But presumably G&T don't want to charge $150, even if the difference goes to CP.
And all you guys are doing is shuffling around the pain. To somebody with money, the idea that those who miss out are those with the least of it seems fair. Consider that on the other end, they consider it fair if those with money miss out due to luck.
But no matter what, only X get to go, even though Y want to, so Y-X will be disappointed.
All this is is arguing for the "obvious" method that seems most "fair" or "efficient" and also happens to (by sheer coincidence) lead to you being the least likely to wind up in the disappointed group.
Also, non transferable is the devil. At least have an official way to transfer, at face value. Some of us have other obligations, whose schedules aren't necessarily set.
There are probably some flaws in the above, but I want to make sure one point gets across, so I'll reiterate: the point of event pricing is not necessarily to make supply meet demand. The market may determine a given price for concert tickets, but sometimes a band doesn't want to be the assholes charging kids $225 for tickets, nor do they want to play for a crowd composed entirely of yuppies able to pay that much. So they price lower, and accept that some portion will be scalped.
Pretty much this.
Some people want money to entirely decide who gets in.
I am not surprised that SKFM considers the method that allows him and those like him who have the most disposable income to have easier access to tickets to be the most "fair" option.
Also, non transferable is the devil. At least have an official way to transfer, at face value. Some of us have other obligations, whose schedules aren't necessarily set.
Also, I'll point out that the above isn't about personal interest. I have money, it's no big deal to me if i pay for a pass I don't use.
But now that pass goes unused.
Which means one less fan gets to go.
This is preferable to being able to sell my ticket to somebody else when i wind up with military duty that weekend?
If so that's fine, but I'll dine on nerd tears when I post the YouTube video of me running my passes through a power shredder in the PAX forum. With a caption at the bottom saying THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED.
I am not surprised that SKFM considers the method that allows him and those like him who have the most disposable income to be the most "fair" option.
I don't consider money as a discriminator to be bad on its face, I just don't like it as the only option.
Like I said, scalpers are a feature. They let those with money pay what they're willing to guarantee attendance, and the rest get to depend on luck or sweat.
I would like to see some percentage held back as a charity auction, though, to let this happen through official channels as well.
I am not surprised that SKFM considers the method that allows him and those like him who have the most disposable income to be the most "fair" option.
I don't consider money as a discriminator to be bad on its face, I just don't like it as the only option.
I agree. I just take umbrage at Space's belief that the method clearly favoring those with the most money is the fairest. Of course it is, to those who have the most money.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
+2
Options
cptruggedI think it has something to do with free will.Registered Userregular
Also, non transferable is the devil. At least have an official way to transfer, at face value. Some of us have other obligations, whose schedules aren't necessarily set.
Also, I'll point out that the above isn't about personal interest. I have money, it's no big deal to me if i pay for a pass I don't use.
But now that pass goes unused.
Which means one less fan gets to go.
This is preferable to being able to sell my ticket to somebody else when i wind up with military duty that weekend?
If so that's fine, but I'll dine on nerd tears when I post the YouTube video of me running my passes through a power shredder in the PAX forum. With a caption at the bottom saying THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED.
The anti-transferable rules all seem to come from the ever looming fear of the dreaded Pass Sharing. I go to Dragon*Con often and it is always over crowded these days. But they print your real name under your handle on the badge. And your badge can be revoked and you can be kicked out of the con if you get busted badge sharing. It seems like a bit much. But for such an open / party style con, I guess its the only way they can have some semblance of trying to control the crowds.
This generates an additional 4,000,000 in revenue for the convention, p much eliminates the secondary market and removes the likelihood that you don't score tickets when all your friends do.
This is assuming that a capacity crowd is willing to pay double what face is now to get through the doors. This isn't at all likely. The more likely scenario as SKFM suggests is for the tickets to be priced sub $100 with the secondary market STILL crippled with a lot of extra revenue.
I had no trouble getting tickets for the PAX I want to go to (East) and I could probably afford anything reasonable that might happen from such an auction. But how does that prevent the person who can't afford scalpers and wasn't fast enough to get regular tickets from being priced out? Under the framework above, the only people who could get tickets now but not before are in groups E and F. And all the people who could afford $70 for 3 days but not $150 for 3 days are "SOL".
So really all you've accomplished is increasing the price to what the "market will bear", which they could do anyway and potentially prices out the college students, teens and parents with kids that are a pretty core demographic of PAX.
Plus it doesn't really do anything about the secondary market really. A big part of the secondary market is people who don't try to buy in time. They will still pay if they want to go. Another problem for PAX specifically is your audience is at its core gamers and geeks. Gamers try to game the system, so they'll try to bid as low as they can. Geeks tend to get obsessive and pour their resources into things they like so they will overbid. You're going to end up with a lot of people unsatisfied, and some of them will want to buy tickets at a rate higher than they bid.
So you'd still have a secondary market, its just it would start from a higher place. Putting more of that money in PA's hands is a positive outcome, but not a lot of problems are actually solved by this.
More people want to go to PAX than can be accommodated. Increasing the price puts more money in G&T's hands but it doesn't really make it more "fair" and they obviously think that there's value in not just having us adult nerds that have reasonably OK jobs and kids whose parents don't mind shelling out a hundred or two casually.
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You could have a sonnet competition or a race or have people solve geometry problems as criteria for who buys them, but as tickets being sold for money, a willingness to pay MORE money than the asking price seems pretty reasonable to me, especially since they could parley this into the willingness to help sick children. If the choice is luck, sonnet writing ability or willingness to help sick children, I would say that we ought to go with awarding a scare resource to the people that help the sick children.
0
Options
cptruggedI think it has something to do with free will.Registered Userregular
You could have a sonnet competition or a race or have people solve geometry problems as criteria for who buys them, but as tickets being sold for money, a willingness to pay MORE money than the asking price seems pretty reasonable to me, especially since they could parley this into the willingness to help sick children. If the choice is luck, sonnet writing ability or willingness to help sick children, I would say that we ought to go with awarding a scare resource to the people that help the sick children.
But as was discussed earlier with the "only for the bottom line" comment. High prices just doesn't seem to be their deal. Sure they could probably jack them up sky high and still fill the place. But I think their base premise for the con is one of inclusion and community. The prices are low because they want them low not because they need to be low.
I was blown away by the prices of PAX 3 day passes. My local giant con gets up to 130 bucks for passes for the whole con. And 70 dollars for just one day passes at the door.
Fair to Spacekungfuman does not always equal fair to everyone else, despite what you might think. G&T are also on the record as wanting to open PAX up to as many people as possible, suggesting that "fair ticket selling methods for large conventions" entails methods that are fair to a large, and not a specific, group of people.
Your preference for a dutch auction is fair to you, and through an astonishing lack of insight, you equate this as being fair to all. It is not.
I would literally sooner have tickets rewarded to whoever's best at geometry than whoever has the most money. At least with the former I know one of them got the ticket doing something worthwhile.
Except the primary determining factor in getting a PAX badge right now isn't luck, it's effort. These days you usually only get ~1 day for 3 days, but saturdays lasted a little while longer, and fridays/sundays took longer still. If you wanted to go all 3 days, you should have @official_pax to your phone, and wait for the tweet. There are some people that will be screwed by this, but there really isn't a fair way, and if you want to help sick children so much, just go donate to childs play. Dramatically increasing the price of PAX changes the dynamic away from what G&T seem to want it to be.
If that's your goal then what would REALLY be best would be for them to select some charities that need volunteers, have them track people's hours, then give various levels of preference to those who've contributed the most time to helping make the world better.
I mean, assuming your actual concern is helping charity.
+1
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I still don't see anything sacred about a $70 price point for a weekend long event. If you don't live in the area, the non yuppie hard scrabble true fans that can't afford anymore than $70 still can't go. How is that "fair"?
$80 additional was a top end estimate, but it's still peanuts for a three day event. Mow some lawns.
+1
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Also, I didn't realize there was a full day window where people could get the passes. I thought demand was shutting down the servers like most ticketmaster high demand sales.
Why are people complaining if you had a day to get the tickets?
Tweet or lose.
I am not surprised that SKFM considers the method that allows him and those like him who have the most disposable income to have easier access to tickets to be the most "fair" option.
Well it is fair based on the criteria that the person willing to spend the most money on a thing should get it. It's the literal definition of an auction. A dutch auction isn't really any fairer than any other auction.
But it's just as fair to say that the person being first should get a thing. It's strange to suggest that effort to be the first is somehow less important than money willing/able to spend on a thing. If a store has only 10 new xboxes on sale and I make the effort to be one of the first 10 customers it seems rather absurd to suggest that it's unfair that the guy coming in hours after the last xbox is sold doesn't get my xbox because he's willing to spend an extra 10 bucks on it.
Also, I didn't realize there was a full day window where people could get the passes. I thought demand was shutting down the servers like most ticketmaster high demand sales.
Why are people complaining if you had a day to get the tickets?
Tweet or lose.
A day is quite a small timeframe, but yeah it's not the worst I've ever seen. If people really want a ticket most of them should be able to be on time.
Also, I didn't realize there was a full day window where people could get the passes. I thought demand was shutting down the servers like most ticketmaster high demand sales.
Why are people complaining if you had a day to get the tickets?
Tweet or lose.
Yup. I got infracted for (admittedly) being a dick about saying the same thing back then. People who claimed to have been to PAX before we're surprised that twitter was used for communication, and others just didn't "like" twitter and didn't think they should have to use it.
Well, I don't like twitter, but I used it, and lo and behold I got a badge. It wasn't even that hard.
People were waiting until they were actually on sale to contact and coordinate with guildies. Wrong answer.
In think it was like twelve hours total until Saturday went out. That's tight, but if you were taking it seriously it was more than possible. Make arrangements.
We'll see what this year looks like though. It's trended shorter every year, so I'd be unsurprised if it drops from hours to minutes.
Though single-day-only passes might help, if they go with that.
Also, that should solve the pricing issue, since that will nearly double the cost to attend all the days.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
People being first and then turning around to scalp the tickets hardly seems "fair" to me, but then I am generally not a fan of secondary markets. I don't see how making the tickets cheaper had any real benefit as far as inclusion goes anyway, since no matter what people spend, the crowd going to a gaming convention are going to be gamers. If you are really concerned about income limitations, why not set aside a bunch of tickets to give away for free, which should be easy to do with the higher receipts on the tickets you sold? In my book, any solution that keeps the scalpers from profiting, while still getting gamers into the convention, is a good system.
When badges are on sale for hours, it's a matter of making arrangements and putting in the effort.
If/when it drops to seconds, where actual screen refreshing is what matters, then talk to me. I remember missing Elton John tickets because they were on sale for all of ten minutes, and I had an exam that hour. Now THAT is tight.
The main problem is that supply is constrained, demand is high, and charging a price that would make the curves meet is unpalatable. This is not unique to PAX, or conventions, it's something pretty much every kind of event deal with. And regardless of which method you choose to "fix" the problem, you are merely choosing who you screw over.
Because it's a zero-sum game. I'll quote myself, from the thread on the sellout. This quote is from an earlier page, but I feel like my posts on the last couple pages of that thread sum my position up nicely as well.
[unspoilered]
There are three ways to get tickets to an event: sweat, luck, or cash... Basically every suggestion here merely emphasizes one over another.
Well, there's a fourth way: connections, as schuss and I discussed here and here.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
People being first and then turning around to scalp the tickets hardly seems "fair" to me, but then I am generally not a fan of secondary markets. I don't see how making the tickets cheaper had any real benefit as far as inclusion goes anyway, since no matter what people spend, the crowd going to a gaming convention are going to be gamers. If you are really concerned about income limitations, why not set aside a bunch of tickets to give away for free, which should be easy to do with the higher receipts on the tickets you sold? In my book, any solution that keeps the scalpers from profiting, while still getting gamers into the convention, is a good system.
What keeps those free tickets from being scalped? Without increasing unused tickets through transfer restrictions?
Any solution to the secondary market problem has its own, new, problems.
And not making income the driving factor in sales helps ensure a better cross section of gamers. More representative of the fan base as a whole.
Also, before you start complaining about the secondary market on any event, I'm going to ask you what percentage of tickets were even "scalped" (in this context meaning sold for any significant amount above face, not merely resold).
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited March 2013
All I know is that were I to go, I would need one ticket for myself and four for my palanquin bearers, and any method that makes that difficult is unfair.
Plus, putting in the effort to be first is no more or less fair a criteria than "went to law school" for determining attendance.
Don't want to put in the effort? Pay somebody to do it for you.
Once the sellout happens fast enough that effort alone no longer works (but rather it becomes computer speed and luck), as with many concerts, then we can talk. But all you're doing is defining "fair" As whatever works best for you.
I put in the work. I signed up for a google voice number that forwarded the tweet to every email account I had as well as my cell. I was penetrated from every direction by hot multimedia notifications within minutes of then going on sale, and did what I had to do to get my badge.
Whether my effort or your bank account is more "fair" is entirely subjective.
I agree with feral, too, that community connection may be another valid criteria, though as with the rest you don't want to go overboard and become too exclusive.
So I was thinking about this, and it seems like most of the complaints come down to giving priority to specific groups (whether intentional or not). I disagree with G&T and anyone who says that any/all systems are equal because it's a zero sum game. Now I know no one said that specifically, but when you start shooting down ideas out of hand because hey someone's always going to be mad they didn't get tickets, that's basically what you are saying.
As a side note, it's funny to me that gabe's response to staggering the sales was that it wouldn't help because the tickets would sell out faster for each smaller sale, which would also upset people. On the surface I can see his point. If I am free and tickets sell out in a few hours then I blame myself for not being on top of things. If I'm free and tickets sell out in minutes I may get angry that there wasn't enough time for me to get a ticket even though I was ready essentially on time. What's funny is that this is probably much less anger inducing for most people then having 0 notice. Maybe I can blame you if the tickets sell out in minutes, but I am still partially to blame because I should have been ready immediately. If I don't even have a chance because you gave 0 notice and I was at work, then you are definitely to blame.
In my mind it's clear that if you intentionally give priority to one group it's obviously unfair and people will be upset. If they implemented a rule that women can get passes a day earlier than men, because it's too much of a sausage fest, then you would see people getting justifiably upset. But even if you don't intentionally prioritize a group, if one group is still getting a priority, people will still be upset. By giving 0 notice on the exact time tickets would go on sale, you are giving priority to those people with flexible schedules/work. I think gabe's post a few pages back mentioned that 3 day passes sold out in a few hours, so even if I received the tweet, if I was at a place of work that did not allow me access to a computer/the internet then I would be SOL. Thus you are giving priority to some people, and so others are upset.
The fairest way seems to be a lottery, since you are giving 0 priority to any specific group, but it's also the most upsetting for every other reason. Namely that people don't like decisions based on luck, and that it is the system most likely to be heavily gamed. Personally, I would probably favor the way they do it now, but with the staggered sales. If they sell out quickly they sell out quickly.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
OKay, so correct me if Im wrong, but the current system is not twitter announcing "Tickets for Pax will be on sale starting on DATE at TIME", but rather a tweet saying "TICKETS ARE ON SALE NOW, LULZ".
Yeah, that's a p dumb system.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think they should let people presale for a higher price, and then have a set sale day that everyone else knows of in advance. I also think that instead of banning transfer or allowing free transfer, they should let people return the tickets and then those tickets should go back up for resale.
OKay, so correct me if Im wrong, but the current system is not twitter announcing "Tickets for Pax will be on sale starting on DATE at TIME", but rather a tweet saying "TICKETS ARE ON SALE NOW, LULZ".
Yeah, that's a p dumb system.
Well, in fairness they also throw a convention with tens of thousands of attendees for the sole purpose of announcing that tickets to prime will be on sale shortly, so be ready.
Also, unless you're at a workplace where you literally cannot get a phone call out and/or you have neither friends nor family willing to help, you can still put in the effort and get a pass, even with no notice.
A friend called me from an aircraft carrier and had me buy his passes. I did. He got passes.
Because he made sure he had a way to get notified.
And if even that is impossible (you have access to neither web nor phone nor email) then sign a friend or relative up for the SMS-forwarded tweet and email.
I'd say that less than 1% of people who got screwed on the no-notice thing legitimately had no means to work around it. They just didn't because they didn't think they had to.
And not announcing a time reduces, at least in theory, the threat of a one minute sellout crush.
I think they should let people presale for a higher price, and then have a set sale day that everyone else knows of in advance. I also think that instead of banning transfer or allowing free transfer, they should let people return the tickets and then those tickets should go back up for resale.
This only works up until badges go out. I believe they do now, though.
Once badges go out, it's a matter of allowing transfer or having badges go unused.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
People being first and then turning around to scalp the tickets hardly seems "fair" to me, but then I am generally not a fan of secondary markets.
Even if scalping was a really big problem it would still be fair for the criteria of "person willing to pay the most gets to go". The only thing is that the money goes to someone else than the PA-guys, but it's not like they're cheated out of any money.
I think Gabe said something about there being about 1.7 tickets sold for each sale, seems unlikely that scalper wouldn't buy much more.
I agree with feral, too, that community connection may be another valid criteria, though as with the rest you don't want to go overboard and become too exclusive.
I'm not saying that all impacted events should have community priority presales, or that all tickets should be given out that way.
I'm saying it's one strategy that can work alongside other strategies, and depends on the kind of event you want to have.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I agree with feral, too, that community connection may be another valid criteria, though as with the rest you don't want to go overboard and become too exclusive.
I'm not saying that all impacted events should have community priority presales, or that all tickets should be given out that way.
I'm saying it's one strategy that can work alongside other strategies, and depends on the kind of event you want to have.
I'm just not seeing how it would really work though. Who is the community?
I agree with feral, too, that community connection may be another valid criteria, though as with the rest you don't want to go overboard and become too exclusive.
I'm not saying that all impacted events should have community priority presales, or that all tickets should be given out that way.
I'm saying it's one strategy that can work alongside other strategies, and depends on the kind of event you want to have.
I'm just not seeing how it would really work though. Who is the community?
Whoever the event hosts & promoters say they are.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I agree with feral, too, that community connection may be another valid criteria, though as with the rest you don't want to go overboard and become too exclusive.
I'm not saying that all impacted events should have community priority presales, or that all tickets should be given out that way.
I'm saying it's one strategy that can work alongside other strategies, and depends on the kind of event you want to have.
I'm just not seeing how it would really work though. Who is the community?
Whoever the event hosts & promoters say they are.
Im sure they already do give away tickets to people. They just dont advertise it and you aren't one of those people.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
edited March 2013
Interesting thoughts, but, often times having pax friends and a good job with internet access is going to be the biggest advantage. A way might to be incorporate several ideas. To subsisize other ideas, have a Pre-pax childsplay pack, something like 300 bucks maybe 350 and you get some merch, some art and a 3 day pass before the event, and send the extra proceeds to cover extra expenses for fairness, and childs play. Set aside so many passes for that, maybe even do an auction starting at 200. That would satisfy the market may bear folks.
Have some sort of competition, and perhaps a lottery for the right to prebuy pax tickets at face value, 2 tickets a winner or some such.
Posts
What, you think my State ID doesn't have my name as RainGlo Ponyfeathers?
And all you guys are doing is shuffling around the pain. To somebody with money, the idea that those who miss out are those with the least of it seems fair. Consider that on the other end, they consider it fair if those with money miss out due to luck.
But no matter what, only X get to go, even though Y want to, so Y-X will be disappointed.
All this is is arguing for the "obvious" method that seems most "fair" or "efficient" and also happens to (by sheer coincidence) lead to you being the least likely to wind up in the disappointed group.
Pretty much this.
Some people want money to entirely decide who gets in.
G&T do not.
Sucks to be those people I guess.
Also, I'll point out that the above isn't about personal interest. I have money, it's no big deal to me if i pay for a pass I don't use.
But now that pass goes unused.
Which means one less fan gets to go.
This is preferable to being able to sell my ticket to somebody else when i wind up with military duty that weekend?
If so that's fine, but I'll dine on nerd tears when I post the YouTube video of me running my passes through a power shredder in the PAX forum. With a caption at the bottom saying THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED.
I don't consider money as a discriminator to be bad on its face, I just don't like it as the only option.
Like I said, scalpers are a feature. They let those with money pay what they're willing to guarantee attendance, and the rest get to depend on luck or sweat.
I would like to see some percentage held back as a charity auction, though, to let this happen through official channels as well.
I agree. I just take umbrage at Space's belief that the method clearly favoring those with the most money is the fairest. Of course it is, to those who have the most money.
The anti-transferable rules all seem to come from the ever looming fear of the dreaded Pass Sharing. I go to Dragon*Con often and it is always over crowded these days. But they print your real name under your handle on the badge. And your badge can be revoked and you can be kicked out of the con if you get busted badge sharing. It seems like a bit much. But for such an open / party style con, I guess its the only way they can have some semblance of trying to control the crowds.
I had no trouble getting tickets for the PAX I want to go to (East) and I could probably afford anything reasonable that might happen from such an auction. But how does that prevent the person who can't afford scalpers and wasn't fast enough to get regular tickets from being priced out? Under the framework above, the only people who could get tickets now but not before are in groups E and F. And all the people who could afford $70 for 3 days but not $150 for 3 days are "SOL".
So really all you've accomplished is increasing the price to what the "market will bear", which they could do anyway and potentially prices out the college students, teens and parents with kids that are a pretty core demographic of PAX.
Plus it doesn't really do anything about the secondary market really. A big part of the secondary market is people who don't try to buy in time. They will still pay if they want to go. Another problem for PAX specifically is your audience is at its core gamers and geeks. Gamers try to game the system, so they'll try to bid as low as they can. Geeks tend to get obsessive and pour their resources into things they like so they will overbid. You're going to end up with a lot of people unsatisfied, and some of them will want to buy tickets at a rate higher than they bid.
So you'd still have a secondary market, its just it would start from a higher place. Putting more of that money in PA's hands is a positive outcome, but not a lot of problems are actually solved by this.
More people want to go to PAX than can be accommodated. Increasing the price puts more money in G&T's hands but it doesn't really make it more "fair" and they obviously think that there's value in not just having us adult nerds that have reasonably OK jobs and kids whose parents don't mind shelling out a hundred or two casually.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But as was discussed earlier with the "only for the bottom line" comment. High prices just doesn't seem to be their deal. Sure they could probably jack them up sky high and still fill the place. But I think their base premise for the con is one of inclusion and community. The prices are low because they want them low not because they need to be low.
I was blown away by the prices of PAX 3 day passes. My local giant con gets up to 130 bucks for passes for the whole con. And 70 dollars for just one day passes at the door.
Your preference for a dutch auction is fair to you, and through an astonishing lack of insight, you equate this as being fair to all. It is not.
If that's your goal then what would REALLY be best would be for them to select some charities that need volunteers, have them track people's hours, then give various levels of preference to those who've contributed the most time to helping make the world better.
I mean, assuming your actual concern is helping charity.
$80 additional was a top end estimate, but it's still peanuts for a three day event. Mow some lawns.
Why are people complaining if you had a day to get the tickets?
Tweet or lose.
Pass sharing seems like a good thing. More people get to see more things.
Meh.
Well it is fair based on the criteria that the person willing to spend the most money on a thing should get it. It's the literal definition of an auction. A dutch auction isn't really any fairer than any other auction.
But it's just as fair to say that the person being first should get a thing. It's strange to suggest that effort to be the first is somehow less important than money willing/able to spend on a thing. If a store has only 10 new xboxes on sale and I make the effort to be one of the first 10 customers it seems rather absurd to suggest that it's unfair that the guy coming in hours after the last xbox is sold doesn't get my xbox because he's willing to spend an extra 10 bucks on it.
A day is quite a small timeframe, but yeah it's not the worst I've ever seen. If people really want a ticket most of them should be able to be on time.
Yup. I got infracted for (admittedly) being a dick about saying the same thing back then. People who claimed to have been to PAX before we're surprised that twitter was used for communication, and others just didn't "like" twitter and didn't think they should have to use it.
Well, I don't like twitter, but I used it, and lo and behold I got a badge. It wasn't even that hard.
People were waiting until they were actually on sale to contact and coordinate with guildies. Wrong answer.
In think it was like twelve hours total until Saturday went out. That's tight, but if you were taking it seriously it was more than possible. Make arrangements.
We'll see what this year looks like though. It's trended shorter every year, so I'd be unsurprised if it drops from hours to minutes.
Though single-day-only passes might help, if they go with that.
Also, that should solve the pricing issue, since that will nearly double the cost to attend all the days.
If/when it drops to seconds, where actual screen refreshing is what matters, then talk to me. I remember missing Elton John tickets because they were on sale for all of ten minutes, and I had an exam that hour. Now THAT is tight.
Well, there's a fourth way: connections, as schuss and I discussed here and here.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What keeps those free tickets from being scalped? Without increasing unused tickets through transfer restrictions?
Any solution to the secondary market problem has its own, new, problems.
And not making income the driving factor in sales helps ensure a better cross section of gamers. More representative of the fan base as a whole.
Also, before you start complaining about the secondary market on any event, I'm going to ask you what percentage of tickets were even "scalped" (in this context meaning sold for any significant amount above face, not merely resold).
You don't want to reduce me to this, do you:
Don't want to put in the effort? Pay somebody to do it for you.
Once the sellout happens fast enough that effort alone no longer works (but rather it becomes computer speed and luck), as with many concerts, then we can talk. But all you're doing is defining "fair" As whatever works best for you.
I put in the work. I signed up for a google voice number that forwarded the tweet to every email account I had as well as my cell. I was penetrated from every direction by hot multimedia notifications within minutes of then going on sale, and did what I had to do to get my badge.
Whether my effort or your bank account is more "fair" is entirely subjective.
As a side note, it's funny to me that gabe's response to staggering the sales was that it wouldn't help because the tickets would sell out faster for each smaller sale, which would also upset people. On the surface I can see his point. If I am free and tickets sell out in a few hours then I blame myself for not being on top of things. If I'm free and tickets sell out in minutes I may get angry that there wasn't enough time for me to get a ticket even though I was ready essentially on time. What's funny is that this is probably much less anger inducing for most people then having 0 notice. Maybe I can blame you if the tickets sell out in minutes, but I am still partially to blame because I should have been ready immediately. If I don't even have a chance because you gave 0 notice and I was at work, then you are definitely to blame.
In my mind it's clear that if you intentionally give priority to one group it's obviously unfair and people will be upset. If they implemented a rule that women can get passes a day earlier than men, because it's too much of a sausage fest, then you would see people getting justifiably upset. But even if you don't intentionally prioritize a group, if one group is still getting a priority, people will still be upset. By giving 0 notice on the exact time tickets would go on sale, you are giving priority to those people with flexible schedules/work. I think gabe's post a few pages back mentioned that 3 day passes sold out in a few hours, so even if I received the tweet, if I was at a place of work that did not allow me access to a computer/the internet then I would be SOL. Thus you are giving priority to some people, and so others are upset.
The fairest way seems to be a lottery, since you are giving 0 priority to any specific group, but it's also the most upsetting for every other reason. Namely that people don't like decisions based on luck, and that it is the system most likely to be heavily gamed. Personally, I would probably favor the way they do it now, but with the staggered sales. If they sell out quickly they sell out quickly.
Yeah, that's a p dumb system.
Well, in fairness they also throw a convention with tens of thousands of attendees for the sole purpose of announcing that tickets to prime will be on sale shortly, so be ready.
Also, unless you're at a workplace where you literally cannot get a phone call out and/or you have neither friends nor family willing to help, you can still put in the effort and get a pass, even with no notice.
A friend called me from an aircraft carrier and had me buy his passes. I did. He got passes.
Because he made sure he had a way to get notified.
And if even that is impossible (you have access to neither web nor phone nor email) then sign a friend or relative up for the SMS-forwarded tweet and email.
I'd say that less than 1% of people who got screwed on the no-notice thing legitimately had no means to work around it. They just didn't because they didn't think they had to.
And not announcing a time reduces, at least in theory, the threat of a one minute sellout crush.
This only works up until badges go out. I believe they do now, though.
Once badges go out, it's a matter of allowing transfer or having badges go unused.
Even if scalping was a really big problem it would still be fair for the criteria of "person willing to pay the most gets to go". The only thing is that the money goes to someone else than the PA-guys, but it's not like they're cheated out of any money.
I think Gabe said something about there being about 1.7 tickets sold for each sale, seems unlikely that scalper wouldn't buy much more.
I'm not saying that all impacted events should have community priority presales, or that all tickets should be given out that way.
I'm saying it's one strategy that can work alongside other strategies, and depends on the kind of event you want to have.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm just not seeing how it would really work though. Who is the community?
Whoever the event hosts & promoters say they are.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Im sure they already do give away tickets to people. They just dont advertise it and you aren't one of those people.
Have some sort of competition, and perhaps a lottery for the right to prebuy pax tickets at face value, 2 tickets a winner or some such.
Then Sell the bulk of the passes standard style.
Maybe get rid of 1 day passes.