Self Editor

Forum: hoop
Page 5507
Subject: ESB: Hoops Products for TSN

Posted by: Erik B. - [48830517] Wed, Sep 19, 16:59

Gang:

I wanted to get your thoughts on packages that I’m considering for hoops, so here goes:

“Starting Five” Hoops
---------------------------
Price: Free
Players: 5 (1 C, 2 F, 2G)
Starting Cap: $25 Million
Price Updates: Weekly
Trade: 2/Week
Prizes: Under $5k

“Premium” Hoops
---------------------------
Price: $11.95 for 1 / $17.95 for 2 / (2 Free Teams for new TSN subscribers)
Players: (2 C, 4 F, 4 G, 2 Swing)
Starting Cap: $50 million
Price Updates: Daily
Trades: 4/Week
Prizes: Over $5k/Divisional Prizes
Other Features: Future Discounts On Games
Leaders Mentioned in TSN
Members contribute to daily newsletter (if they want)

Here's what I'm thinking with this particular experiment:

* Casual fans have asked us for a fantasy game that’s easier and less involving.
* Hard-core users would prefer intense competition, more prizes and more of a community (one of the major reasons Bernie and I have been on the boards).
* BUT, we don't want to price out our loyal users, and charging $9-12/team is hopefully not prohibitive (at least compared to ESPN's $29.95/per).

I know, I know – I can hear the grumbling from some of you. We don’t want to anger our loyal customers by over-charging them for products, but at this point we also feel that our salary cap game is the best on the net, and that we don’t want to differentiate our products by making rules that become too obtuse. Finally, for simpletons like me, I feel the current game is TOO advanced, and I would actually prefer a more basic, less involving game.

So, when you think about it, does this seem FAIR? Given these options, what would you do?

Really, I want to combine what you guys want with what gives us a chance at succeeding as a long-term business. Thoughts?

-ESB

Knightmare
ID: 74342318
Wed, Sep 19, 19:51

I personally don't think I'm good enough yet to invest money into Fantasy Sports. I like the standard game that we had last year, and was dissapointed that the normal playoff game was not there. I guess a simpler game would be better for casual fans but they would probably drop out of this eventually anyway because the main reason my friends always quit is they are so far back in WWR. Though I will play the the "Starting Five" hoops if that is the free game. I don't think it is a bad idea, but I will need to find out if I am able to make into the Top 100 before I will play the premium (pay) game.

The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Wed, Sep 19, 21:23

If people like the less involving game, you need to come out with a game where you set a roster weekly like alot of fantasy games. That way the people who don't like to mess with fantasy sports that much can play that game, and check in weekly to change there rosters. I, and many others here are diehard fantasy freaks and we love a game of strategy that involves daily action if needed. Your traditional hoops game is great, adding a wild card slot, and division worldwide rankings would only add to your current game. If this kind of game is too advanced for some people, then they have the option to play the weekly game.

If TSN makes the fantasy games easier and less time consuming, then I'm afraid you will lose mine, and many others participaction in your games. Your current hoops game is tops on the net in my opinion.

tduncan
ID: 47616279
Wed, Sep 19, 22:03

it's all looks good to me.

I do have a personal problem: I play fantasy games for many years now, and I always stuck with the free games because I'm not american wich makes me not eligible for prizes. I would love to play for the prizes but I don't think it's possible for you to send them out of america. so basicly I can't see myself play a pay game without being eligible for prizes. I would defenetly play it if you will make it possible to get the prizes out of america. if you can't, I think it's only fair that you will keep doing a good free game also.

Dave R
Leader
ID: 147341310
Wed, Sep 19, 22:21

Eric, what market do you hope to attract with the free game, more of the thousands that register teams and let them just sit for the year. I would doubt you generate any income from those players.

I guess you're thinking of altering the free game for the casual player, and upgrading the pay to play game for the more serious player. I would guess you would lose alot of those serious players that can't afford ( or won't pay for ) fantasy sports.

Unless it's not economically unfeasible, keep the set up as is. I like the idea of same game/ ones free, ones not- don't make them different.

The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Wed, Sep 19, 22:30

Erik, is TSN going to offer just the premium game and the starting 5? If you are eliminating the traditional free hoops game, you will be making a huge mistake. I know 95% of my home town friends will not pay $ to play the traditional version of the free game, and none of us would be stimulated with the starting 5 free game.

rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 4911539
Wed, Sep 19, 22:37

ESB -

"Premium" game: w/ 2 swing playrs, I think you need 5 trades per week. Old game = 10 players / 4 trades = turnover once per 2.5 weeks.... proposal 12 players / 4 trades = turnover once per 3 weeks. I just think 12/5 is a good ratio. In fact I wish the trade were 2 G's, 2 F's 1 C, 1 swing (6 total) so as to force diversity. Maybe $55M in cap space to account for 12 players unless STUDS are going to be under $9M/each.

I LOVE THE IDEA OF $17.95 FOR 2 TEAMS. I USUALLY MAKE 1-2-3 TEAMS AND WORK THEM ALL YEAR. I AM TIRED OF COMPETING W/ OWNERS THAT WORK 10-15-20 TEAMS AND GET 5 IN THE TOP 100. IF YOU ARE A GOOD MANAGER MAKE YOUR TEAM AND STICK TO IT. ANYONE (WITH SOME TIME AND TALENT) CAN PLACE TEAMS IN TOP 100 W/ ENOUGH TRIES. CASH WOULD PREVENT THIS FRAUD. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!

The "starting 5" game doesn't apeal to me at all. Sounds boring.

rfs

Knightmare
ID: 74342318
Wed, Sep 19, 22:47

I can't believe someone would manage 10-20 teams. I thought it was hard enough to manage 3. I would like to reiterate the fact that I would probably play "Starting 5" if it were the only free game, since I have been anticipating playing Basketball since the Playoffs of last year when I started to get good. Though like I said I would much prefer the standard game as it has always been.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Sep 19, 23:14

Here's my take (Erik, please correct any mis-impressions):

I think the key here is that TSN needs to find a way to attract a much larger "pay to play" customer base. Especially with the current state of internet advertising, free games are money-losers. Free games are an important way to get new customers introduced to the game, however.

Thus far, TSN's pay games have not attracted a sufficient customer base. One important reason for this is that the pay and free games have been substantially the same. The major differences have been the prizes, but a lot of customers aren't eligible for prizes (due to age or geography), and alot more probably figure they aren't good enough to compete at a "world class" level, making the prize motivation moot.

If you can get a free version of the same game, and prizes aren't an enticement, then why pay?

One way to differentiate the games is to add some "bells and whistles" to the pay game. But quite frankly, the traditional game framework is pretty good as it is, and enhancements are unlikely to convince the "free gamers" to pay up.

So, the proposed approach is to offer the traditional game only as a pay game, with a simplified game as the sole free alternative. Those who want the traditional game from past years will have to pay for it, either through a direct fee, or via a subscription to The Sporting News.

The pay game proposed here is the same as the traditional game with one important addition: the addition of two "wild card" roster slots. That's a nice feature, IMHO, but neither makes or breaks the basic proposition.

The free game has the same general design, but the roster size is smaller, and repricing is weekly. This game might appeal to some of the more casual players, especially those who think that daily repricing makes the current game too complex and/or time consuming.

But most Gurupies probably prefer the fuller game. So, whether you're prize-eligible or not, the question is whether you're willing to pay for the game that you used to get for free.

Bottom line - there is no free lunch. Perhaps the pay game could be priced a bit cheaper in return for reduced prizes. (In particular, how about a lower price for those who are not eligible for prizes?) But the key is that you're no longer being asked to pay just to have an opportunity for better prizes; you're being asked to pay just to be able to play the full-featured game.

My suspicion is that the success of this approach will not be dictated by how many people will play the free game. It will depend on how many will play the pay game. So I suspect what Erik is really asking is, if these are the choices, would you play the pay game?

From my personal perspective, in the past I have played some of the pay games, but not all. And my decision to enroll in the pay games was more as a show of support for TSN/SW. I'd have been perfectly content to play the free games only.

But under the proposed framework, I'd definitely be motivated to play the pay game. (I'd probably opt to subscribe to the magazine. I used to subscribe many years ago, but have not done so recently.) Magazine subscribers would get two teams for "free".

Question for Erik: If I subscribe to the magazine, do I get two free teams for Hoops only? Or would the free team offer extend to other sports during the subscription term? In other words, if I get a 1-year subscription, do I get free teams for Hoops, Baseball, and Football over the next 12 months?

StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 417433018
Thu, Sep 20, 01:29

Guru, that is the way I interpret it as well. I too would opt for the subscription route, but only if I could play all the games for free. Baseball, Football, Golf, and Hockey would be my interests. If I only got two teams for 1 sport then I would not be interested in that. Having to pay for games, I'm sure many would, just as many have supported this site, but also there are many that won't pay to play no matter what. I fall in between the two. I will pay, but I want to be sure of what I'm getting.

prefek
ID: 8840202
Thu, Sep 20, 03:03

I agree with Dave R. This seems to me to be scrapping the idea that a free game can be financially viable. Since net advertisement is driven by page views, shouldn't the free game be intense, so as to force players to visit often?

I don't really care about prizes and wouldn't mind playing just for the ranking/cameraderie if that helps ease the financial burden but this seems to me like charging for last year's free game and replacing the latter with a sort of mini-game that wouldn't permit the analysis, competitiveness and differentiation I have been accustomed to in years past. If it is a viable option I would hope you keep the free game as is.

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Thu, Sep 20, 08:43

Gang:

Comments to your comments --

1) Guru -- you're pretty much right in his analysis, except for your point about the free game. If we don't think people (a lot of people) will be into our "Starting Five" game, we'd be very disappointed. It's my hope that several hundred thousand people would still love a challenging, less intensive fantasy game. In fact, I think this game will require someone to undertsand the sport better, since less trading means less salary build-up, and less salary build-up forces managers to really understand which players will perform under what circumstances.

2) Contrary to popular perception, current advertising on content sites is not page-view driven -- it's click-through driven or CPA (cost per acquisition driven). What's that mean? In order to make money off our free games, we need to do pop-ups, spam you, etc., etc. Currently, the millions of pages we serve actually cost us money ... (Another feature of the proposed "pay" game is that we'd eliminate ads throughout.)

3) As for the subscription route -- this is very much a work in progress. The simple idea would be to offer two-free teams for your purchase of a year-long subscription, and then to give you discounts for future pay games of 25-35%. We need to understand our technical capabilities better before we make a final decision on what this would entail, and we probably won't have a year-long plan outlined until baseball.

4) As for international people (tduncan), I don't know what we can do that's fair -- we're legally obligated not to send you prizes. My main "gut" feeling is that people don't play our games (mainly) for the prizes anyway, and that if you had two teams in my current pricing model, you'd be paying $2/month/team, or less than $.07 per day. We'd hope that you'd get enough enjoyment out of the games to make such a daily pricepoint worth it.

5) One other subjective point -- in our "pay" community, we should be able to do things that we haven't been able to do in our bigger communities because of sheer size. We can have daily newsletters with contributions from Rotogurupies, we can get message boards back into the system, we can let managers (like you) be part of our rule improvements, prize strategies, etc. Obviously, Bernie and I are trying to do this now with all of our games, but we believe that we could really make our premium communities special.

6) I wanted to touch on the general economic viability of what we're doing. We believe in both mass-market fantasy sports and premium, pay markets. Right now, however, we believe that our pay products have suffered from a lack of differentiation from our free products. While we're not in financial jeopardy, it would be irresponsible of me to not try to drive our business toward financial stability. That being said, we don't want to be just a "business" -- we think our games are cooler and our players are more in tune with our culture than those found at ESPN, and we want to price our pay products at a point where YOU feel comfortable and satisfied that you're getting your money's worth. (My proposal still prices our games at less than half of the prices of our primary competitiors, AND it gives you the chance to go two-for-one on our games and a great magazine.)

Gang, I hope you realize that I'm being incredibly honest with you about the state-of-the-state. Again, keep the feedback coming so that we can make a decision that's best for you, our community and the business.

Tight Wad
ID: 424281210
Thu, Sep 20, 10:24

No prizes needed. If it costs.. I am not playing. Teenagers will not play if it costs. Advertise all you want, sell my profile to the highest bidder I do not care. I will not pay (real money) to play this game.

Thoughts could be to pay with the completetion of a survey or some other revenue generating activity for TSN.

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Thu, Sep 20, 10:29

Tightwad: Your response is entirely legit. If that's how you feel, that's how you feel. My question for you, then, is would you play our "Starting Five" game?

tduncan
ID: 47616279
Thu, Sep 20, 10:34

also, cancelling the free game will surly put an end to all the "special" games. I can't see anyone paying 9% to play a 500k or LRV division.

erik I'm assuming that if the free game at it corrent versin will get cancelled I will end up signing up for the pay game anyway, becuase I really enjoy playing your fantasy games righrt now. but still, it's tough to play a game with great prizes, knowing that you payed yourself to play it, and not being able to receive the prizes even if you somehow manage to beat all the other great fantasy players there.

tduncan
ID: 47616279
Thu, Sep 20, 10:36

thats 9$ of course...

Cougar
ID: 541137414
Thu, Sep 20, 10:36

Erik,
There was no 3-4-all or Survivor-type game mentioned. Are you going to offer these games this year?

E'ville
Leader
ID: 29017810
Thu, Sep 20, 10:37

I agree with rockafellerskank. I think some type of pay system is needed to weed out the massive quantities. With just a few teams each your final WWR would actually mean something. Otherwise you can start 20-30 teams taking numerous longshots let the bad ones die out and ride the ones that start the season the best. It is surely an unfair advantage to those with lots of free time.

Besides I hear all of these people discussing thier favorite CD etc. For the price of one CD you can play a 4-5 month game.

Also with the starting 5. At least make it a 10 player game with once per week updates. I probably won't play anyway, but no need making a totally useless game. Actully a '3 for all' or '5 for all' is a better option for casual players. It all least has some strategy.

For the main pay game add an extra trade or two. If you're paying you should at least get to make moves regularly and not be trade locked. Perhaps pricing could offer a 1,2 and 3 team option or a first team $11.95 each additional $6. Some games I like 3-4 teams some just 1 or 2.

Another option so as not to run off those who can't afford it. Make the first team cheap or free and each additional can be paid for. Since most like multiple teams you can make money and still keep the others on your site until they can afford more.

Thanks for listening.

Ender
ID: 52438315
Thu, Sep 20, 10:43

They can't reaaly make the first team free, or very few would actually be paying to play. This would simply discourage multiple teams rather than generatre revenue. Plus, there are many people who would simply register their "second" team in their wife/sister/brother/dog's name just to avoid paying.

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Thu, Sep 20, 11:12

Ender's right on why you can't let the first team be free.

What else?

* We can shift the Three-for-All game back in if we have success with the pay product.

* We still think that you can do the goofy "off" games in a "Starting Five" format.

* Agreed on trades. Maybe for the pay game we bump trades from four to six?

* I love the CD analogy (can we use it for marketing?).

E'ville
Leader
ID: 29017810
Thu, Sep 20, 11:25

Good point Ender. Perhaps at least $6 each team instead of $12 for first and $6 each additional. Anyone can scrap up $6.

The high priced first team is what got me out of ESPN. $19.95 for the first team last I saw.

The first one free each additional costs is the Sandbox game I beleive.

This is not a bad price but could affect my playing multiple teams in every sport.

Also need some details on the subscribtion price. I know you can get 20 different rates depending on who is offering it. If it's the non-discounted subscription rate it might not be worth it.

wizard808
ID: 578282011
Thu, Sep 20, 11:43

I just got into the Smallworld (now TSN) fantasy games about a year and a half ago. It was pure random luck that I chose Smallworld to begin my fantasy sports "career". But I have come to really like the format of the free games in baseball, basketball and football. I don't think I would play the "Starting 5" free game; I would be more likely to play a free game at a different site entirely. I have never played any of the pay games and unless NOBODY offered ANY free games that i found challenging, I probably will not play any pay games in the foreseeable future.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 20, 11:51

Six trades would be too many, even with a 12-slot roster. I think sticking with 4 trades/week would be OK, but probably a bump up to 5 would be preferred by most players.

Here's my thinking. The more trades you have, the more the game becomes one of schedule management. If you have enough trades, you'll continually gravitate to the player(s) with the greatest schedule density. In fact, with a 10-slot roster and 4 trades per week, that seems to be the dominant trading strategy, especially once roster values have inflated sufficiently (from midseason on).

By reducing the proportionate number of trades, you reduce the ability to maneuver solely based on schedule.

On the other hand, once the season starts, trading is the only thing a manager can do. And I certainly understand the value of keeping the customers involved.

rfs @ work
ID: 10815198
Thu, Sep 20, 12:14

On the subject of trades:

Perhaps 5 trades per team per week from begining to ASB to build roster value, then 4 per week after the ASB to put more emphasis on strategy and long term holds? (or 6 and 3 to stress the diff even more?) This would put a stategy twist into the game around conserving trades in first half VS building value to be used in second half?

$0.02

rfs

Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 12451279
Thu, Sep 20, 12:44

Just a couple of random points:
1. The pricing for the pay game is thoroughly reasonable. For those few cents per day, I get a lot of enjoyment.

2. Following Guru's point, I'd like to see the "schedule management" part of the game reduced. My first year, I didn't know anything about hoops, so I did the only thing I knew how to do. I finished in the top 500 just by gravitating toward players with 5-game weeks. And since that's where the money was to be made, my roster value increased quite a bit, as well. So the trades need to be kept the same, or even reduced, so that people will have to think through the long-term ramifications of every move in order to ensure success.

3. I'd have a certain amount of interest in a higher-priced keeper league as a separate product. This league, complete with live draft, would of course offer a much higher prize structure. I'd think that TSN would want to ensure that sort of predictable, long-term revenue stream. Of course, the prizes would have to be awarded both short- and long-term. This league would have to have a live draft, however, and therefore be a totally separate product.

4. The free game you propose seems totally pointless and boring for anyone who has played the game the way it is currently structured. If the point of it is to draw people in and convert them to the pay games, how will they we able to find out how the pay games "feel"?

5. If the "value-added" items are really present, I think that might help some. But as far as message boards are concerned, I think the Guru's are just fine. In fact, why not simply pay him to run them, use his assimilator features, etc and make all of that a way to add value to your pay game?

sarge33rd
ID: 55829199
Thu, Sep 20, 12:58

I don't play/follow basketball at all, so I wont be playing either of these. However, what concerns me, is the apparent steadfast refusal by SO many, to ante up $1/month for recreation! We'll pay $30+/m for net access, $50+/m for cable TV, $25+/m for damn cell phones, $12 for a movie ticket, $17 for a CD...but then refuse to pay $1/m for a game we A)enjoy, B)derive fellowship of a sense from and D) gain bragging rights out of???????

Come on folks...get off your wallets and support those businesses who provide the things you're looking for, or they won't be there for very long.

VIDevilRays
Leader
ID: 0502611
Thu, Sep 20, 14:57

My two cents as a fan:

I play Hardball (the pay game for baseball) because I enjoy baseball and felt I had a reasonably good chance of finishing first. Have not played any other of your pay games since my chances for success are reduced.

I will play your pay game for basketball regardless of whether you have a free game or not. If you only had the pay game version I would play it.

With respect to changes to the game I guess I echo other thoughts on here that, you have a fascinating game that is, IMHO, the best game on the internet. Too much tinkering cannot be a good thing. I do think the wild card position and the bonus points for triple doubles would be solid additions.

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Thu, Sep 20, 15:00

Thoughts to your thoughts:

1) Thanks Sarge, we need advocates.

2) What about 5 trades as a compromise for 12 spots?

3) And to prevent schedule rotations, how about preventing managers from picking up a player that they've sold within a 20-day period?

-ESB

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 20, 15:18

I don't like the 20-day limitation. There are many valid reasons to drop and then pick up a player again. I also think this unduly complicates the game. This medicine might be worse than the underlying disease.

How about fewer total trades, but rationed less frequently than weekly? As an example, you get 15 trades per month, allocated on the first day of each month.

Or perhaps 20 trades for November, 15 per month for December and January, and only 10 per month thereafter (and perhaps a few less for April). Those who could conserve trades during the early months would have the ability to exploit scheduling opportunities later on.

Or else just go with 5 per week.

Dr. Doom
ID: 596271411
Thu, Sep 20, 15:26

I agree with Sarge, prior to the internet boom, I always participated in local or charity based hockey pools without any hesitation.

With the appearance of Smallworld, Swirve and others, I kind of got away from that. More competition, and specifically more participation.
Had a change of heart lately and I will most likely take part in a few of the "pay" per team games.

I joined the Ultimate Football and am already disappointed to see that three managers in my random division chose not to even pick players for the first weekend. So much for spending money and expecting managers to be more involved.

OT - Erik
How about finding out how long the Grand Prix update for last weekend takes.

DrD

The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Thu, Sep 20, 15:53

I'd rather TSN stick with 4 trades a week rather than what Guru mentioned. This game is the best fantasy game on the net, stick to what got you there.

With the addition of wild card slots, you are forced to keep lower end players longer, which then makes the roster value more important, which is what we like. Even if you raise trades to 5 a week, your turnover for your roster is still at 2.5 weeks. With 4 or 5 trades a week, and the addition of 2 wild card slots, your game will still be the best.

What bothers me though, my league with my hometown friends will come to an end this hoops season after 3 great years. I talked to them today, and no one is interested in the 5 for all, they said it sounded totally boring. Only 1 out of the 15 said they would pay to play your premium game. They said there are plenty of free games to play, mainly Yahoo and Swirve.Most of them said they didn't want to charge credit cards online, or take the time to send you money, when they can find other free games that are enjoyable.

I will definately play your pay game, but I will probably pass on baseball and football pay games since my friends will not be paying to play.

Once again I will say, I think its a bad idea to scrap the oringinal free hoops, baseball, football
games that made you the best fantasy site on
the net. I honestly think your 5 for all will be a flop. I definately will not play that game.

sarge33rd
ID: 598482015
Thu, Sep 20, 15:54

yw EB...btw, I was ready to call this (2001 Golf) my last go w/SW-TSN. However, since you've arrived....you folks at TSN have been actively seeking your customers opinions and thoughts. From what little I've seen in the very short time since your return...I LIKE what I'm seeing. I'll be playing Golf next year again, pay or no....and I'll participate next season in your pay football as well. Those are the only two sports I follow anymore, so I'll limit my participation to those.

Ender
ID: 52438315
Thu, Sep 20, 16:00

Why not just offer the same 10 slot/ 4 trade game for free with NO prizes at all? Let the pay game be 11 or 12 slot/ 5 trades and nice prizes including divisional prizes.

I plan on mulling this over further and contributing to this discussion more later.

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Thu, Sep 20, 16:18

Ender:

What we encounter with your suggestion is that casual fans feel frozen out quickly in our games and that the hard-core fans don't pay for the premium game because the differences are not -- uh -- different enough.

-ESB

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 20, 16:41

I suspect that most people who frequent this forum will not find the free game appealing. People here will clearly want the traditional game. Will they pay for it? Many will, many will not, and it sounds like the decision might often be based on a gut reaction, rather than on the actual price.

I don't know how to gauge the breadth of appeal for a free "lite" version - other than trying it. But I don't think the reaction of this forum is a good litmus test for that version.

The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Thu, Sep 20, 16:57

If the casual fans are complaining about the traditional hoops game being to diffucult, they need to try harder in my opinion. We play the traditional 10-man free game for the great competition. Just like everything else in life, if you don't try hard, practice, or study, you never excel! Having said that, I don't think you should totally change the free game just to please your casual fans. I would vote the 5 for all for the "Casual fans", the traditional 10-man free game for the loyal users, and the 12-man for the die-hard money hungry fan.

The loyal users are going to be shocked when they see the traditional 10-man game is now a 12-man pay game, and the only free game is a 5-man. I don't think you'll get more than 1,500 people to pay for your premium game.

E'ville
Leader
ID: 29017810
Thu, Sep 20, 17:03

I can't beleive all of the reasons for not wanting to play the pay game. I agree with sarge. If you can afford a computer and access, money isn't the problem. If time to mail payment is a problem, then you don't have time to be competative anyway.

I know the starting five doesn't sound great but it still beats the other freebies. IMO.

Erik. Just wondering about other games. I enjoyed the survivor and 3-4-all also.

On the trade portion probably best to go level all of the way because of Mid-season games and late starters. I'm thinking the free game would be a good vehicle for specialty games (LRV, 500K, etc...).

Flying Polack
ID: 348311914
Thu, Sep 20, 17:10

What is the point of having a 12 man roster with 2 "wild cards." We already have 4 guards, and 4 forwards, what is the appeal of buying 2 more ( I doubt anyone uses a Center as a wild-card). If there must be a wild card then only start 3 forwards and 3 guards. Tracking 10 players is more than enough. I don't think any other game makes you have more, ESPN has 10, and Sandbox 8. This sounds like a change just to make a change and it won't improve the quality of the game.

You have a good game! 10/4 is great! Keep it that way! I would be willing to pay $12 to play last years game. Would adding the wild-cards change this? I honestly don't know.

As far as the "Starting Five" game goes, it sounds boring to me. I wouldn't play it.

The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Thu, Sep 20, 17:13

E'ville, alot of people will not pay for the premium game just because it has been free for x amount of years. The price really isn't a big factor. For example, my friends and I have played the free game for 3 years, every year it has been free. When they go to sign-up to play hoops this season, they will be shocked to see you have to pay for it now, that will turn them off, and others as well. So my point is, it's not really the money, it's the principle. I am definately paying to play, but I did last year also.

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Thu, Sep 20, 17:29

Guys:

About games like Three-for-all and Survivor -- we can only build games like this if we have a pay base built out in our premium game. I know we're going in circles here, but we can't have everything be free, and we have to limit the "extra" games that we want to build, therefore, until we have a solid pay base (at least for the near future).

I think Bandwagon's point is legit -- that people who are used to our game being free could be disappointed. But at the same time, we feel that at $12 (or less) per team, we're well under the other pay games ($29.95 on ESPN) and we're also a BETTER GAME.

That being said, all of this is very much an experiment. So, after Hoops, not matter what happens, we'll most likely tinker.

-E

The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Thu, Sep 20, 17:58

Please experiment with baseball, hockey, or football, not hoops :)

clach
ID: 14428817
Thu, Sep 20, 17:59

I think 11.95$ is not expensive for a Premium game but being an "international" I have the same problems, tduncan and bandwagon mentioned: charge credit card, lose all my homecountry friend..

Erik is it possible subscribe for TSN outside Us?
IMHO this can be decisive for many of us.

Regarding to new options I believe 5 trade for week is the best solution. Good compromise between old and new.

clach
ID: 14428817
Thu, Sep 20, 18:01

I forgot "starting five" game sounds boring to me too. And I can see differencese between other free games

IRRIDUCIBILI LAZIO
ID: 42881320
Thu, Sep 20, 18:06

leave the games as they were, just adding new features like it has been done in baseball and you'll have a great partecipation. trust me.

kid westside
ID: 58082021
Thu, Sep 20, 18:10

There are lots of People who play the Free game, because
there under 18 and money is an issue. Makin them
under 18 means that there unable to recieve a prize. Plus they dont
have credit cards, or checks yet, and some parents
(including mine) arent gonna use their credit card
online just because they dont think its safe. So
paying would also be a problem. there are lots
of my friends at school who enjoy the free game, and
i dont think they would be willing to pay, and i probably wouldnt pay either.
As for the "starting five" game it looks boring
and unenjoyable. Just my
.02

jumpball
Sustainer
ID: 480332121
Thu, Sep 20, 19:11

I have to go along with Bandwagon in all respects except that I might not pay to play.
The Starting 5 game does not excite me. Without a regular team, having a 500K team and LRV team doesn't make any sense either. And while the "pay game" is essentially the same game that I've been enjoying for 2 years now, I think that I will likely use the fact that it now costs money to play as a reason to "kick the habit". There are things to do with my life other than following the scores, tracking injuries, and making trades (as least I think there is).

And before I forget, let me echo Bandwagon one more time . . . you've got the best game out here, please don't change it.

Julo
ID: 284562816
Thu, Sep 20, 19:57

Say it isn't so!!

it's not really the money that bother's me, the process of paying is just so troublesome (I'm not old enough to have a credit card)

in the past two years, I played only because I could register and set up a team in a matter of minutes... to pass the time when I'm bored

now I'm going to have to pay a visit to the bank (to get american money), go to the mailbox, etc.

also, I'd rather pay for last year's format than this year's (although I don't know much about the new format except for what is written in this thread)

Ender
ID: 13443221
Thu, Sep 20, 20:00

Erik, I understand what you are saying, but you simply won't get many casual fans to pay by definition. Casual people don't pay for things that they don't have to. However, if you keep a free version out there you can keep that customer base and may earn more pay customers from it over time. I think you should have a traditional version 10 slots, 4 G, 4 F, 2 C with 4 trades per week. Perhaps you should offer one prize, though not substantial, for finishing first or roughly equivalent prizes for 1st through 5th.

I agree with Post 38, I don't see the need for 12 man rosters with 2 flex positions. I think more roster spots doesn't lead to more roster differentiation, it would lead to less. People wouldn't have to choose between studs anymore, they would have slots for all of them.

I think the pay game should instead, remain 10 slots, but be 3 G, 3 F, 2 C, 2 Flex. This would allow for more flexibility as some people may use 5 guards, 5 forwards, or go the traditional 4 x 4 route. I imagine managers would fluctuate between all 3 configurations. Heck, some people may go for 3 centers (or 4!). Stick with 4 trades. Have an extended prize pool and award divisional prizes. Award categorical prizes for statistical categories.

I'll think about it more and contribute as new ideas come to mind.

Kobe
ID: 578432019
Thu, Sep 20, 20:28

I agree with Ender and Flying Polack. I would
pay for last years game.

Starting Five doesn't sounds too interesting.

KLJ
ID: 26892015
Thu, Sep 20, 22:01

What about CURRENT Sporting News subscribers? I've been a subscriber for years. Should I cancel my subscription and start a new one just to play the games for free.. Just saying.

philflyboy
Donor
ID: 2844635
Fri, Sep 21, 05:00

Erik it seems that alot of people have problems with using their credit cards over the internet and snail mail if a pain. Any chance of a 1-800 number that people could call and register for pay games that way? I am sure that people would not have a problem doing it that way.

I also like the games as they are and would not like to see to many changes to them. I have played pay games in the past and will continue to play those I find appealing. Keep up the great work and thats for communicating with us.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Sep 21, 07:28

Perhaps it makes more sense to keep the pay game the same as last year's game - 10 slots (no wildcards), 4 trades per week.

That way, you don't confuse issues. The pitch is simply that last year's game will cost a small amount this year.

With the proposed tweaks, some may interpret that you're actually trying to charge this year because of the game enhancements.

Not a big deal either way. But sometimes the "Keep it Simple" principle is the best approach.

Just a thought.

havenbros
Donor
ID: 075039
Fri, Sep 21, 07:55

Erik:

As I recall, at least one of the 3-for-all and Survivor games SW ran last year was a pay $10 game. I think it was the Survivor game because I used studs the first week assuming that anyone that was paying to play would be trying to win, and I remember being shocked that 5 or 6 people in my division paid $10 and then didn't even bother fielding a team.

I would be happy to pay for these games and the regular game (and I concur with the sentiments that a 10/4 structure is better than 12/5), although I'd like to see the price break you get for multiple teams cross the games. I don't have time to manage multiple teams in multiple games so I typically just have one team in each. I wouldn't want to have to pay $12 X 3 while others are getting 3 teams for $24.

Janitor
ID: 218342110
Fri, Sep 21, 10:43

I LOVE the game just how it has been in the past. Please don't change it if you don't have to. I don't take change well. :(

miguel p
ID: 59444612
Fri, Sep 21, 11:28

Personally, I'm a bit disappointed that when faced with the problem: "Our pay games aren't doing well enough because they're too similar to the free games," you decided: "Let's make our free game much crappier."

This reeks of the "The first hit's free" marketing approach, which I generally find pretty slimy. I'm also disappointed because, even if I would pay, there's no way I'll be able to get my friends to sign up, which takes most of the fun oot of it for me. And if these "changes" are picked up by the other sports, there's no way I can spend $50 a year to play them all, so that would basically be the end of my short sw career.

I also wonder what will happen in the Guru forums when a much smaller group of people are involved in the primary game (and I don't forsee much interest here in the free game). I for one, and many others who can't pay, will not only be out of the sw game but largely out of the guru hoops boards. (Obviously we'd still be allowed to post here, I just mean that we wouldn't really be involved in the same way. I consider that a significant loss.)

I understand you guys are just making what you think is the best business decision, but this leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth.

Species
Donor
ID: 304521510
Fri, Sep 21, 12:01

Interesting responses.

I know Erik asked for our opinion, but I'm surprised at how many people are missing the big picture. While us Gurupies are an excellent "sample group" from which Erik/TSN can draw from, we have to remember that not only are we very small in terms of sheer numbers, but the percentage of 'hard core' players that our sample size may represent is probably a lot smaller than we think.

I think we need to keep in mind TSN's perspective...at least the way I see it:

The market they have is not necessarily the same as Smallworld's

TSN has the advantage of a respected national publication to put behind these games, whereas SW was it's own stand alone entity. TSN doesn't necessarily have to cater to the existing SW database as heavily as everyone is assuming they must, judging by the responses in this thread.

By buying SW, they bought the games and the existing database of clients. BUT , now they have the power of the magazine and a national website to put behind it......and hundreds of thousands of existing subscribers and web site visitors that are very likely to be unique from the +/-300,000 existing SW players (if it's even that many). Think about that. They can very likely double (or more) the existing base of players with full-page ads in TSN and by pimping the games on their popular fantasy sports section of their web site.

Of course they know that the vast majority of their free-game players won't pay to play ....so let's say they keep 5% of former SW players in the pay game. Pretty big hit, right? Well, you've basically replaced the entire loss of your market by including TSN subscribers/web site visitors who are not used to playing the game for free .

Does the "5 for all" concept seem dumb? To most of us, sure it does - but ESPN has similar 'dumb' cap games that are loss leaders in order to generate interest for their pay leagues. But will the hundreds of thousands of TSN subscribers/web site users think it's dumb? Maybe they won't because they haven't played the "regular" game for free for years. It's all in your perspective my friends.

The morals to this diatribe?

1 - Get used to it - Erik is very gently and graciously telling us that the economics do not work without pay games flipping the bill. Period. There will be no free game for any of us to whine about pretty soon if they can't make this work.

2 - This isn't necessarily about the SW player - they have their own market to cater to. They're not dumb---they realize a vast percentage of SW players will probably not pay for a pay version of the game they've played for years for free. But they can indoctrinate an entire new core of players who have not been used to the free game and will be used to paying for the service.

All of this isn't intended to rain on anyone's parade. Everyone is in their own situation and is able/unable or willing/unwilling to pay. I just think that too many of the opinions are incorrectly based upon an assumption that TSN's only market for this product is the existing SW database....which is incorrect.

End of diatribe.

Erik - FWIW, I would probably go with 2 teams in the pay game either via subscription or just paying. You do correctly note however that some added value in terms of "community" is probably required to make this thing work. Obviously SW was going in that direction before the net advertising fall dashed their plans. Featured articles, a message board and other bells and whistles I think will help.

Further, I don't mind the 2 flex idea. I think 5 trades is good if you go with 12 players, but it would be extremely challenging to go with 4 and I would enjoy that challenge.

PS - there is no truth to the rumor that this post is a resume for a job ;-)

EdS
ID: 455502710
Fri, Sep 21, 13:45

I do not post very often, but some of these posts are not seeing these games as a business. How long did you think these games were going to remain free? If TSN had not bought SW would we be discussing this issue? I think not! This is a business and TSN is it to make money just like SW was. If you think these are the best games on the net and want to keep playing Erik B. is telling us in a very nice way that we are going to have to pay. As Species said "Get used to it".

Erik B.
Of the 56 different posts in this thread there are 31 unique posters, 15 will pay (48%), 5 will not pay (16%), 4 can not pay (13%) and 7 not sure (22%). All though these are very small numbers I think the trend looks good. Maybe you could setup some kind of a poll.
I would be willing to pay $12, also like the subscription idea. Maybe buy a team and a subscription and get another team free. I like the 10 player, 4 trades format. I do not like the buying trade's idea. What ever you decide I will pay to play with the $ and ideas you have mentioned. Thank you for the honesty and willingness to listen to your customers.

DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Fri, Sep 21, 13:54

The way I see it is this:
1. The free game as presented here will draw very little attention, and won't help with revenue because a) it's free, and b)not many eyeballs/profiles to sell.
2. International players like myself, who don't have the incentive of prizes and a hard time to make payments (credit card only) probably won't pay for the full game, and instead will go to other games, diminishing not only TSN/Smallworld games, but the forum (or at least diverting attention here in Gurulan to other games).
3. Minors who don't have the money/or access to payment methods will have a hard time and go away as well.

What to do?
1. Why not offer the premium service as a minimum ads, no popups, privacy game. I'll take the free game and you can put as many ads as you want, or sell my profile.
2. Also you can give the prizes out in the pay game only (and say so to those of us in the free game so that you can get converts), while generating revenue and a fan base (very important) in both games.
3. About the game itself, keep the 10-4 option, but change 1 guard and 1 forward spot for flex spots, thus creating more differentiation. Make both games use the same database, so that the price changes and so on will be easier to manage (only one set, instead of two), less costly.
4. I like the idea of buying trades, last year I was stuck with an injured player a couple of times with lots of money in the bank. the price for buying trades has to be high though, and restrict the buys to 1 a week or something similar.

Good luck, and I hope you keep the free game going, it's the best game on the net.

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Fri, Sep 21, 14:04

Species:

Your post is interesting and true in many respects. So let me hit the spots with which I have major disagreements:

1) We DO care about the SW customer. Most of the people who have been on this board have played our games for several years. WE DON'T WANT YOU TURNING YOUR BACKS ON US.

2) On the GET USED TO IT point -- this is very unresolved. We'd love to offer great deals (free games often) for TSN subscribers, but this is a work in progress, and won't be settled until baseball season. Also, we're not sure that every game or even all games will be pay games, but in this market, it's our obligation to get subscription revenue (if you check magazines out, they're doing the same thing: fewer ads, higher prices).

3) On whether we're being reasonable -- look, gang, we make a killer hoops game (as may of you have said). We think that paying less than $.07 to get access to this game isn't totally unreasonable, and we know that many of you would rather pony up for this game than to have us go out of business OR to play a bad free game.

4) On how sucky the STARTING FIVE game will be -- this is one area where our Rotoguru sampling distorts the facts. You guys might think it's a bad game because you love complications. But I personally want a game that's both strategic and easy to play on a weekly basis, and we think that many TSN subscribers and SW subscribers will feel the same way. We also think this game will force people to understand basketball better -- instead of making money and putting together a dream team, you'll need to really predict who will play above expectations on a weekly basis.

What else? No, we don't have a 1-800 number, but if you call in (I'll get a number), we can take your order directly. Email me as we get closer to the start of the season if you want to do this.

Keep your thoughts coming, gang,

-ESB

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Fri, Sep 21, 14:11

DR Stars:

The pay game will have no ads, and no pop-ups. BUT, that can't be the only point of differentiation, along with prizes. We think that people want a more "serious" pay game and a lighter free game. Your other ideas are good. Y'all have convinced me that we should have 10 players, two flex positions, and four trades.

-ESB

mIST
ID: 168502114
Fri, Sep 21, 14:50

please, don't do it...your traditional 10 playeRs game is the best FREE fantasy game around...deleting it would sound to me just like hitting youR balls with a hammeR and coming here asking "do you like us doing this"? "Should we hit with moRe force?" i just want to play that, i don't want any 5 or 12 playeRs cRappy new game.

TigerFan
ID: 45631812
Fri, Sep 21, 15:02

You get what you pay for, I'm more than willing to pay for the best game on the web. I'd rather spend $12 each season, ensuring game lasts. I doubt anyone here would work for free, why should we expect Erik and TSN to do the same.

I think 10 players, 2 of them flexible positions, plus 4 trades each week would be the most interesting set-up.

DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Fri, Sep 21, 15:25

Thinking medium term for a way to encourage people to enter the pay league and be able to keep the free league too, I'd suggest the following.

Come up with a elite league, that'll be open next season with the top 1000 players of this year that enter the pay league, they'll each get a free team for that elite league, and a chance to buy (pay for) a second team. Have better prices for the elite than the normal pay, and no prices for the free game. Maybe the top free managers get free teams in the pay game.

this way even if you don't have the money, if you're really good, you could be playing the elite game in two years.

What will this do (hopefully)? IMHO.
Players who consider themselves really good will take the challenge in the pay game in order to enter the elite game next year (recognition, not only prizes which can't be shipped outside the US). Those who are not willing to pay because they think they don't have what it takes to get prizes will then be competing with 'lesser' rivals (like me, I hope I'm not offending anyone with these comments) in the free game.

Then the top 50% of the elite automatically get a spot for the following year and we get the new top 1000 from the pay game... something like that.

Species
Donor
ID: 304521510
Fri, Sep 21, 15:40

Erik - I'm not sure we necessarily disagree on anything.

My main point was to open everyone's eyes here as to what TSN is trying to accomplish....that it is much broader than just the former Smallworld universe. I didn't mean to imply that you were turning your back on the SW customer, but I'm sure we both agree that the basic point of intermingling the existing TSN client base (both subscriber and web-based) into the game is a key component of your future success. Further, that you HAVE to expect great losses of players by lowering the complexity of your free game and turning your former free game into a pay game, given the fact that SW pay games have failed miserably.

Perhaps I made the error of reading too much into everyone's comments of "I'm not going to pay for something I used to get for free", but you have to face facts that the SW pay games fell flat on their faces. Exactly how much of that failure was due to the lack of differentiation between the games (20%?? 30%??), or people's lack of willingness to pay for something they used to get for free (70+% of the blame?) is the gamble you are taking.

Your point about the value being provided is a good one -- for $.07 a day that seems like good value to me. But unfortunately consumers do in fact have issue with paying for something they didn't have to before. You feel as if it was your right----which isn't true----and Fantasy Basketball be damned if you're going to fork over real money for it when you didn't have to before. Nine freakin' bucks for a 90 minute movie? Well, we're used to shelling out some dough for that so we'll keep paying. $11.95 for a basketball game I never spent a dime for? Next website, please! With something with as short of an attention span as the internet, it's tough to keep the site sticky in this situation....I don't envy your job.

Erik - I would be amazed if you brought in 20% of the existing SW customers into your pay game. If you do, send me a TSN hat and I'll eat it for dinner.

I agree that Rotoguru sampling of the structure of your Starting Five concept is distorted, but you have to admit that it is a letdown compared to the game we've been playing for years. "Gurupie" or no Gurupie, I think many SW players would find it a disappointing replacement.

Let me close by saying that I want you to succeed. Please don't take my 'big picture' point of view as necessarily critical or negative. I tend to be blunt in my feedback (gasp!) because overly supportive kiss-ass comments don't help the cause. I am already very encouraged by TSN's management of the games as well as you and Bernie's participation on these boards. I only emplore you to be honest and learn from the 'customer service' failures of your SW predecessor here, Don Mathis.

Good luck.

Twarpy
Leader
ID: 3074280
Fri, Sep 21, 15:51

Just a suggestion, I'm 18 now but before I was 18 and now still, I had a debt card, I know most of my friends have them too.

I doubt it would be that hard for TSN to setup a way to pay for these games by debt, through Paypal or their own service.

Also it's not that hard to walk into a bank and get a money order, not sure if TSN does except those, Erik?.

Another option is to making a page and try to explain to parents how safe these transactions are etc.

Kids under 18 can find ways around anything they want to, it's more of a question that they don't want to pay the money, and are using the being under 18 as an excuse.

About there being no incentive to pay if you cant win? Simply enter one of your parents names, as I have for the past few years.

The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Fri, Sep 21, 15:52

What a sad day to be a loyal SW/TSN fan! Time for my friends and I to find another free game to play.

DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Fri, Sep 21, 15:59

Before I leave for the weekend, I had to say that the 5 player free game sounds to me like a bad idea, I know I won't play that one. And I hope we have the free 10-man-roster hoops game.

TigerFan
ID: 45631812
Fri, Sep 21, 16:06

Bandwagon, how can you consider yourself a "loyal fan" if your not willing to pay to keep the company going. A loyal subscriber to Sports Illustrated is someone who has had a subscription for years, not someone who reads it at the library each week.

What are you doing tonight (movie, dinner, etc.) I bet you spend more than $12. Stay home tonight and you get 5 or 6 months of excitement from TSN.

TigerFan
ID: 45631812
Fri, Sep 21, 16:08

PS- good luck finding a free game that's worth your time. Even Yahoo is at the beginning stages of pay to play. Whatever game it is it won't be as good as SW/TSN.

Species
Donor
ID: 304521510
Fri, Sep 21, 16:15

I agree with TigerFan . Bandwagon, you have five thousand reasons to continue to play the SW/TSN games!!! Don't give us this BS! lol

The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Fri, Sep 21, 16:15

Hey Tiger Fan, read all my posts before you diss me!
Oh yea, while you're at it, go check out the Rotoguru Hall of Fame.

blue hen, almighty
Leader
ID: 34937217
Fri, Sep 21, 16:15

I've been goaded into responding to post 40. As background, I have played just about every free Smallword game for the last 4 years, and every ESPN game (free or pay) for over a year.

I have a problem with a rep from any company saying their product is "better" than that of another company and capitalizing it, especially without prefacing with "many people think" or "we think" or "we think you will think" before saying it.

In addition to their $29.95 roto games, ESPN also offers secondary games, based on salary caps. One of these is Baseball Challenge. As someone who has played both Smallworld Baseball and Baseball Challenge, I will agree with you: Smallworld Baseball is "better" than Baseball Challenge. The rosters sizes are better, the limited trades make the game interesting, and the scoring system is superior.

There's a major difference between ESPN Fantasy Baseball (FLB) and Baseball Challenge. FLB costs $29.95 per team to play (without the Insider discount or three-pack discount), and Baseball Challenge is free. There's that word again. In a similar manner to the Starting Five free game, ESPN has always had interesting free games along with their pay games.

While I feel that the former Smallworld (remember when it was run in part by CNNSI.com?) game, in my opinion, is the best salary cap sports concept around, I have a hard time buying into the idea that TSN's game is "better" than ESPN's.

That said, I think charging for the TSN Smallworld game is entirely justified, if it can build the customer base. Smallworld players don't have a "right" to a free salary cap game, and TSN does indeed have a "right" to charge if people will pay to play. I, personally, probably will not, but, as Guru said above, this forum probably isn't the best litmus test.

Species
Donor
ID: 304521510
Fri, Sep 21, 16:20

bh - you dumbass. Smallworld co-branded that game with CNNSI. They simply sold their platform and support to CNNSI for the year and they ran separate scoring in the CNN and SW versions of the game.

The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Fri, Sep 21, 16:21

6000 reasons Species :)

PS Nice resume ;)

Twarpy
Leader
ID: 3074280
Fri, Sep 21, 16:27

Species, almighty?;)

blue hen, almighty
Leader
ID: 34937217
Fri, Sep 21, 16:28

Species...

"run in part by"

Hmm. Obviously Smallworld felt they couldn't their game without CNNSI's help.

And if that's all you got out of my post, I think you missed something.

clach
ID: 14428817
Fri, Sep 21, 17:27

Dr Stars give a good idea for minors and internationals (if you're interested in..), at least for this year.
Give a free access to the paying game for those who finished in top 1.000 is an excellent form to respect who prove his ability.
We can't be eligible for prizes, but we make the competition stronger. And if we stay in the elite we can still play the game free.

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Fri, Sep 21, 17:44

Blue Hen:

Sorry -- my hyperbole got the better of me. How about if I just say, I like our games???

An idea for minors and internationals (taken in part from the ideas above) -- what if (and I'm not sure this is possible), if you ended in a prize position, you'd get the opportunity to play another premium game for free???

-ESB

Special K
ID: 338232120
Fri, Sep 21, 20:40

I respect all that's been said by Erik and by the rest of the gurupies around here.

Personally, I just started playing Fantasy Hoops last season, and I had the most fun. It was a great experience. The only problem was, we had 10 people in our division, and at the end of the season, only 5 were still competing.

Now, I have rallied some new friends of mine who are very intrigued, and are willing to play Fantasy Hoops with me and my other friends. In the event that TSN charges a fee to play their 10/4 game, it will undoubtedly turn my friends off from playing at all.

I could pay to play, but I don't believe I am good enough to make the top 100/500. And, I would probably be the only one out of my friends who would do this. So i'd basically be playing by myself and that's not a lot of fun unless you have friendly competition with friends.

I do hope you keep the free game as is. If not, then I guess I won't be playing fantasy games after football season ends. :\

-Kurupt

Species
Donor
ID: 7724916
Fri, Sep 21, 23:44

blue hen - you're just flat out wrong. It was all SW's platform...EVERYTHING was the same except it had CNN/Si branding all over it (with the aforementioned seperate WWR). SW was able to sell the game to CNN/Si and run it for them.

How do I know? Because any customer service needs were handled by SW for the whole game. All it had was CNN/Si's name on it, as well as CNN/Si's prize of going to ATL and waiving into the camera.

Of course I got more out of your post than that.....I just wouldn't miss an opportunity to call you a dumbass.

clach
ID: 14428817
Sat, Sep 22, 06:53

Erik B, the idea is that one.
If minor and internationals (taken in part of Dr Stars suggestion) ended in a prize position, they'd get the opportunity to play another premium game for free.

blue hen, almighty
Leader
ID: 27048221
Sat, Sep 22, 07:02

Species, it's a good thing I like you. Because if I didn't... I'd probably hate you. You may be right about the CNN thing, but the main thing is that it doesn't matter one bit.

I've been thinking about the pay games... and the truth is, I bet less than 3% of players play for the prizes. Even if they played the baseball pay game, it was more for the thrill of supposedly better competition. If I were running TSN (wouldn't that be great?), I'd charge for the Smallworld game we all know and love, and I'd make a whole bunch of really cool games that were free. If people played the other games, enough would play the pay game to keep the business afloat.

IRRIDUCIBILI LAZIO
ID: 4016286
Sat, Sep 22, 11:26

well, but if i can't get the prizes why must i pay for playing?? there are a lot of other games for free and i think that all europeans or not americans in general will move to theese other games. I think smallworld's ones are better but you can't ask us to pay (even if it's not a great cost) for playin' and then don't make us elegible to receive prizes. Why can't you make games in the same way of the nfl's????

jedman
Sustainer
ID: 2702357
Sat, Sep 22, 11:51

My feeling is if you like the product and get enjoyment, you pay for it. If you like the movies, you pay to get in, if you don't, you stay away and spend your money on something else. I guess I just don't understand the mind-set that it should be free forever. I usually only have 2-3 teams anyway, so I'd probably sign up for the 2 and be happy. I get a lot of enjoyment from this and to me the costs they are talking about are minimal.
Have you considered some sort of package deals, ie. $35-50 gets you a subscription and the ability to play any and all games for the year, 2 teams in each game?
I like the idea of letting those who aren't eligible for prizes get to play for free for a period of time, at least they have something to play for if they want.
I also like the idea of 10 players, 3 F, 3G, 2C, 2 Wild Cards. Keep everything else the same.

Knightmare
ID: 562452315
Sat, Sep 22, 18:05

I think reading all of these posts has changed my mind. I was always taught not to spend money on things that I didn't need to. Then I realized how much fun I have playing SW/TSN games and whatever the price it would probably be a worthwhile investment. Also I am 18 now and eligible for prizes, if I'm lucky enough. Besides I have been anticipating Basketball season for far too long to not be able to play (I've already tenatively planned my lineup). Last season I finished hoops around 2000, and this year in MS baseball (Thanks to Rotoguru) I reached the top 200. I think the suggestions made are good ones 3g, 3f, 2c, and 2 flex positions sound good to me. Some people seem rather opposed to the idea of buying trades. I always used to think it would be a good idea, but that was when I used everyone of my trades on the first day. I don't think I would need to use it, but it would be a good feature in case of an injury, and you were without trades. By the way, does anyone here have a division that I can join?, I had a hard enough time trying to get my friends to play when the game was free, besides they usually quit after a month anyway.

Julo
ID: 259112023
Sat, Sep 22, 18:42

what ever happenned to that "click the pig" a couple years back?

I'm sure that generated tons of moulas... they must of made more than 12 bucks on me that year from all the clicks

plus it was fun clicking the pig

The Dienasty
ID: 2783842
Sun, Sep 23, 08:19

Julo, back in the day that pig may have generated some cash, but in this day & age of internet marketing and revenues i doubt it will have the same impact as i did 2 years ago.

sarge33rd
ID: 48820225
Sun, Sep 23, 11:40

for all of those who say.." there are plenty of other free games out there. I'll just go play one of those...":

wake-up call: There won't be in the very near future. I've explored at LENGTH, the viability of initiating a fantasy sports site, and have only recently concluded that my pockets are incredibly too shallow to make it work. The cost to set-up and maintain, redundant net servers is staggering. Then you can add the cost for programmers/system analysts and engineers. These guys dont make 65k+ yr, because their skills are limited in the market place. An employer gets what they pat for in the way of workers, just as consumers get what we pay for when we buy a commodity. Simple truth...I had originally estimated a start-up cost of 60-75k. Upon further study, I've revised that figure (to include 1st yr salaries, multiple physical locales for servers and redundancy in the servers themselves.) to 200-275k. When anybody, company or individual, forks out 200+ thousand of their dollars, they are ENTITLED to charge for their product so as to generate a return on their investment.

As was stated earlier: GET USED TO IT...because quite simply, this is the way the enitre arena is going to go, or like all those dot-coms that went bust in the recent past, so too will the free fantasy game sites.

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Mon, Sep 24, 11:31

To the internationals:

I'm investigating (as I posted above) the possibility of extending game credits for those who should earn prizes, but live abroad. This seems to be a definite possibility. So, if we did something like, win your division and get a free play and finish in the top 25 and you'll get a year's pass to all our games, would that satisfy you?

-ESB

clach
ID: 14428817
Mon, Sep 24, 16:14

yes, good solution Erik B

DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Tue, Sep 25, 09:46

Erik B. (Is there an english word for people with the same names? in spanish is Tocayo the case here is me and Erik B, although my name is written E-r-i-c, not k)
Back to the topic:
I think winning the division is not the solution, because personally, I'd like to enter one of the Guru's divisions, or SWO, or the belly, but if I have to win it to get credit that would make my decision to enter a tough competitive division harder. In the other hand if WWR is the measuring stick everybody (no matter what division you're in can get the price).

Say something like this:
Top 50, 6 free teams in any league (2 hoops, 2 baseball, 1 football, 1 hoops playoffs, or anyway you want to do it)
Top 100, 5 teams
Top 500, 4 teams
Top 1000, 3 teams
Top 2000, 2 teams
Top 5000, 1 team

Then you also need restrictions, say I have a top 500 in hoops, and then a Top 1000 in baseball, that'll be 4+3 teams, you could place a cap in say 6 teams at any given time, if you're commited enough to keep that many teams at any year, you should pay for the privilege.

Another way to do it, is to set up a special ranking for those of us competing for these prizes, and keep the number lower like top 25, 50, 75, 100, 150. I still think it would be easier to keep track of the WWR, that way you award with free teams the are really good players.

Thanks for listening,
DR Stars

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Sep 25, 11:11

I had some similar concerns about awarding prizes to division winners.

One is the issue raised above, that friends might be less likely to join a common division if it is felt that a random division assignment would offer better "matchups". And that seems to work against the community elements of the game - which might ultimately dampen registrations.

The other is that you have generally allowed people the ability to switch divisions at any point during the season. That privilege would obviously have to be withdrawn if division winners were to win a prize.

E'ville
Leader
ID: 29017810
Tue, Sep 25, 12:00

I agree on the division factor. When I played elsewhere for prizes. The random divisions were easy to win. Also you would have to set a fixed number on teams in a division. That would deter friends from playing together.

Actually unless the prizes were major. I wouldn't mind playing for free plays either. As opposed to shirts, hats and minor prizes. Maybe the minor prizes could be free plays for everyone.

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Tue, Sep 25, 14:14

Interesting. I like your ideas -- but if we get 5000 sign-ups for Hoops, we'll be rolling in the aisles...

One thought we had is that we'd award prizes to the best DIVISIONS. This would be done by taking the average score of all the people in the division. So there'd be upside to being in an ultra-division.

Thoughts?

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Tue, Sep 25, 14:49

So -- should we give people the option of getting a free sweatshirt or something else worth $30 to win a division OR two free plays in future premium games? Would that be appealing to some?

tduncan
ID: 47616279
Tue, Sep 25, 15:02

I like the idea of free future games.
I think you should do it like this: when you create a team, you will have to choose whether you play for the "real" prizes, or for free future games. to win the free game you won't need to be eligible in any way, so this is good for both international players and minors.

I don't think there will be problems with "dead" teams like in the free game, because when you pay for soemthing like this you don't just drop it after a bad day, so the division thing might work. what you will have to do is determine a minimun # of teams a division needs to be eligible for the division winner prize.

also I like the top division stadnings. I have to say, this is one of the only things I can think of swirve has topped you guys in. you should make it the average of the top 5 or 10 teams in the division, not all the teams.

DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Tue, Sep 25, 15:15

Giving prizes to the top 10 in the best couple of divisions is great, but that shouldn't take away from the teams that rank high on otherwise mediocre divisions, they should be first in line. Not everybody gets to enter the divisions they would want, or even know how to do it in the very early stages of entering these fantasy games. Some require pwds and are closed after 20-30 teams enter.

Erik B., how bout a couple of free teams for the Players here in Rotoguru.com??? and DEFINITELY give a couple of teams to the Guru himself.

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Tue, Sep 25, 15:20

Free teams? No, my friend. But we should be able to give RotoGurupies a DISCOUNT for signing up early for this game ... And check my new thread. This idea will really get you going.

The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Tue, Sep 25, 15:43

Erik B, any idea when the Hoops game will be up and running?

100

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Tue, Sep 25, 15:59

BW:

Sometime next week, most likely.

-ESB

101

Grand Slam
ID: 45631812
Tue, Sep 25, 16:09

"And check my new thread. This idea will really get you going. "

Erik B. what does this mean?

102

DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Tue, Sep 25, 16:13

What new thread?

103

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Tue, Sep 25, 17:42

Uh, sorry, will post it tomorrow...

-ESB

104

Barrington
Donor
ID: 4785858
Wed, Sep 26, 09:54

A voice from the golf boards:

I don't play hoops (did, but dropped out as it took too much time), but I do play TSN/SW fantasy golf. I also played the premiere soccer game. In golf apparently better than 80% of teams drop out and I suspect that is true for most of TSN/SW games - a real challenge for companies like TSN/SW that offer season long games and hope to make money.

From my perspective it is important to keep players active THROUGHOUT the season, in both the free and pay games. I think this will depend on the prizes and how creative you get in providing prizes, particularly weekly prizes that can keep people playing even if they have no chance of winning the season long prize.

That would be good for TSN in terms of attracting advertisers (because players would remain active longer and thus visit the site more often) and because players might be willing to pay a little more (since they would remain eligible for prizes even if they fall behind the leaders early in the season).

I know that I am willing to play some "pay" games (at least those that I think I can stay competitive in), but I also know that many individuals will not come back a second time if they are eliminated from winning anything too early.

106

Barrington
Donor
ID: 4785858
Wed, Sep 26, 10:19

One other idea that I don't think I saw in this thread - how about an option of an annual fee giving players extensive access to all TSN fantasy games (free or pay). That might encourage some of us to play games that we otherwise might not building up a base for the future.

Maybe that could be the special offer for gurupies!

107

Erik B.
ID: 48830517
Wed, Sep 26, 12:15

Barrington:

I think you'll see this idea in play for Baseball (and it's a good one), along with the all-sports contest.

-ESB

108

The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Wed, Sep 26, 15:43

Erik B, where is the new post you mentioned in post 98 and 103? I'm curious :)

109

sarge33rd
ID: 158202516
Wed, Sep 26, 17:50

another free fantasy game site, bites the dust.

CBSSportsline buys Sandbox

Forum: hoopPage 5507Subject: ESB: Hoops Products for TSN

Forum: hoop
Page 5507
Subject: ESB: Hoops Products for TSN