The argument about this topic was closed in the PAX forum and the mod said that this was the appropriate place to have this discussion, so I'll bite. Let's discuss.
I am one of the many disappointed people who completely missed the window and are unable to attend. I am frustrated, but I'm hoping this is a constructive conversation about finding the best solution for the future, not a place just to complain and express anger. I know the PA staff were as surprised as everyone else that they sold so fast, and I really hope they consider making improvements for next year.
Since the convention is so popular, there are always going to be people who don't get to go, and it's human nature for those who missed out to feel like it's unfair and for those who got tickets to feel like it's fair. I am trying to approach this from the idea that if I was unable to get a pass regardless, which system would make me feel like I had the most fair and equal opportunity?
Here is a list of ideas assembled from previous discussion:
1. Announce a day/time ahead of time for tickets to go on sale.
2. Choose a time in the evening, Pacific time to allow for west coast professionals to be home from work.
3. Sell tickets in batches so people can have multiple options/opportunities for attempting to get tickets.
4. Use a lottery system.
5. Make badges non-transferable and require photo ID or credit card verification at the convention.
6. Use alternative notification methods in addition to Twitter.
Posts
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think a mitigating factor for this would be to not sell three-day badges at all, and try to have the same panels and things on multiple days. Sure, it will limit the content a bit more, but it would allow way more people to go to PAX.
Right now pax rewards mostly sweat or cash. If you put in the effort you got a Three day, or you pay a little more for three singles, or you pay a scalper.
As any event sells out fast enough, that shifts towards luck and cash. No amount of effort can necessarily overcome a one minute sellout, so you get lucky or you pay a scalper.
I personally don't dig the lottery idea, because it takes the choice out of my hands. I can pay more, and I'm willing.
In the end its a zero sum game, and many of the calls for fairness are really about wanting a better chance that you have a seat when the music stops.
I will say that some means of legitimately transferring passes would be great.
True that, and this really is the only good solution (finding a way to increase supply).
Otherwise it's just arguing over how we pick the winners.
Second, there absolutely needs to be greater notification of when tickets will go on sale. The Penny-Arcade store has my e-mail address, and I regularly get e-mails from them, so it should be relatively simple for the store to send me notifications of when tickets go on sale.
Yes, people pay $300 for the privilege of spending a week naked covered in caustic dust in a place with no running water.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think this makes perfect sense and I don't understand why it isn't already that way.
This won't help anything.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, that's a good idea too.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Why not? Better to know when tickets at least go on sale so I can at least try instead of having mcdermott post in the forums telling us that the three day passes were all gone, informing all of us that the tickets were on sale and we better get them quick.
It wasn't just that they went so quickly, but that no one knew when they did. It doesn't fix the overall problem, but it does help to mitigate the "right place at the right time" problem.
but really I find the general conversation about event ticketing more interesting than PAX specific issues.
Because everybody else who wants tickets (scalpers and genuine attendees) will get the same notification.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This also seems like the method likely to generate the most rage, though. It seems like selling tickets in batches would probably do the most to alleviate people's issues, although it might cost more for the convention to do it that way.
*all of this of course depends on what you consider 'fair.' Think whatever you want about scalpers, they are a mechanism which corrects the price of tickets for demand in the market. You could make an equally valid case that scalpers make the ticket market more 'fair,' or that the 'fairest' method would be to simply sell the tickets by public auction.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It wouldn't work for Burning Man (because people want to use their cutesy pseudonyms) but fuck Burning Man.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
A lot of people chose not to use it, or didn't know. Now hopefully they do.
Isn't that now Glastonbury has worked for the last few years?
Last time I went to a PAX was a couple years ago; my brother bought a pass but could only go one day, so he gave me the pass for the other two. In other circumstances we'd have both had to buy one, meaning one less for somebody else.
ed: it also potentially makes entry lines an even bigger clusterfuck than they already can be
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Yep. Glasto has had non-transferable named, photo id tickets for a while now in a vague attempt to beat the scalpers. And also for security reasons, allegedly.
I mentioned this specifically on the last page of the other thread.
ant "fix" has it's own problems, which is why I'm curious just how bad the scalping issue is here anyway.
Buy one-day passes? :rotate:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Doesn't the method matter though? In a win/lose game, I think it greatly matters to the loser if the game was fair. If I miss out on a lottery system, then I know that everyone got an equal chance, but if I miss out because the time was unannounced and I happen to be working, then that feels very unfair.
It sounds like you would want to keep the system of scalpers because you're willing to pay more to attend the conference. On one hand, it makes sense to say that those who really want to attend are willing to pay more and therefore that's fair, but on the other hand, should how much someone "wants" to go be defined by how much they are able to pay, and is it ethical that scalpers make hundreds of dollar off exploiting the system?
How about this proposition? What if they found away to eliminate scalpers (no ticket transfers - require photo ID), but they reserved a certain number of tickets to be auctioned off with the proceed going to Child's Play? That way, those who are willing to spend more to guarantee their tickets would at least be putting that money towards a good cause? Additionally, those who buy the tickets would know with 100% certainty that they are legitimate.
I don't know how many people buy a 3-day pass with the intention of only attending for two days, but I think it makes sense that a 3-day pass should no be cheaper than 2 individual passes. Paying an additional $20-30 dollars shouldn't have a huge financial effect on attendees and think of all the amazing things they could do with the additional revenue.
So, I'd go on and say "I'm Steve James, I'll be paying with VISA #3324 and I want to buy 2-4 tickets"
Then, If I'm lucky the next day I'll get a message saying "Congratulations, you've been assigned 3 tickets. Your card has been billed $300. See you there"
Then it comes down to luck.
Adjust ratios as desired.
The lottery system would certainly make people feel like they have less control and that may make some people angrier. At least with pre-announced times and selling in batches, people feel like they can do something to increase their chances, even though it might come down to luck with the servers being overloaded anyway.
That's a good point about scalpers, but at the same time, the opportunity to make hundreds of dollars for virtually no effort is going to create a much larger rush for ticket sales. In addition, without any means to confirm legitimacy of the passes prior to the conference, it also creates the opportunity for scammers. Lastly, given the very cheap prices of PAX passes which makes it affordable for many people, I think it really goes against the spirit of the conference that people are being exploited for hundreds of dollars. Maybe instead, they should set aside 10-20% of tickets to be auctioned off so those who are willing to pay that much to assure their spot can and that money can go to Child's Play.
Has anyone been to Glastonbury. Does this seems to work well logistically?
The problem with that is that ticket access still massively favors those who can simply sit at their computers at 6AM or whatever on release day with a robot to buy the tickets for them or something. It helps to prevent agencies buying up all the tickets, but still doesn't let people at work (or in different time zones) have convenient access. Lottery system + Photos is even better.
I mean, there are conventions that successfully host 100s of 1000s.
EDIT: sorry if that's naive or ignorant
Not without leaving seattle. And likely not without changing the character of the con.
What about the case where you want go with one other person?
Personally in this case I'd put in for 5 just for the extra chances and "scalp" any extras I get at face + service + ~10% "convenience".
It has nothing to do with elitism. A huge arena concert will always be a fundamentally different experience than a small club show. You make it big enough, it turns into a different experience. I've already made it clear we should look for ways to allow as many more people as possible to enjoy it, without changing it more than necessary. That's, like, the opposite of elitism.
Yeah, I wouldn't use a system wherein I may end up either buying tickets that I have no legal use for or end up with one ticket and unable to take my wife along. Either way I've wasted money.
Regarding changing the nature of the con: I don't really see how increasing the floor space changes the nature of the event. It's already big. Leaving Seattle might change the con, but PAX East seems to be doing well enough.
Pricing change and non-transferable would be nice too.
I dunno, I was considering going since I didn't get a delegate slot for the dnc, but totally missed the window while working. I'm not particularly crushed, but for someone who might have really wanted to, that would be awful.