rael ramone
Well-Known Member
Looks like they have another idea for 'content'...
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3032586-espn-opens-websites-e-sports-section-investing-in-coverage
What's next, Dungeons & Dragons tournaments?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
A Spirited Perfect Ten
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
Looks like they have another idea for 'content'...
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3032586-espn-opens-websites-e-sports-section-investing-in-coverage
What's next, Dungeons & Dragons tournaments?
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Why not they already do Video Gaming tournaments at WWoS...
BTW Larry Niven already had the idea for D&D tournaments to be televised and marketed in his book 'Dream Park'.
truecoat
Well-Known Member
In 2013 71 million people watched competitive gaming so it's not a bad idea.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
JediMasterMatt
Well-Known Member
Sweet. Metallica (and maybe AC/DC) and Tron (I own that one) are the only modern Sterns I like. I currently have my game room full (even had to kick out my MAME cabinet) with pins. The current lineup is: Twilight Zone, Addams Family, Funhouse, Attack from Mars, Tales of the Arabian Nights, Indiana Jones Pin Adventure, Star Wars (Data East), and Tron. I'm debating about swapping my TOTAN out for a Wizard of Oz in the next few weeks.
flynnibus
Premium Member
While the contestants don't have the curb appeal of some other sports.. the amount of airtime people spend on places like twitch.tv watching gaming would blow people's minds. HOURS and HOURS and HOURS. A sample is the event Games Done Quick. They were just here in town for their annual event.. 24/7 streaming for a WEEK of people doing marathons, speed runs, etc. Just through people watching the stream.. they collected over $1.2 million for the charity to prevent cancer. At peaks they had over 220k viewers simultaneously...
Trust me, the demographic is not your madison ave favorites.. but interest is out there - http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/01/13/11-amazing-speedruns-from-awesome-games-done-quick-2016
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
I think the fireworks specials are pretty much what makes it worth.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I know its not unique.. but considering how many feel its the inferior design with the fixed guns, and how with the hand-held guns no one seems to use the stick.. that its still part of the design in a park that isn't just a carbon clone.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
so, The new design could be like MIB at Universal?
while you do not control the car, you have full angle to shot your pistol.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
No question there is interest but that interest is probably best served by Internet based services who can deliver a tailored experience as opposed to a mass market platform like ESPN.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
...or both pistols.
ChrisFL
Premium Member
John Woo/Chow Yun Fat style
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
That's why I make it a point to smuggle at least two doves in my pockets when I got to the parks.
Releasing them at the correct moment gets me a lot of appreciative looks from everyone around me.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
It's even more amazing to me than the "fantasy sports" craze. I mean, watching someone else play video games used to be a punishment for not having enough controllers or for games that didn't allow two players LOL. Yet, people just sit and watch people play video games all day long.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
According to the article/survey, 56% won't pay $8 for ESPN & ESPN2. Then to maintain price, the price goes up to $20 a home. And only 6% would pay $20.
The question then is how much will that 6% have to pay for ESPN to maintain certain profit levels.
Let's say 10 million homes pay $8 a month for both channels - resulting in $80 million in fees (I'm using 10 million for ease of math).
Only 4.4 million are willing to pay that $8 a la carte. For $20 a month for those my math comes out to $88 million (there could be other factors that they are weighing in). EDIT: Actually its based on another WP reporter saying 30% switching to an online ESPN service would need to charge $20.
But only 600,000 of those 10 million homes will pay $20 a month. 600,000 x $20 comes out to a mere $12 mil (down from $80 mil).
How many people are willing to pay $133 a month for two sports channels, when you can get sports content from the 4 over the air networks, Fox Sports, TBS, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Big 10 network....
And what does that do to ESPN ad rates?
Maybe they'll be a sequel to the ESPN 30 for 30 film 'Broke', but will interview ESPN executives
They're going to move to a begging-for-content model, otherwise known as "give it to us for free"
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Being in-the-round is the only thing that really has set the Buzz Lightyear rides apart from other shooter rides.
No, the joystick to turn the vehicle is visible in the photo so you do control the car. The gun being fixed to the car like the Magic Kingdom is not related to that feature.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
I think fixed guns are a deliberate design choice. It forces the rider to move the car, rather than the gun, which greatly enhances the experience.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Why do you feel the need to repeat what I already know? As I said in the earlier post "how with the hand-held guns no one seems to use the stick"
Disney makes design updates all the time when cloning stuff. I just found it interesting they've kept the rider controlled spinning car (which clearly is more complex/cost) in bringing this attraction over in a park that is not just direct clones. And in doing so keeping a feature that has feature that has been largely panned and is ignored by most. It's mostly redundant when people have the free rein of the gun, and the moving of the vehicle could have been made automatic and simplified.. or even replaced by another attempt at improving the ride concept.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I agree with the principle.. but it's not what happens in practice. That's why I say it's a failed feature (that is complex and expensive) and given the opportunity to redo the ride or optimize it.. this feature remained the same.
Rodan75
Well-Known Member
According to the article/survey, 56% won't pay $8 for ESPN & ESPN2. Then to maintain price, the price goes up to $20 a home. And only 6% would pay $20.
The question then is how much will that 6% have to pay for ESPN to maintain certain profit levels.
Let's say 10 million homes pay $8 a month for both channels - resulting in $80 million in fees (I'm using 10 million for ease of math).
Only 4.4 million are willing to pay that $8 a la carte. For $20 a month for those my math comes out to $88 million (there could be other factors that they are weighing in). EDIT: Actually its based on another WP reporter saying 30% switching to an online ESPN service would need to charge $20.
But only 600,000 of those 10 million homes will pay $20 a month. 600,000 x $20 comes out to a mere $12 mil (down from $80 mil).
How many people are willing to pay $133 a month for two sports channels, when you can get sports content from the 4 over the air networks, Fox Sports, TBS, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Big 10 network....
And what does that do to ESPN ad rates?
Maybe they'll be a sequel to the ESPN 30 for 30 film 'Broke', but will interview ESPN executives
Anyone else think it is hilarious that the Washington Post is reporting on a slow collapse of an old big media institution and making it sound much worse than it actually is. If the media prognosticators had their way the WP would have been out of business nearly a decade ago.
It is true that ESPN will shrink, but as it shrinks it will still be the largest most dominant player since everyone else will shrink faster and more dramatically. I think these news reports are correct in stating that ESPN will no longer be the growth engine of TWDC, however, there is no need to panic and throw ESPN's profitability out the window. And ESPN shouldn't do anything that would hasten negative impacts to its profitability.
Someone really needs to turn the cord cutting spotlight back to the cable companies and figure out why $50-$60 worth of transmission fees = $140 cable bill. $7 for ESPN isn't the real issue with Cable/Linear video bills.