FIRST FOR FIRST TIME

Not a "First" comment

this game is so shieeeeeeeeeeet

dotabuff comments SeemsGood

5th ?

Eggs, not to rain on your parade, but the amount of unrelatable bullshit you've written here -- in the sense that you have no clue what you're talking about -- is too damn high.
Have you ever in your life been part of an organization with sponsors? I'm still owed 8000$... Fuck Ange.

Stop trying to pretend like everyone gets a part of the cake or a medal just for trying. Do you have any idea how many teams were in a similar situation to AF?
Fear, for instance, as a player -- imagine the struggles. Pretty much every pro player out there has gone through that; it's where most of them get that win or die mentally that allows them to pull through.

Players shy away from organizations because there's a history of getting ripped off badly.

I'll detail when I have more time, but the write up reads like a leftist socialist argument for repartitioning of wealth.
You're dotabuff -- not the damn Huffington Post.

No comunism in dota please. Thanks.

I REFUSE TO BELIEVE ALL THE BALDWINS ARE EQUALLY TALENTED

@Yot
the article seems to agree with what your saying, that it's becoming harder and harder now for players to find a reliable income

>Meritocracy
>A myth
Slow down there, Mr Critical Theory.

In all seriousness, the problem is a combination of players who have little to no business sense and the fact that it being just "good" is never good enough in any highly competitive industry. That doesn't make the industry itself less sustainable, it just means that most people who try aren't gonna make it.

No... I'm saying it's easier and easier. It's gotten to the point where it's easy enough to refuse sponsorships -- something no one ever would have done just 5 years ago. Also has to do with the fact that certain players carry more weight than certain brands; more people know Dendi, than say Ad Finem -- sure these folks live under rocks or in the past -- and can now secure sponsorships for themselves in lieu of an organization doing for them and taking a huge cut.

Anyone who says otherwise was not involved in eSports until 201X and probably still isn't.

@Yot

There are definitely arguments to be made for teams going solo due to poor contracts, delayed payments, etc. However, I wouldn't call this an argument for socialism. I'd say it's more of a warning of the possible collapse of the business due to poor foundationing.

The theory displayed here is that there is more money to be made by growing the interest in competing. If you lower the stress for players worried about when their next paycheck is coming in, more of them will stick around for the next competition and possibly be in a better mindset to compete. If you give teams a better, scheduled, structured season with more games played between teams, both players and viewers will have more invested interest. That could lead to teams promising to field a roster, which could lead to having an actual league. If you get an actual league with, say, 15 teams, you're looking at the possibility of minor leagues starting up. Sponsorships increase, organizations become far less seedy, ad revenue increases, thus placing less emphasis on a community driven pool.

As for Fear, you're right. He worked very hard to get where he is now. It paid off, and he deserves to be where he is. But smoothing out the payout curve won't discredit his hard work. Instead, it will reduce the amount of luck required to be successful. All of those teams in the same situation as AF will have a better opportunity to gradually grow. The teams that really aren't worth their weight still won't make it.

It seems smart for Valve and other tournament organizers to appeal to a wider audience of competitors at the moment. If they stick with their current plan, or fail to adjust quickly enough, more and more players will quit competing, leaving us with like 20 players competing against each other. Nobody wants that to happen. More teams competing means more money for tournament organizers. It's the same concept as lowering prices to get more people to buy. In the end, the lower price makes you more money.

So no, I wouldn't look at this as an argument for socialism. I would say it's just good business.

It's easier and easier to step into esports and very viable sources of income exist (YouTube/Twitch etc) that weren't even available before hand.
People never will quit competing because your prime is 16-26 pretty much. Esports aren't sports where you can still be competitive age 35-45.
Most games haven't changed in a long time -- esports forces you to adapt every so often with new patches. Older people can't cope as well.
If your potential pro players aren't legally old enough to drink, there's a fair chance they do it out of passion more than a Plutonian based drive. There always will be competitors -- there were competitors when no money was to be earned.

I'm just saying the write up feels very "spread the wealth" which is something that has killed several industries and leagues.
His argument sounds like I could and should get compensated for finishing top 16 in the EU online qualifiers for TI -- I shouldn't and don't see any reason why I should.
The argument of Ad finem being 500 000$ better? Is 2nd place in tennis rankings worth 10M less in sponsorship deals?

Write about what you know, or ask others to do so -- like any real news outlet.

@Yot

It's not about redistribution of wealth, it is about allowing as many great dota players as possible to dedicate all their time and energy to competing in the pro scene. This makes the game more competitive. The more dota players that can make a living playing the game, the better for the competitive scene.

And you are talking about single percentage points making a MASSIVE difference for the bottom placements.

Bernie Sanders writes a Dota blog lol.

Kids are becoming millionaires playing video games, if you want to make a living doing something like that it is up to you to make it happen, not Valve.

Its better for Dota 2 if Valve "makes it happen" for as many players as possible.

I love the economical debate that his comment section is having.

@Yot

There is a ceiling to the twitch streaming positions. At some point, which I believe is already upon us, the market becomes saturated with wannabes and a couple good streamers with dedicated followers. I'd argue that there is less money to be made in streaming and that it is even more cutthroat than competing. Viewers will flock to one streamer the most, and few others will even come close to the same viewership. But streamers rely on interest in the game, and if the professional circuit takes a dive, their fickle viewers will lose interest in the game altogether. YouTube content creators, regardless of content, have a pretty hard time maintaining their viewership for more than a year as is.

You're right, there were competitors when no money was to be earned. How many were there? How many will there be if we go back to those times?

You have to look at this as an investment in the league. Valve did this initially with their million dollar tournament, and it kickstarted their viewership, but as it stands right now they need more players to be interested in playing. If they 'spread the wealth', more players join in, the feasibility for a yearly league grows, and those sponsorship deals you spoke of will come to the best. In this situation, the best players stand to earn even more money and possibly increase the earnings gap just because of sponsorships. They would have more people to compete against, too, because more people would stick around instead of starving for a while and giving up.

And none of this hinges on Valve putting more money into the pot or squeezing the community for a few more drops. All they have to do is even the curve a little. Whether or not you think the lower skilled players deserve more money is of little interest to Valve. But players of their game are wearing jerseys not with Alienware or RedBull, but with Tide or Ford? Better deals with ESPN, moving away from online streaming to their actual network? Billboards throughout KeyArena with The Hartford and the latest George Clooney movie? TI7 presented by CitiBank? THAT is what will pique the interest of Valve. They can get all those sponsorships when they show that their league is healthy, well manicured, and long lasting. To do that, they need to appeal to the players.

Would be cool to see Valve help setup a fairly substantial yearly tournament that cannot involve established pro players (by rule) but the amateur up and comers scratching the surface. This would give players and teams something to strive and practice for and wouldn't be steamrolled by pro teams. Start at a $100k prize pool and go from there.

Would be cool if you understood that Valve is currently delegating to websites such as faceit and esportsheroes -- I've worked with both and have my own en route. This is how Valve plans to run the scene. It's our scene, our community and they understand that... Unlike Riot ahem...
You're basically saying what the rest of the world is already working towards. You think you just hit the nail on the head, but guess what? People have been banging on it since a pro was called a pgm.
The right direction isn't spreading wealth, it's creating new channels and opportunities to enlarge and grow the industry as a whole.

@Yot

How do you suggest we create new channels and opportunities to enlarge and grow the industry as a whole? I would think that one way to create more sustainable opportunities would be to provide better wages for the lower tier pro players.

You're right though, people have been banging on it for a long time. It's the reason there are Soccer, Football, Baseball players. These people are paid millions of dollars to play. They get almost nothing for winning in comparison to their wages for playing. But the best players are still paid the most. And the worst players still get sustainable wages. I realize that teams pay their players to play, not the league, in many situations, but that's something that comes with a healthier, more solidly structured league. Bottom line is it works, and continues, year after year, to draw crowds. Why on earth would anyone not use those successful methods?

I have no problem with Valve delegating to other tournament organizations like ESL and PGL. The tournaments are still recognized and funded by Valve, which fits with the strategy of Valve creating (or not killing) jobs for people within the industry. It's great that they use the resources already out there to create great tournaments. But without great players to fill those tournaments, the industry dies. It's not a good thing when the person behind the camera is potentially earning more than the player that viewers come to see (although that requires more fact checking than I have done).

I usually enjoy reading this blog however this post is just moronic. Inequality is not evil, socialism is.

Mods the DOTABUFF forum/ general discussion can't be open using hand phone now,can you please fix it?

Yesterday it direct me to invite rune image and today it direct me to crying Undying whenot I try to open forum

@1IceTea:

Which phone and which browser app do you use?

^Samsung J5,UC browser, problem solve now,thanks alot.

In my case, I'm setting up sustainable pay to play amateur and semi-professionnel leagues with returns that can build into permanent gratuity. Can't quite detail more about league functioning, but for tournaments it's as easy as (2$x5)x512 cash prize. This is one format and one example.
Consider the financial aspect like going to the batting cages or signing up to that football club, little league etc.
Price of coffee, fuels your dreams.

@Brock Hall, yes most sports work very differently in terms of payment structure.

I would argue it is also a lot worse for players in those sports.

Players get a MUCH higher cut of profits overall in DotA then in other sports. They get 25% of TI Revenue. In comparison players in football or basketball get peanuts in comparison to the revenue generated. In some other sports, the disparity of payments is often exploitative. For example, games like Cricket, where players might earn $1000 from a game big enough to have around $15 million wagered on the event. I also see it as a good thing that winning is what gets you the rewards rather than showing up and getting lucky to land a contract with the right squad that pays bags of cash.

More importantly, there isn't enough in the pie to give everyone at a certain level a steady income and superstars a big profile. In terms of promoting a game top-heavy is what will lead to sustainable development because people watch more and dream to play more when the payout is potentially so high. Added that DotA specifically (contrary to perception) will eventually have not just 35 years old players, but if the game lasts that long even 40/50 years old players because it is enormously strategic and doesn't have a hard physical fall-off the way soccer or basketball does. Your mechanics might be bad at 40, but you can still be a very good support without exceptional mechanics.

Excellent article. I thy shall demand a critic on rampant sexism in Dota from a postmodernist perspective next.
Balance this game -Arc Warden upon being granted with a bounty

fürst! oh w8

A bounty rune/min for every hero is a good idea too, spread the wealth

Soon these organizations will be run by their players.

He's saying that the 16th place should be compensated because there's thousands and thousands of other teams, who weren't even qualified and these top 16 are the best in Dota 2 at the moment, because they have better playing than thousands of thousands of other teams in Dota 2 community in total. So, if you aren't agreeing 16th place should be rewarded is that because you're not seeing the total size of the community and you're not believeing Dota 2 community is way greater than 16 teams. And even then, these 16 teams are all based in pro-players. Players that give up on other chances to get by just to do that. And it's quite ridiculous that they put everything of their lives on it, give up on everything else, to be the best 16 of thousands and thousands of teams around the world and then just make no money of it. To be professional means to be rewarded for doing something. So, what the article says is if they're not being rewarded they're not being professional players, because they make no money of it.

Not to mention that if feels just stoopid to travel to the championship by your own means (if you have no sponsor), and pay your food and housing while competing by your own earnings and you're showing there to promote the event and then the event don't promote you (paying you 0$ to be there). It's a one way earning, that promotes only the tournament and not the player. When it should promote both (the tournament only exists because of the players and the other way around - sustainability). Good for the two sides. One can't live without the other. Just look at the WSL (World Surf League) and see that all surfers (besides having a sponsor or not) are just paid to show up the events (landing on last position for example). Because, they have to pay to travel to places and pay to their trainer sometimes and their expenses. As professionals they have to be earning to compete and get paid to compete. To pay to compete, that's amateur and semi-professional situation. Not professional. To be sponsored means something else and has nothing to do with being paid to play the game. You're being paid to promote some company, that doesn't matter what you do, just that you do something that gets big attention.

Great article AND great comment section. 5/7.

@Principe Slives

To clarify -- no one has paid for their own travels or accommodation at a premium event since Thor in 2013...
Don't talk as if you know, especially of you're claiming it's the norm for players to spend X thousands on transport and accommodation.
And top 16 get paid since 2015 at pretty much every premium event. Top heavy competition makes your drive to be 1st all that much stronger.

Edited, because I'm unecessarily mean.

I'm not saying there has to be an "equalization" of earnings. I'm just saying that 16th should be paid, despite the fact that they already have paid housings and expenses.

I didn't come here to read a huffington post article about participation medals. Wtf dotabuff?

Also, Dota2 is still a game.

@ Technician

The big sports leagues (aside from criket because I don't know much about it) are huge industries in comparison to the Dota scene though. Stadiums with full time staff, marketing, promotion, more players, managers, coaches, and owners per team, the bottom line is that they have a lot more people to pay, but even if it is peanuts, it's still sustainable. Perhaps some of those organizations should be looking at better pay for their players too but that's a little off topic.

I would argue against the spectacle of the huge winnings for first place being necessary in the long run, as the purse for winning the Super Bowl is somewhere under 100k. Tons of people watch the Super Bowl, and the majority of them don't dream and pursue a career in football.

I know that's under different circumstances, so I'll bring it closer to home by bringing up the point that @gorechild brought up earlier: we're talking single percentage points making a world of difference. Let's say you take an extra half million (which would still make first place much higher than the rest) and distribute it among the lower half places. Assuming most of them are unpaid and unaffiliated to large esports organizations, it could mean 12th place will give you enough money to survive another year of playing Dota full time. There are some amazing players out there that had to give up because they ran out of money to keep pursuing the dream. Top heavy competition may make your drive stronger, but it also means a much higher burnout rate for those that don't get there. To have a healthy competitive scene, you have to have players. You need to give them a reason to stick around.

Independent player organizations a sign instability in competitive Dota? C'mon man... For many veteran players like IceIceIce, PPD, Fear, EE, this is the type of organization that they have been wanting for years and they finally have the dough to do it. Now with more players being stakeholders, we should see more stability, at least roster-wise.

Don't get your panties in a knot everyone, no-one is calling for complete socialism. Just that the 16th best team in the world, who have spent years practicing to become better than most people have any hope of being, and are doing this for our entertainment, should be compensated fairly. It's not some sort of welfare for people who aren't successful, they beat a lot of teams to be there. This would allow teams to keep focusing on getting better and provide better esports for us to watch.

The single percentage point can't be argued against. Not if you're sane.
It's also a move Valve has been doing. Look at percentage in TI1-5 and then look at TI6.

It just feels that you can argue for that percentage for several percentages; depletion will occur.

@Yot

At a certain point the first place teams could, would, and should call foul, but that point is far away. Growing the scene is a balance act, and while Valve is certainly moving in the right direction, they aren't doing it fast enough for some skilled players to stick around. The scene still feels volatile due to all the team swapping (a direct result of the necessity to have a team good enough to get any money at all).

This wouldn't be nearly as large of a problem for Valve if it weren't for the fact that they have sucked the community dry, and they can't expect the pot to grow every year exponentially like it has in the past. This past TI required a few extra items to be up for sale to encourage extra sales, and that really didn't see the large jump in income as the past years had. If Valve wants to grow, they need the interest of investors or advertisers. Neither will commit to something that sees players jumping ship or quitting altogether at the high rate the scene currently displays. When they see that the players and teams are reliable, they might take more interest. You can't have that unless players and teams feel comfortable in their current situation.

I don't think anyone would be supportive of an overcorrection here. But if you look at smoothing the curve out, just a little, as an investment, it makes business sense.

top heavy prize pool makes better headlines = more exposure = more hat buyers

Valve is a sole proprietor billion dollar company... Gabe doesn't need sponsors to grow. If Coca-Cola sponsors Valve events, it means players will get shit for drinking PepsiCo products -- Valve understands and doesn't want that to happen.
League of Legends' top streamers aren't competitive players, but could be. They choose not to, because signing a deal with Riot/Tencent is eSports slavery.

Valve doesn't want to and won't go there.
If you want to see change in eSports -- as corny as it sounds -- be that change. Community based efforts will also help keep the industry clean and free of dividends based decisions.

Best comments Section ever
Props to Yot and Brock hall

Can someone do a blog post on why all of the pros are going Helm of the Dominator now practically every hero??

@Yot, you're a more on

Not only did you go Full Rtard criticise
"Stop trying to pretend like everyone gets a part of the cake or a medal just for trying. Do you have any idea how many teams were in a similar situation to AF?"

He clearly indicated that most teams, don't get shit for trying UNLIKE, AD Finem who pulled through and caught a break with half a mil to their yearly winnings as opposed to a mere 10k in the previous.

You absolute terd, Coca-Cola sponsors Valve events, players will be given shit for drinking PepsiCo products? LOL
If you think Valve were to reject a Coca Cola sponsorship at the behalf that some players prefer Pepsi and somehow will be discriminated... you are just making up beliefs mistaken for facts to disagree with others and be a c unt.

Coca-Cola (KO, -0.36%) is one of the biggest brands to enter eSports. The company used the League of Legends World Championship at the sold-out Staples Center last month to reveal that Coke Zero will sponsor a new minor league series that will serve as a place for gamers to compete in before going pro.

PS. no care given about the topic at hand, just pointing out Yot has not agreed with one point that's been said and there were some pretty good points. He's just picking at things to turn to crap

Actually, I agree with a lot of things said by several people.
It's impossible to not agree with the single percentage point or with the fact that the industry needs to be more sustainable.
That you and others don't understand how and why it should happen -- mainly because you're ignorant spectators that act as if you were in the know, just like now -- yet keep on bringing up points that align more with your personal beliefs, than something that could provide the scene stimulus.

Don't bring politics or large sponsorships into eSports. If you understood how sponsorship deals worked... You wouldn't even bring up the coke league -- you ever had to sign a contract to play ? A binding contract that forbids you from participating in a different league or joining another team for the current split ?
Esports aren't sports. If you expect them to work around traditional sporting rules and leagues... Get the fuck off out of here.
I'd rather see RTZ Secret-EG again and again than see players slaves to organizations and sponsors.

But you only look at the financial aspect and don't even understand that fully. I won't destroy a valid point -- yours (sponsors are good) is shit and you don't even know why.
Stop thinking esports are sports and have to be built with the same stupid model that basically screws over players, teams and competitions just so third parties can reap billions from efforts they've never made.