One of the biggest reasons for the current levels of disengagement I feel is that people don't actually play the game anymore. Building an amateur and a pro-amateur scene can create a path to progaming. It at least provides a space for people who want to play the game but cannot do so at a top, top, level still have a place to have some amount of comparable competitive space. It also ensures continuity in case the current producers of top-level StarCraft competition decide to up and leave the market. The biggest example I think of an organization trying to do this now (and having worked at this for quite some time) is the Collegiate Starleague. I can see them building almost something like what the NCAA does for many professional sports, and their efforts will certainly stimulate demand. Okay. There'd be a whole lot to discuss if we got into it about all this stuff. But I am satisfied that at least we are on the same page vis a vis what the topic is, and I think we differ on the first point only in the time scale we are thinking in. As to sub-pro starcraft, I think it's important to recognize that there is a hardcore... well, core of fans who are here to see the very best starcraft that is possible, and aren't really interested if that isn't present. (They might follow other things from time to time provided the mainstay top-level play is there.) The defining characteristic of this group is love of the game, in arguably its truest form. Now I'm theorizing, but I feel like if you dislocate this core, things will start to unravel. Following that thought, it's important that any sub-pro starcraft funnels people into pro starcraft. (Naturally I wouldn't expect otherwise, but I worry.) And if mediocre competition is acceptable content, then mediocre platforms are economically viable. I don't want a world where game companies make shitty games that the kiddies flock to every development cycle provided the requisite marketing, which I suppose is the root of my obstinancy in pursuing this thought.
I feel that 'sub-pro' or semi-pro competitive gaming will end up being a gateway to competition in games that are more acceptable to purists. At the very least, raising the visibility of competitive gaming in the public mind and increasing the audience for it will increase attention to, acceptability of, and viability of our more hardcore competitive gaming activities.
|
On October 17 2012 11:52 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 11:49 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 09:32 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 09:18 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 08:15 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 04:32 EatThePath wrote:On October 17 2012 03:58 itsjustatank wrote:On October 17 2012 03:50 EatThePath wrote:
[quote]
This is just an assertion based on unarticulated assumptions. First of all, what is beneficial and to whom? (I'm not trying to argue about free markets, let's focus on esports.)
A better product at a better price produced more cost effectively would be a benefit. Larger market would be a benefit. So far competition has done little if anything to affect these things. These things were happening anyway due to the vision and passion of content producers. Most consumers seem to feel like meaningful improvement has stagnated, and that's as "competition" has increased.
Maybe it's just a phase, but I don't see economic competition as a driving force. The things underpinning esports are passion for the content and a vague promise of a larger market at some point in the future. Esports is a hobby pretending to be a business because it's the best way for it to prolong its existence as a hobby.
(Like you say elsewhere, this value statement doesn't change any of the calculations but tell me I'm wrong.) Concerted restriction of supply on an industry-wide basis and limitation of entry into the market, which is what people who point towards oversaturation want, is a market failure and also illegal. ...? This doesn't address anything I said about competition. I don't disagree with you about the proper way to proceed, but that's not what I was talking about. But if you want to take it there, I don't think you can evaluate the economics of esports as though it were a generic commercial enterprise. I would refer to established sports industries if you want to talk about it. Established sports industries have statutory exemptions to antitrust law built over decades of lobbying effort and billions of dollars paid. I'm also not treating this on an individual company (microeconomic) basis, but rather putting a macroeconomic perspective on things. I appreciate that, I do. But I'm confused by your responses. Are you dodging me because you don't want to be wrong? Do you think this isn't worth discussing? Or do you not understand what I'm saying? Competition is not in effect in an appreciable way. What I am saying is that if you believe in a free market, demand-side approaches work here. As I've said before, the only way to restrict supply effectively in the economy of ESPORTS is to engage in illegal anti-competitive practices. Economic competition is the keystone of a free market. Since you clearly don't believe in it, you are in the camp where market failure is an acceptable expression of our activity. There is no middle ground between these two points. You seem to be battling a spectre. I think it's my fault for not being more detailed. I am trying to get at two things in relation to the sustainability of content producers (the main point of this discussion?) and competition: 1) Content producers have been improving their product steadily since each began their sc2 life. I am saying this would happen anyway without competition; hence it is not the driving force for better content (right now). If so, this suggests the sustainability of producers based on the quality of their product is not related to competition between producers but a general expectation of the consumer regardless of product choices. 2) From what you've said in the OP and in thread posts, it seems like you recommend that content producers try to build the market in order to be sustainable. But there can only be so much top-level starcraft. So it's self-evident that they should work towards having enough consumers that they'd be sustainable at the least. Beyond this the content is just inferior or novelty quality starcraft. Should we build the market for that? I think that's what a lot of people have a problem with, although they've not quite articulated it in their own thoughts or outward expression. Aside from this there is a whole discussion about the finite supply of top-level starcraft based on players, and, to a certain extent, the idea itself of a premier level of competition. In short, it's a no-brainer that we should "increase demand", and I laud your writeup. My personal view about competition in a free market doesn't really have any bearing on what I am trying to say though. Ah yes this is more clear. On your first point, what I am trying to say is that 'oversaturation' is being articulated in order to justify cutting corners and fail to improve. Without a competitive free market, there is no incentive to improve the product. What we have now are producers being enticed with the potential of developing a cartel because it would ensure a price floor for supply and establish significant barriers to entry. Establishment of such a cartel will tend towards a lack of innovation and improvement. However, if the status quo holds, I agree that producers will be forced to innovate because they operate in a competitive market. In terms of building more than just the top-level of StarCraft, I do say we should build the market for that. I disagree with your description of such a scene as being 'inferior or novelty quality.' One of the biggest reasons for the current levels of disengagement I feel is that people don't actually play the game anymore. Building an amateur and a pro-amateur scene can create a path to progaming. It at least provides a space for people who want to play the game but cannot do so at a top, top, level still have a place to have some amount of comparable competitive space. It also ensures continuity in case the current producers of top-level StarCraft competition decide to up and leave the market. The biggest example I think of an organization trying to do this now (and having worked at this for quite some time) is the Collegiate Starleague. I can see them building almost something like what the NCAA does for many professional sports, and their efforts will certainly stimulate demand. Okay. There'd be a whole lot to discuss if we got into it about all this stuff. But I am satisfied that at least we are on the same page vis a vis what the topic is, and I think we differ on the first point only in the time scale we are thinking in. As to sub-pro starcraft, I think it's important to recognize that there is a hardcore... well, core of fans who are here to see the very best starcraft that is possible, and aren't really interested if that isn't present. (They might follow other things from time to time provided the mainstay top-level play is there.) The defining characteristic of this group is love of the game, in arguably its truest form. Now I'm theorizing, but I feel like if you dislocate this core, things will start to unravel. Following that thought, it's important that any sub-pro starcraft funnels people into pro starcraft. (Naturally I wouldn't expect otherwise, but I worry.) And if mediocre competition is acceptable content, then mediocre platforms are economically viable. I don't want a world where game companies make shitty games that the kiddies flock to every development cycle provided the requisite marketing, which I suppose is the root of my obstinancy in pursuing this thought. I feel that 'sub-pro' or semi-pro competitive gaming will end up being a gateway to competition in games that are more acceptable to purists. At the very least, raising the visibility of competitive gaming in the public mind and increasing the audience for it will increase attention to, acceptability of, and viability of our more hardcore competitive gaming activities.
Well, we were talking about viewership right? How many people are really going to watch objectively bad starcraft games? That would only result from being invested in a starcraft culture big enough to make "local heros" or the "local scene" meaningful. In a way it seems like putting the cart before the horse. Starcraft on the big stage has to be great enough that a poor imitation draws people in by association, not the other way around. The effect you're talking about is a very narrow window of opportunity for any given individual seeing a starcraft match for the first time. If small-time starcraft events proliferate, it will create a lot of new exposure, but will it grab people and keep them? For that to happen, watching the game has to be absolutely gripping, or the culture has to be engaging. The latter is a result of the former.
To circle back to the original topic, proposing to grow the market for peripheral starcraft instead of match the appetite for quality starcraft amounts to deluding people into thinking that what they're watching has value. On the one hand, if they are honestly entertained, then great. On the other hand, in comparison to the best content -- the best players on the biggest stage -- they're watching crap. Is this elitist? Maybe. But isn't it also honest? There's a reason the world cup is only every 4 years, to state the issue in an emblematic way.
Taking the above in tow, how do you capture viewers of quality starcraft? Marketing and whatnot being taken for granted, you have to have a quality product. If you don't have a big enough pull, you have to increase the quality of your product. When it comes to starcraft matches, this means relevant spectacle. Unless something about the entertainment of watching competition fundamentally changes, this mean big games between big names. It can't be a big game if the same matchup was just played last week for the same stakes. The people who make money off sports know this.
That, in part, is why competition doesn't correspond with benefit and may in fact be a detriment while it operates. The dynamics of adding more content don't pan out like options between consumer products does. Sports operate on self-regulation, and this works because of the incentive to maintain elite status, which is coupled to fan sentiment. In other words, passion drives the appetite for the game. To make money off the game you have to drive passion.
[edit] The competition that drives product improvement is between a sport and other entertainment. More starcraft matches only affects this by decreasing the core value of the product making it harder to compete with other entertainment.
|
First I only read a few lines, but once i read things in direction of demand-side approaches and demand-supply curves with regard to oversaturation i was very happy! :D
Now i read the full post and still agree, very nice blog!
|
I never thought i would pay for watching sc2 ... but that MvP MLG tournament for me to shell out 10$ .... but to be honest it was only to see the Kespa players, i had no interest seeing MLG Koreans play for the 100th time.
|
i can't believe you just drew graphs with no numbers and put them on the internet, i want to do that all the time!!!!!!
|
Hong Kong9148 Posts
On October 18 2012 12:51 xmungam wrote:
i can't believe you just drew graphs with no numbers and put them on the internet, i want to do that all the time!!!!!!
The graphs and curves described here depict basic economic understandings and are meant to provide visual aid to what I say in the text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
