Is self-owned Internet PPV too powerful?

[LloydCross]

I just ran the two month trial with VWA. The first month we lost a couple thousand dollars with only about 300 people attending the event. The second month, I used 100K of their 250K starting funds to make an Internet PPV broadcaster with Small coverage in Europe.

 

The first event on that scored 34,000 buys and made 190,000 dollars in revenue.

 

Someone in the ZEN thread mentioned doing Tiny coverage in Australia with their 50K and getting a pretty healthy return on that.

 

On the game balance side of things, this seems like a move that just instantly makes a company profitable with the only requirement being an amount of money that even some Small and Tiny companies have to start the game.

 

On the roleplaying side of things, it seems weird that I can get so many more people to watch my show by doing what amounts to putting it online with a pay wall. For example, in my VWA version, I'm having a really hard time visualizing how it makes sense that only 300 people will show up to a show that 34,000 will buy online. In theory, shouldn't people need to know we exist in the first place to be able to find the website we launched with the PPV on it?

[daddytorgo1]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="LloydCross" data-cite="LloydCross" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48814" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I just ran the two month trial with VWA. The first month we lost a couple thousand dollars with only about 300 people attending the event. The second month, I used 100K of their 250K starting funds to make an Internet PPV broadcaster with Small coverage in Europe.<p> </p><p> The first event on that scored 34,000 buys and made 190,000 dollars in revenue.</p><p> </p><p> Someone in the ZEN thread mentioned doing Tiny coverage in Australia with their 50K and getting a pretty healthy return on that. </p><p> </p><p> On the game balance side of things, this seems like a move that just instantly makes a company profitable with the only requirement being an amount of money that even some Small and Tiny companies have to start the game.</p><p> </p><p> On the roleplaying side of things, it seems weird that I can get so many more people to watch my show by doing what amounts to putting it online with a pay wall. For example, in my VWA version, I'm having a really hard time visualizing how it makes sense that only 300 people will show up to a show that 34,000 will buy online. In theory, shouldn't people need to know we exist in the first place to be able to find the website we launched with the PPV on it?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I see your point, but my head-canon would be something like "shit went viral yo."</p>

[moafnsteel]

I also would think (this is my hand-cannon as well) that people who live to far away from the show get to see it now, so more people are interested in watching it now that they can see it online.

[fusionfreak]

I see your point, but my head-canon would be something like "shit went viral yo."

 

I also would think (this is my hand-cannon as well) that people who live to far away from the show get to see it now, so more people are interested in watching it now that they can see it online.

 

I would also be thinking the same. It seems about right to me though. I would think that 30,000 something people buying an event from a small company would be expected. It really isn't a huge number. There are videos on YouTube that go viral and all the sudden have millions of views. One of my favorite video makers of all time (Steve Cash, RIP) made really awesome videos about a talking cat named Sylvester. He made over 60 videos total and had almost 800 million views for the videos. Unless you're a cat nerd like me you probably haven't heard of him, lol.

[Blackman]

<p>This is definitely a concern.</p><p> </p><p>

The number of people buying it could be adequate, but there's something weird about the story in total. Maybe the company shouldn't have that many finances to begin with in the first place. If they do, making a iPPV would indeed be a good move, but the fact that he immediately got return of investment is completely nuts.</p><p> </p><p>

I think you REALLY overestimate "going viral". Here's a fact: things that cost money don't go viral. This isn't cat videos on youtube...</p>

[Blake Trask]

Even if that could happen IRL, it's not good for simulation health to be able to turn a profit so easily with so little upfront investment.

[Self]

<p>I'd be curious how many buys Ring of Honor get/got on their various platforms over the years. Do Fite.tv release their figures?</p><p> </p><p>

I've always thought PPV was too powerful/too essential in general. In real life, it seems like it was a significant risk, with the increased costs to broadcast and delay in return of funds (ECW). It's cheaper now if you go internet, but not that much cheaper, if you want good quality with sync'd up audio.</p>

[tryker2710]

Im going to go in the camp of it's fine because it's fun and you don't have to use it if you dont want, but it will definitely help stop some of the mid-game grind that can happen trying to grow a company to medium size

[Hashasheen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48814" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'd be curious how many buys Ring of Honor get/got on their various platforms over the years. Do Fite.tv release their figures?<p> </p><p> I've always thought PPV was too powerful/too essential in general. In real life, it seems like it was a significant risk, with the increased costs to broadcast and delay in return of funds (ECW). It's cheaper now if you go internet, but not that much cheaper, if you want good quality with sync'd up audio.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> AEW right now fluctuates between 90k to 110k. If a podunk company in Australia or Europe is doing a third of that then it's kind of suspect?</p><p> </p><p> Also, TNA's original PPV plans was 5 bucks a week for a PPV, with the hopes of doing at least 20k buys a week that would cover the cost of a show (80k) and staff, talents, etc... with money left over.</p>

[The Rock]

<p>PPV buys in TEW are usually much higher than in real life, atleast for bigger Companies and according to this, for small Companies too (VWA is Small if I remember correctly).</p><p> </p><p>

I don´t have the exact numbers, but I think ROH has usually 3.000-4.000 buys and they should be bigger than VWA.</p>

[Nachtfalter]

I did a similar thing with EMLL, creating an internet PPV broadcaster for Mexico and the US and while I don't have the numbers in front of me anymore, I definitely broke even with the first show and made a handsome profit after that.

 

Perhaps there should be a time-delay between spending money to create your broadcaster and actually being able to use it (similar to the way improving your merchandising operation works). That way, it would still be possible for small companies to make money off of their own pay-per-view feeds, but they would run the risk of going into debt in the time it takes to properly set up their feed.

 

Building on this, perhaps there should be a "fast" option that makes the broadcaster available sooner but brings with it a risk of the broadcaster not actually working properly (as is and was the case for many small-time streaming operations), damaging the company's reputation.

[Teh_Showtime]

You can start a broadcaster for between 30-60k which is far too generous. For comparison’s sake, I could buy the NOTBPW Canadian championship for 45,000 or get tiny coverage in Canada for my rock hard promotion, for the cost of 42,500. Most of the companies in the game can do this at game start which is the real issue at hand, I think the barrier was made too lax.

 

I think tying it to production values would be the best compromise. At that point the upgraded production costs alone should cut into the profit for a long time until your company is actually large enough to generate the amount of buys we’re seeing already.

[The Rock]

You can start a broadcaster for between 30-60k which is far too generous. For comparison’s sake, I could buy the NOTBPW Canadian championship for 45,000 or get tiny coverage in Canada for my rock hard promotion, for the cost of 42,500. Most of the companies in the game can do this at game start which is the real issue at hand, I think the barrier was made too lax.

 

I think tying it to production values would be the best compromise. At that point the upgraded production costs alone should cut into the profit for a long time until your company is actually large enough to generate the amount of buys we’re seeing already.

 

It´s quite the change compared to 2016.

In 2016 you had to pay 12 Mio. for Tiny Coverage in the USA, now it´s around 50,000.

 

I guess, 2020 is closer to reality (I don´t know how much it costs in real life to be honest), but from a Gameplay perspective, I start to believe, increasing the costs for own Broadcasters, would be better.

 

But to be fair, we don´t know if or how the AI will use this feature.

If every Small Company launch it´s own Broadcaster after a couple of months, that of course wouldn´t be realistic. But that´s unlikely.

And as a player, you can avoid it to launch one, to play "realistic".

[tryker2710]

I think a nice compromise would be if it took time to set up the broadcaster like for upgrading merchandise. I can spend 50 grand on the tiny broadcaster but itll take 6-12 months to set up

[SirMichaelJordan]

Yes, I think financials need to get looked at and get fine tuned for more balance. This is something that is getting overlooked in this beta.

[Self]

What are the monthly running costs for having that coverage? I imagine server hosting must cost a fair bit.

[The Rock]

What are the monthly running costs for having that coverage? I imagine server hosting must cost a fair bit.

 

For Europe it´s around 2,000 for Tiny and 2,500 for Very Small. Same for Japan.

In USA 2,600 & 3,500. The other regions are cheaper.

[Remianen]

I think you REALLY overestimate "going viral". Here's a fact: things that cost money don't go viral. This isn't cat videos on youtube...

 

Blackman, I love you like an internet brother but this is patently false. That means it cannot be a fact. Google 'Rob Bliss'. There is an entire subsection of the marketing sector specifically named 'viral marketing'. It even has an offshoot called 'outrage marketing'. Do these people (and the folks they employ/contract) work for free? And YouTube is complicit in and exploited by these people by triggering the Streisand Effect.

 

You think Baby Shark was free to produce? Did Vince Offer and Billy Mays work/worked for free? Danielle Brigoli appearing on that free show produced entirely by volunteers (Dr. Phil) probably isn't a good example either.

 

The idea that viral videos and trends are lightning in a bottle happenstance is naive (no offense). When you consider that it's been bubbling for ~30 years (remember America's Funniest Home Videos/AFV and all its international offshoots?), it makes perfect sense that people would want to produce the next "viral sensation" and they'll spend a great deal of time and money to do so.

 

On topic, iPPV seems tuned in a best case scenario manner across the board, which might make it easier to balance. Also, everyone seems focused on the startup cost but no one is mentioning the running costs. Granted, those costs aren't very high (or are potentially easily countered) but it should still factor into the equation. VWA is kind of a bad example in that it's a small company in an area that isn't particularly densely populated. 300 people attending a show is pretty good, I'd say. However, the internet is available to over a billion people on the planet (roughly one-seventh of the population). 34,000 of a billion is essentially a rounding error. But I'm almost positive the numbers will be tweaked before release.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Running cost isn’t that much especially with the return you get as a small company.

[Dross]

Blackman, I love you like an internet brother but this is patently false. That means it cannot be a fact. Google 'Rob Bliss'. There is an entire subsection of the marketing sector specifically named 'viral marketing'. It even has an offshoot called 'outrage marketing'. Do these people (and the folks they employ/contract) work for free? And YouTube is complicit in and exploited by these people by triggering the Streisand Effect.

 

You think Baby Shark was free to produce? Did Vince Offer and Billy Mays work/worked for free? Danielle Brigoli appearing on that free show produced entirely by volunteers (Dr. Phil) probably isn't a good example either.

 

The idea that viral videos and trends are lightning in a bottle happenstance is naive (no offense). When you consider that it's been bubbling for ~30 years (remember America's Funniest Home Videos/AFV and all its international offshoots?), it makes perfect sense that people would want to produce the next "viral sensation" and they'll spend a great deal of time and money to do so.

 

On topic, iPPV seems tuned in a best case scenario manner across the board, which might make it easier to balance. Also, everyone seems focused on the startup cost but no one is mentioning the running costs. Granted, those costs aren't very high (or are potentially easily countered) but it should still factor into the equation. VWA is kind of a bad example in that it's a small company in an area that isn't particularly densely populated. 300 people attending a show is pretty good, I'd say. However, the internet is available to over a billion people on the planet (roughly one-seventh of the population). 34,000 of a billion is essentially a rounding error. But I'm almost positive the numbers will be tweaked before release.

 

I'm pretty sure he meant cost to watch not cost to produce ;-)

[Blackman]

Here's another fact: I don't know anything about economics. I'll think twice before I present things as facts in the future, which I don't often do. Can't we agree it's a fact that it goes viral less quickly than free footage? (which should definitely be factual: sorry but "WWE Summerslam" isn't going viral quicker than a cat video on youtube. Never EVER gonna happen...).

 

But maybe you misunderstood me: I meant things that cost people money to view (literal PPV) have less of a tendency to go viral. I'm assuming lots of viral videos get seen on the toilet or the bus or while standing in line. It seems strange that people would pay to see something on a whim, unless there's a lot of buzz (like a specific title change being crazy or something), but I wouldn't count that as "going viral". It's also quite contrary to the definition of "viral". There is a literal paywall before anyone could access the footage, so people would have to pay first, which is significantly going to impact the views.

 

Maybe you can find a counter-argument in the recent TP-craze. That does cost money, but it's something that could've happened anyway (as it was somehow instilled in people's minds that TP is a thing you get in the face of potential lockdowns). But in THIS example, it'll be like "hey dude, there's this killer wrestling company that just had a crazy show; you should totally watch it bro". Are you claiming that a truckload of random wrestling fans will just say: "wow, let me grab my wallet and pay 5$ to see this right away". I'm sure some will, but it will most likely be some extract of the footage that might go viral. I'm not sure whether it will lead to the event selling more, as it's already 'done'. I do know some behavioral psychology and people will immediately want to see "the thing". If they can't see "the thing" right away the opportunity will pass and is probably lost forever. Sitting through an entire PPV AFTER having paid for it? If they're willing to do that, it's not because it "went viral". It's not because of "the thing". Then they probably were open to this before, or just trust on the word of a friend. These are the people that make up the 0.4% of pop that your company gains after the event, which will get a slight boost because of "the thing", so this is implemented in the game through regular pop gain.

 

I guess I did learn something today after googling the "Streisand effect".

[Jaded]

Yup, this seems off. I just started a game with IPW, who have $400k in the bank. Dropped $135k on an internet PPV Small broadcaster with $4400 a month running costs. Both of my first two shows got $120k+ PPV revenue, meaning I'm potentially looking at well over $100k a month in profit after a close to break-even first month.

[Jaded]

Here's another fact: I don't know anything about economics. I'll think twice before I present things as facts in the future, which I don't often do. Can't we agree it's a fact that it goes viral less quickly than free footage? (which should definitely be factual: sorry but "WWE Summerslam" isn't going viral quicker than a cat video on youtube. Never EVER gonna happen...).

 

But maybe you misunderstood me: I meant things that cost people money to view (literal PPV) have less of a tendency to go viral. I'm assuming lots of viral videos get seen on the toilet or the bus or while standing in line. It seems strange that people would pay to see something on a whim, unless there's a lot of buzz (like a specific title change being crazy or something), but I wouldn't count that as "going viral". It's also quite contrary to the definition of "viral". There is a literal paywall before anyone could access the footage, so people would have to pay first, which is significantly going to impact the views.

 

Maybe you can find a counter-argument in the recent TP-craze. That does cost money, but it's something that could've happened anyway (as it was somehow instilled in people's minds that TP is a thing you get in the face of potential lockdowns). But in THIS example, it'll be like "hey dude, there's this killer wrestling company that just had a crazy show; you should totally watch it bro". Are you claiming that a truckload of random wrestling fans will just say: "wow, let me grab my wallet and pay 5$ to see this right away". I'm sure some will, but it will most likely be some extract of the footage that might go viral. I'm not sure whether it will lead to the event selling more, as it's already 'done'. Maybe the next event will get a slight boost, but this is implemented in the game through regular pop gain.

 

I guess I did learn something today after googling the "Streisand effect".

 

Yeah, I'd strongly agree with this. I can see a 1 or 2 minute clip of a match or promo going viral on YouTube much more easily than I can see a full event going viral at a cost of $xx to watch it.

[Teh_Showtime]

Going viral if anything would add a boost of popularity for the increased visibility (really momentum) over money. It would be “hey I remember Orange Cassidy” and not “I’m gonna buy this PPV to see the guy in the clip”

[Self]

Yup, this seems off. I just started a game with IPW, who have $400k in the bank. Dropped $135k on an internet PPV Small broadcaster with $4400 a month running costs. Both of my first two shows got $120k+ PPV revenue, meaning I'm potentially looking at well over $100k a month in profit after a close to break-even first month.

 

The first bit is already bizarre to me. What I'm gathering from the pandemic is that very few companies have several months of running costs in available cash just laying around. Including the company I work for. I get there needs to be a buffer at the beginning of the game so you can operate at a loss before you figure out a strategy, but... $400k? How much is payroll per show? $3k?

 

That $50k deposit on iPPV would feel much more earned if you needed to grind for it for a year.