Real Talk: is it time for a new Prime venue?

1235»

Posts

  • sanovahsanovah Nerd of the West San Diego, CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    There's also people like me who make a third group.

    Like I said I love Seattle and Washington enough that I'm moving there next year, but am realistic enough realize it's just gotten to big for where it is and it'll stay like that until they start and finish their expansion.

    That's why I said my ideal solution would be to PAX to a bigger city and center for a few years and then return with a bang once Seattle finally finishes their expansion. It's the best of both worlds.

    As for the argument against because it makes super popular things more difficult. Maybe I'm a minority that purposefully avoids demos. But I don't think we should artificially restrict the rest of the convention because one aspect might take a little longer or actually require someone to make a choice of what they want to do. So I really don't buy or accept that argument against changing venues or expanding the center.

  • QuintiousQuintious Registered User regular
    Vapok wrote: »
    Being from Boston, and living here in the Boston area, I can concur with any sentiments that the environs around the BCEC in Boston.. absolutely suck donkey nuggets.

    One thing PAX did regarding that problem that I liked was to have a food shuttle that would take people to various dining districts. I didn't know about it until the last day of the convention, but it was a brilliant idea. For the record, it was but a 8 dollar cab ride to get from BCEC to Faneuil Hall and all of the great eats around there - so not too bad, but obviously not even .00001% as convenient as Seattle's "walk out the front door - congratulations, you're in the heart of everything".

  • Cultural Geek GirlCultural Geek Girl Registered User regular
    sanovah wrote: »
    There's also people like me who make a third group.

    Like I said I love Seattle and Washington enough that I'm moving there next year, but am realistic enough realize it's just gotten to big for where it is and it'll stay like that until they start and finish their expansion.

    That's why I said my ideal solution would be to PAX to a bigger city and center for a few years and then return with a bang once Seattle finally finishes their expansion. It's the best of both worlds.

    As for the argument against because it makes super popular things more difficult. Maybe I'm a minority that purposefully avoids demos. But I don't think we should artificially restrict the rest of the convention because one aspect might take a little longer or actually require someone to make a choice of what they want to do. So I really don't buy or accept that argument against changing venues or expanding the center.

    I'm really confused as to what you're trying to say here. Like, I literally cannot extract any meaning from your last paragraph. But I will address the part of your post I do understand.

    Changing venues "for a few years" is a friggen nightmare. I know quite a few Conrunners, and any year that a con is in a new venue is fives times the effort as having it in the same venue. Nobody trusts you. Nobody knows what your attendees will be like. Your affiliates who are trying to book off-site space don't have relationships with anybody. Your people trying to organize off-site events don't know anybody. You don't know any of the vendors in the area. Nobody knows how much money you can actually bring in, and they are highly skeptical of figures imported from different markets.

    So you're basically saying "it's better to make the PA guys go through the tiny hell that is moving a convention to another city, just so that people don't have to go to East."

    Buttoneer, Brigadeer, and Keeper of the Book of Wil Wheaton.
    Triwizard Drinking Tournament - '09 !Hufflepuff unofficial conscript, '10 !Gryffindor
    Nerd blog at culturalgeekgirl.com
  • LexiconGrrlLexiconGrrl Registered User regular
    So again, to repeat a point that's been beaten to death:

    Gabe, Tycho and the entire team LIVE in Seattle. They work here, their families and kids are here, and they've got lives and friends and school meetings to go to that preclude them from being road warriors. Seattle is the home team location.

    PAX isn't going to move. Period.

    Happily on Sabbatical. Don't bug me.
  • JackKieserJackKieser Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    sanovah wrote: »
    An interesting side effect to not changing the venue and letting the event continue to grow is the inevitable ability of people to fill the void that the convention leaves in their schedules. I'm talking about community run events, which I predict will get more involved and more interesting as future PAXes become more crowded and the one-day passes get more attention.

    A lot of people - especially the forumers - go to PAX as much for the community as for the convention itself. Think about the things you like doing at PAX and then think about how much of that is really dependent on being physically inside the convention versus being in the same city with a bunch of like minded people who have shared interests. There's not that much that can only happen inside the WSCC. Want to see Front in concert? Go to his Post-PAX show. Want to get some boardgame on? Go to one of the many boardgame meetups before and after PAX. Can't attend a panel? Get together at someone's hotel room and stream it on Twitch TV.

    I predict that the venue won't change, but instead we're going to see more and more PAX-centric events - both planned and spontaneous - outside of PAX that are thrown by attendees who only got partial tickets. It's not unrealistic to envision a day in the near future where PAX attendees come to Seattle and schedule their PAX tickets around the other events that are happening.

    I personally don't see the popularity of the con as some huge problem to overcome, I see it as an opportunity for community members to come forward and expand PAX on their own. As individuals, we can define the convention as broadly or narrowly as we want to but in the end, what makes PAX special is the amazing community that's attracted to it, and to fully experience that, we don't need no stinkin' badges.

    But does PAX have to be in Seattle for any of this to happen?

    Don't get me wrong I love Seattle and Washington, hell I'm moving up there, but PAX has grown to big for Seattle to accommodate. You guys are planning an expansion but that's probably years off. So do we just tell everyone to suck it up and go to east or not at all until the expansion is finished because PAX is too big for the current convention center? I love PAX and the city it's in but it's undeniable that it's grown too big for where it is and until that changes the venue needs to and should change.

    My ideal solution would be to leave Seattle for say SF or Vegas for a couple years. Let Seattle expand the center and come back bigger and better than ever when it's finished.

    PAX does belong in Seattle but at the current time they can't give it the space it needs. We've expanded into Seattle but that doesn't mean any more can attend.

    At this point, I think we've mostly coalesced into two main groups.

    Group 1: It's OK to sacrifice a walkable, hospitable city, PA and the community's established relationships with local hotels and venues, and the entire general vibe of the original PAX to simply provide a larger PAX that takes place during key marketing times when vendors would spend more money on making fancy booths.

    Group 2: The walkable, hospitable city and our relationships with local organizations and vendors are a key part of PAX. If you want to easily buy tickets, go to East. Maybe we'll get some more PAXes later, but there's something about Seattle that makes it a nice place. Also, the weather there is better, this time of year, than most other places.

    At this point, it's a matter of opinion. I barely go to the show floor, (cause cookies!), so I don't feel like going to PAX East instead is the booby prize. The only thing that's worse about PAX East than PAX Prime for me is the area I step out into when I step outside the door. The first year of PAX East, it was in the beautiful center of marvelous Boston. Now it's in a bigger con center, at the expense of having anything fun or useful within walking distance of the con itself.

    I understand thinking the fancy "Ok guys, this is our marketing PUSH! Gogogo!" show floor being a huge draw, and the one at East being slightly less amazing, but I don't think it's worth it to sacrifice the total package that is Seattle so that more people can go to the convention that happens to coincide with prime marketing season.

    Ok, that is disingenuous. Your characterization of group 1 is entirely oversimplified, at best, and completely wrong, at worst. It should say:

    Group 1: PAX is about the community, first and foremost, and that means two things (that are the same thing). First of all, the more people who can come to a PAX, the better, because the community is larger. Larger community means more fun, even if it's a bit more unwieldy. Second, the more people that are excluded, the worse off we all are. PAX has always been about inclusion, above all else: include the tabletop players, the video gamers, the card players, the all-purpose nerds... everyone gets in. For every person who passionately wants to go to PAX that can't, PAX isn't living up to its creed; it's a disservice to us all. We may love the city of Seattle and have emotional reasons for staying here, but they are just that: emotional. Besides tradition, the one possible bad thing about moving is longer Expo hall lines, and that's hardly a deal breaker. If the cost of increasing the PAX community is moving to another city, then that's an acceptable cost for all of the good that the increased inclusion would bring. Therefore, move PAX Prime.

    Group 2: PAX Prime is characterized by Seattle; being anywhere else means it's not really Prime anymore. The emotional context of PAX is important, because many people come to PAX because of what it means to them: the family feeling, the feeling of home. To move Prime somewhere else undermines that feeling, make Prime less authentic. Yes, the city / venue is imperfect, but those imperfections are part of what gives Prime its character and feel. The side events, the extra stuff, Seattle (as a city)... all of those things are inextricable parts of Prime. Yes, we've reached capacity, and yes, that's a sad thing. But, if we move Prime, we'll be giving up a huge part of both PAX Prime and ourselves, as Prime attendees. Sure, we can add some more people to the list of attendees by moving, but if doing so destroys the heart of Prime, what is the point? Therefore, PAX Prime must stay in Seattle.


    Balanced-Brawl-Sig-2.gif?t=1271711610
  • Cultural Geek GirlCultural Geek Girl Registered User regular
    JackKieser wrote: »
    sanovah wrote: »
    An interesting side effect to not changing the venue and letting the event continue to grow is the inevitable ability of people to fill the void that the convention leaves in their schedules. I'm talking about community run events, which I predict will get more involved and more interesting as future PAXes become more crowded and the one-day passes get more attention.

    A lot of people - especially the forumers - go to PAX as much for the community as for the convention itself. Think about the things you like doing at PAX and then think about how much of that is really dependent on being physically inside the convention versus being in the same city with a bunch of like minded people who have shared interests. There's not that much that can only happen inside the WSCC. Want to see Front in concert? Go to his Post-PAX show. Want to get some boardgame on? Go to one of the many boardgame meetups before and after PAX. Can't attend a panel? Get together at someone's hotel room and stream it on Twitch TV.

    I predict that the venue won't change, but instead we're going to see more and more PAX-centric events - both planned and spontaneous - outside of PAX that are thrown by attendees who only got partial tickets. It's not unrealistic to envision a day in the near future where PAX attendees come to Seattle and schedule their PAX tickets around the other events that are happening.

    I personally don't see the popularity of the con as some huge problem to overcome, I see it as an opportunity for community members to come forward and expand PAX on their own. As individuals, we can define the convention as broadly or narrowly as we want to but in the end, what makes PAX special is the amazing community that's attracted to it, and to fully experience that, we don't need no stinkin' badges.

    But does PAX have to be in Seattle for any of this to happen?

    Don't get me wrong I love Seattle and Washington, hell I'm moving up there, but PAX has grown to big for Seattle to accommodate. You guys are planning an expansion but that's probably years off. So do we just tell everyone to suck it up and go to east or not at all until the expansion is finished because PAX is too big for the current convention center? I love PAX and the city it's in but it's undeniable that it's grown too big for where it is and until that changes the venue needs to and should change.

    My ideal solution would be to leave Seattle for say SF or Vegas for a couple years. Let Seattle expand the center and come back bigger and better than ever when it's finished.

    PAX does belong in Seattle but at the current time they can't give it the space it needs. We've expanded into Seattle but that doesn't mean any more can attend.

    At this point, I think we've mostly coalesced into two main groups.

    Group 1: It's OK to sacrifice a walkable, hospitable city, PA and the community's established relationships with local hotels and venues, and the entire general vibe of the original PAX to simply provide a larger PAX that takes place during key marketing times when vendors would spend more money on making fancy booths.

    Group 2: The walkable, hospitable city and our relationships with local organizations and vendors are a key part of PAX. If you want to easily buy tickets, go to East. Maybe we'll get some more PAXes later, but there's something about Seattle that makes it a nice place. Also, the weather there is better, this time of year, than most other places.

    At this point, it's a matter of opinion. I barely go to the show floor, (cause cookies!), so I don't feel like going to PAX East instead is the booby prize. The only thing that's worse about PAX East than PAX Prime for me is the area I step out into when I step outside the door. The first year of PAX East, it was in the beautiful center of marvelous Boston. Now it's in a bigger con center, at the expense of having anything fun or useful within walking distance of the con itself.

    I understand thinking the fancy "Ok guys, this is our marketing PUSH! Gogogo!" show floor being a huge draw, and the one at East being slightly less amazing, but I don't think it's worth it to sacrifice the total package that is Seattle so that more people can go to the convention that happens to coincide with prime marketing season.

    Ok, that is disingenuous. Your characterization of group 1 is entirely oversimplified, at best, and completely wrong, at worst. It should say:

    Group 1: PAX is about the community, first and foremost, and that means two things (that are the same thing). First of all, the more people who can come to a PAX, the better, because the community is larger. Larger community means more fun, even if it's a bit more unwieldy. Second, the more people that are excluded, the worse off we all are. PAX has always been about inclusion, above all else: include the tabletop players, the video gamers, the card players, the all-purpose nerds... everyone gets in. For every person who passionately wants to go to PAX that can't, PAX isn't living up to its creed; it's a disservice to us all. We may love the city of Seattle and have emotional reasons for staying here, but they are just that: emotional. Besides tradition, the one possible bad thing about moving is longer Expo hall lines, and that's hardly a deal breaker. If the cost of increasing the PAX community is moving to another city, then that's an acceptable cost for all of the good that the increased inclusion would bring. Therefore, move PAX Prime.

    Group 2: PAX Prime is characterized by Seattle; being anywhere else means it's not really Prime anymore. The emotional context of PAX is important, because many people come to PAX because of what it means to them: the family feeling, the feeling of home. To move Prime somewhere else undermines that feeling, make Prime less authentic. Yes, the city / venue is imperfect, but those imperfections are part of what gives Prime its character and feel. The side events, the extra stuff, Seattle (as a city)... all of those things are inextricable parts of Prime. Yes, we've reached capacity, and yes, that's a sad thing. But, if we move Prime, we'll be giving up a huge part of both PAX Prime and ourselves, as Prime attendees. Sure, we can add some more people to the list of attendees by moving, but if doing so destroys the heart of Prime, what is the point? Therefore, PAX Prime must stay in Seattle.

    You'd have a point, except for one vital flaw: East exists.

    If you want to go to a PAX you can be guaranteed to get into, go to East. If PAX is PAX no matter where it is, then go to East. At this point, you can definitely get into East if you plan ahead even a little bit. Saturday passes for PAX East lasted more than a month... almost two months.

    If PAX is PAX wherever you go, then go to East. Everyone who cares enough about PAX to buy tickets within a week of when they go live can still probably go to all days of East, and pretty much anyone can go to East for at least a couple days.

    If PAX is PAX wherever it is, then PAX East is just as good as PAX Prime. Right?

    Buttoneer, Brigadeer, and Keeper of the Book of Wil Wheaton.
    Triwizard Drinking Tournament - '09 !Hufflepuff unofficial conscript, '10 !Gryffindor
    Nerd blog at culturalgeekgirl.com
  • JackKieserJackKieser Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2013
    I don't have any point. I don't agree with either side, as of right now. All I was saying is that you didn't characterize the debate properly, something I'm trying to fix. I'm arguing for both sides, trying to bolster both arguments as much as I can.

    Although, you know as well as I do that there is NOT agreement on the PAX Prime == PAX East point. Some people (obviously, in the case of Group 2) just do not think they are equal, with the implication that Prime is more important / better (hence, the 'Prime' designation).

    People in Group 1 would argue that Prime is Prime not because of the venue, but because of the culture. They'd probably argue that East tries to replicate Prime, but does not; there is something non-venue specific that defines Prime from East (possibly nothing more than the 'Prime' designation, but likely something more than that), and that thing, or group of things, makes Prime more desirable than East, for many people. Regardless of our judgment of that desirability, it's our duty, as the PA community, to respect that desire and make Prime as inclusive as possible, not necessarily because they are right to differentiate, but because whatever the reason, Prime and East are not equitable and because no one should be denied the opportunity to go to whichever event they choose on principled grounds. To Group 1, the "just go to East" argument makes no sense because no person should be forced into one PAX or another simply because of venue size, something that can be controlled and changed. To be able to change venue and not is tantamount to telling those people "we know that you WANT to go where you want to go, but we don't care", and that is impermissible.

    People in Group 2, however, ALSO wouldn't agree with you, not entirely. They obviously differentiate Prime from East; that cultural differentiation is a key component of their argument. They recognize that Prime and East are not the same, and that an easy comparison or replacement between the two of them is impossible, or at least not helpful. It is exactly the cultural differences between Prime and East that they want to preserve; in particular, they don't just want to replace Prime's culture with another one by changing the venue to a larger place, because they want Prime's culture to continue indefinitely, unhindered and unaltered. The difference is that Group 2 has no problem with telling those who want to go to Prime but can't that they must choose. Group 2 sees those who want to go to Prime, but can't due to venue size, and feel bad for them, but considering their desire to preserve Prime as it is, they have no other choice but to tell those people that they cannot (and maybe can't never be guaranteed to) have what they want. It is a difficult thing for them to say, but they can say it in service of preserving Prime's culture.

    JackKieser on

    Balanced-Brawl-Sig-2.gif?t=1271711610
  • sanovahsanovah Nerd of the West San Diego, CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    JackKieser wrote: »
    sanovah wrote: »
    An interesting side effect to not changing the venue and letting the event continue to grow is the inevitable ability of people to fill the void that the convention leaves in their schedules. I'm talking about community run events, which I predict will get more involved and more interesting as future PAXes become more crowded and the one-day passes get more attention.

    A lot of people - especially the forumers - go to PAX as much for the community as for the convention itself. Think about the things you like doing at PAX and then think about how much of that is really dependent on being physically inside the convention versus being in the same city with a bunch of like minded people who have shared interests. There's not that much that can only happen inside the WSCC. Want to see Front in concert? Go to his Post-PAX show. Want to get some boardgame on? Go to one of the many boardgame meetups before and after PAX. Can't attend a panel? Get together at someone's hotel room and stream it on Twitch TV.

    I predict that the venue won't change, but instead we're going to see more and more PAX-centric events - both planned and spontaneous - outside of PAX that are thrown by attendees who only got partial tickets. It's not unrealistic to envision a day in the near future where PAX attendees come to Seattle and schedule their PAX tickets around the other events that are happening.

    I personally don't see the popularity of the con as some huge problem to overcome, I see it as an opportunity for community members to come forward and expand PAX on their own. As individuals, we can define the convention as broadly or narrowly as we want to but in the end, what makes PAX special is the amazing community that's attracted to it, and to fully experience that, we don't need no stinkin' badges.

    But does PAX have to be in Seattle for any of this to happen?

    Don't get me wrong I love Seattle and Washington, hell I'm moving up there, but PAX has grown to big for Seattle to accommodate. You guys are planning an expansion but that's probably years off. So do we just tell everyone to suck it up and go to east or not at all until the expansion is finished because PAX is too big for the current convention center? I love PAX and the city it's in but it's undeniable that it's grown too big for where it is and until that changes the venue needs to and should change.

    My ideal solution would be to leave Seattle for say SF or Vegas for a couple years. Let Seattle expand the center and come back bigger and better than ever when it's finished.

    PAX does belong in Seattle but at the current time they can't give it the space it needs. We've expanded into Seattle but that doesn't mean any more can attend.

    At this point, I think we've mostly coalesced into two main groups.

    Group 1: It's OK to sacrifice a walkable, hospitable city, PA and the community's established relationships with local hotels and venues, and the entire general vibe of the original PAX to simply provide a larger PAX that takes place during key marketing times when vendors would spend more money on making fancy booths.

    Group 2: The walkable, hospitable city and our relationships with local organizations and vendors are a key part of PAX. If you want to easily buy tickets, go to East. Maybe we'll get some more PAXes later, but there's something about Seattle that makes it a nice place. Also, the weather there is better, this time of year, than most other places.

    At this point, it's a matter of opinion. I barely go to the show floor, (cause cookies!), so I don't feel like going to PAX East instead is the booby prize. The only thing that's worse about PAX East than PAX Prime for me is the area I step out into when I step outside the door. The first year of PAX East, it was in the beautiful center of marvelous Boston. Now it's in a bigger con center, at the expense of having anything fun or useful within walking distance of the con itself.

    I understand thinking the fancy "Ok guys, this is our marketing PUSH! Gogogo!" show floor being a huge draw, and the one at East being slightly less amazing, but I don't think it's worth it to sacrifice the total package that is Seattle so that more people can go to the convention that happens to coincide with prime marketing season.

    Ok, that is disingenuous. Your characterization of group 1 is entirely oversimplified, at best, and completely wrong, at worst. It should say:

    Group 1: PAX is about the community, first and foremost, and that means two things (that are the same thing). First of all, the more people who can come to a PAX, the better, because the community is larger. Larger community means more fun, even if it's a bit more unwieldy. Second, the more people that are excluded, the worse off we all are. PAX has always been about inclusion, above all else: include the tabletop players, the video gamers, the card players, the all-purpose nerds... everyone gets in. For every person who passionately wants to go to PAX that can't, PAX isn't living up to its creed; it's a disservice to us all. We may love the city of Seattle and have emotional reasons for staying here, but they are just that: emotional. Besides tradition, the one possible bad thing about moving is longer Expo hall lines, and that's hardly a deal breaker. If the cost of increasing the PAX community is moving to another city, then that's an acceptable cost for all of the good that the increased inclusion would bring. Therefore, move PAX Prime.

    Group 2: PAX Prime is characterized by Seattle; being anywhere else means it's not really Prime anymore. The emotional context of PAX is important, because many people come to PAX because of what it means to them: the family feeling, the feeling of home. To move Prime somewhere else undermines that feeling, make Prime less authentic. Yes, the city / venue is imperfect, but those imperfections are part of what gives Prime its character and feel. The side events, the extra stuff, Seattle (as a city)... all of those things are inextricable parts of Prime. Yes, we've reached capacity, and yes, that's a sad thing. But, if we move Prime, we'll be giving up a huge part of both PAX Prime and ourselves, as Prime attendees. Sure, we can add some more people to the list of attendees by moving, but if doing so destroys the heart of Prime, what is the point? Therefore, PAX Prime must stay in Seattle.

    You'd have a point, except for one vital flaw: East exists.

    If you want to go to a PAX you can be guaranteed to get into, go to East. If PAX is PAX no matter where it is, then go to East. At this point, you can definitely get into East if you plan ahead even a little bit. Saturday passes for PAX East lasted more than a month... almost two months.

    If PAX is PAX wherever you go, then go to East. Everyone who cares enough about PAX to buy tickets within a week of when they go live can still probably go to all days of East, and pretty much anyone can go to East for at least a couple days.

    If PAX is PAX wherever it is, then PAX East is just as good as PAX Prime. Right?

    "Go to east" would be a halfway decent response except for one vital flaw: it's in March.

    One of the biggest reasons I and probably many others go to Seattle PAX is because it's in August. August is during the summer season when most Americans can and do take vacations and its also right before the holiday marketing season starts.

    That means if I want to see new things I need to go to Prime because at east there either is no news or everything we get is already known.

    So unless they want to switch prime to March and east to August the "go to east" argument doesn't work. Sorry =p

  • Cultural Geek GirlCultural Geek Girl Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    JackKieser wrote: »
    I don't have any point. I don't agree with either side, as of right now. All I was saying is that you didn't characterize the debate properly.

    I'll admit that I was a bit harsh, but you're just doing what a huge amount of people on the "move it" side of the debate are doing: ignoring East as a valid PAX.

    "PAX completely sells out! I wanted to go to PAX!"
    "OK. Wait six months, and save up some money for a flight. You can go to PAX."
    "Nuh-unh!"

    I go to both PAXes currently, but that's because I Cookie Brigade, and I have friends on both coasts who I visit at specific PAXes. For me, the only thing Prime has that East doesn't is "Aquisitions Inc." (This is only if you count exclusively official events. If you count unofficial events, then there is an immense difference, but I'm setting that aside for now.)

    When the "let's move PAX" crowd argues that everybody should be able to attend PAX, and we point out that they can attend East pretty easily, they almost never explain why East isn't a good enough option. Until they can explain that without referencing game marketing events they want to see, it's hard for me to understand their real concerns, and they can't possibly resemble anything like what you've outlined.

    I think they just really want to be present for the big marketing push season.
    sanovah wrote: »
    One of the biggest reasons I and probably many others go to Seattle PAX is because it's in August. August is during the summer season when most Americans can and do take vacations and its also right before the holiday marketing season starts.

    That means if I want to see new things I need to go to Prime because at east there either is no news or everything we get is already known.

    So unless they want to switch prime to March and east to August the "go to east" argument doesn't work. Sorry =p

    And here comes Sanovah to prove my point: he thinks that the announcements and marketing season aspect of PAX is the most important aspect, which is how I originally classified the "Let's move PAX" position. So my original argument about why PAX-Movers want PAX moved has just been explicitly confirmed by a person who wants to move PAX.

    As for the argument about March... no matter where you live in the country, you should only have to take one day off to attend a full PAX. Maybe 2, if you can't afford to fly in Thursday night and out Sunday night. Are you saying that you can't ever take a single day off? That the only day you can take off the entire year round is whatever Friday PAX Prime falls on? That doesn't make any sense at all.

    Cultural Geek Girl on
    Buttoneer, Brigadeer, and Keeper of the Book of Wil Wheaton.
    Triwizard Drinking Tournament - '09 !Hufflepuff unofficial conscript, '10 !Gryffindor
    Nerd blog at culturalgeekgirl.com
  • JackKieserJackKieser Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2013
    Woah, woah woah. First of all, again, I'm not arguing FOR a point.

    Second, I said pretty explicitly in both of my posts that the issue is NOT "going to A PAX". The issue is "choosing which PAX to go to". Some people (I'm guessing you are included here, but correct me if I'm wrong) are ok with forcing that decision on some people because of venue size. Those people are content with telling a portion of the community "I understand that you WANT to choose which PAX you go to, but we are telling you that you cannot. You must go to East, because getting into Prime is a crapshoot, at best, and borderline impossible, at worst, thanks to the ticketing issue. Moreover, we COULD, potentially, mitigate, if not solve (for the immediate future) this problem and allow you the choice (a real, valid choice!) between the 3 PAX venues by changing Prime's location, but we cannot / will not do that. We have decided not to do so."

    Some people, obviously, are ok with saying that to a large group of people, and that is without doubt the more realistic option. What I'm trying to say, all I'm trying to say, is that not everyone agrees with that, and moreover, their argument as to why we shouldn't say that is valid and strong, too.

    Again, the *reason* that people want to choose between the venues, to those in Group 1, is irrelevant. It can be that her employer literally always makes her work schedule conflict with East, and so without Prime moving, she *never* gets to go to any PAX, or it can be just that she prefers Prime because the name sounds better, but to those in Group 1, she should be able to choose either way. Not allowing a choice is a matter of justice. To not act, knowing that inaction will deny a person a choice, is simply wrong, as a matter of principle.

    Group 2, obviously, disagrees.

    JackKieser on

    Balanced-Brawl-Sig-2.gif?t=1271711610
  • Cultural Geek GirlCultural Geek Girl Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    JackKieser wrote: »
    Woah, woah woah. First of all, again, I'm not arguing FOR a point.

    Second, I said pretty explicitly in both of my posts that the issue is NOT "going to A PAX". The issue is "choosing which PAX to go to". Some people (I'm guessing you are included here, but correct me if I'm wrong) are ok with forcing that decision on some people because of venue size. Those people are content with telling a portion of the community "I understand that you WANT to choose which PAX you go to, but we are telling you that you cannot. You must go to East, because getting into Prime is a crapshoot, at best, and borderline impossible, at worst, thanks to the ticketing issue. Moreover, we COULD, potentially, mitigate, if not solve (for the immediate future) this problem and allow you the choice (a real, valid choice!) between the 3 PAX venues by changing Prime's location, but we cannot / will not do that. We have decided not to do so."

    Some people, obviously, are ok with saying that to a large group of people, and that is without doubt the more realistic option. What I'm trying to say, all I'm trying to say, is that not everyone agrees with that, and moreover, their argument as to why we shouldn't say that is valid and strong, too.

    I didn't say that you were representing a given side, merely perpetuating an argument that I find confusing.

    Let me try to clear things up.

    In 2009, there wasn't a PAX East, and PAX sold out for the first time.
    In 2010, PAX East started. Its explicit stated purpose: to allow more people to attend PAX.

    It has largely served that purpose. Now pretty much anyone who wants to attend PAX can attend PAX, with a reasonable level of expenditure and planning.

    The people who want to move PAX are saying that this isn't good enough. They must be able to have everything exactly how they want it: venue, date, and occupancy. Not only must we end PAX in Seattle, we must declare whatever new PAX we put in a bigger area "prime" and it must be held in a place designed for maximum occupancy.

    I'm in favor of a 3rd North American PAX, wherever the heck you want it. And doing that isn't entirely out of the question... Tycho said at this PAX East that he'd had a conversation with Khoo where Khoo said "I think you guys could do 4 or 5 of these a year." I don't even think that was a joke... more of a warning.

    The founders foresaw an issue where PAX would sell out. They offered their solution: an entirely new con, in a giant venue, in a new city. If you insist that PRIME must move, you're looking at the founders and saying "Your solution wasn't good enough. You must do this my way, to please me!"

    Cultural Geek Girl on
    Buttoneer, Brigadeer, and Keeper of the Book of Wil Wheaton.
    Triwizard Drinking Tournament - '09 !Hufflepuff unofficial conscript, '10 !Gryffindor
    Nerd blog at culturalgeekgirl.com
  • sanovahsanovah Nerd of the West San Diego, CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2013


    Lol really? I never said the marketing was the most important reason and that's exactly why prime has to move. I brought it up because it's fact that it's something that only happens at prime and is a factor in deciding what pax to go to for plenty of people myself included sometimes.

    Have you ever tried to do what you're suggesting by flying right in and back out with just enough time to maybe to enjoy something? Because I have and it is exactly zero fun and maximum stress and exhaustion. You are either jet lagged, tired, our stressed for your trip and before you know it it's over.

    As for the March vs August. I can only speak for myself but in every job I've ever worked it's always been easiest and cheaper to get time off during the summer than it is during winter/spring. And at my current job it actually is down right impossible for me to get any time off between December and June because that's our busy season where we're running from start till stop every day. But ignoring my personal situation it's fact that more people can and do take vacations during the summer months than they do the rest of the year.

    sanovah on
  • JackKieserJackKieser Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2013
    To some extent, you're correct: those who wanted to go to Prime and couldn't are claiming that they want Prime to change (I'm sure they'd rather say "evolve") in a fashion that allows them to go to Prime. If that, realistically, could be done in Seattle, they'd be cool with that. It does not seem that this is the case.

    You're also right that East's intended purpose was to increase possible PAX attendance. I think you'd be willing to agree (whether you think this is the case or not) that sometimes things "intended purposes" do not end up actually being how or why they exist / are used. Group 1 members would argue that, regardless of the Founder's intentions, East and Prime (and soon-to-be Australia) do not fill comparable or equitable roles. They are evolving their own cultures, and so, whereas year one East might have been a suitable replacement to Prime for most, it is quickly becoming the case that East is deviating from that intended purpose. Soon, if not now, East will not be a suitable replacement, in the pure sense of the word, to Prime.

    So, yes, some people, maybe a growing minority, want Prime to evolve through a venue change. You say it is out of some sort of selfish desire that runs counter to the Founder's solution, and therefore claim they have no right to ask (not even demand) that a venue change be considered. However... consider this:

    Every time someone gets up at a QA and thanks Gabe and Tycho for PAX, how do they react? What do they always say, without fail, every single time? "PAX is not ours, this is not for us. PAX is yours, and we do this for you. If it wasn't for you, the attendee, PAX would not exist; we would walk out on stage to "Hustlin' " and no one would be there to see it. We may organize PAX, but PAX does not belong to us, it belongs to you."

    Now, I'm sure you can see, understand, and appreciate why and how someone would hear that, year after year, straight from the mouths of the Founders and interpret that to mean "if you have a legitimate, credible idea for the improvement of PAX (either as a whole, or particular venues), you are within your rights to ask for it", and how to those people, asking for a venue change, specifically for the reasons I've outlined above, is not unreasonable... far from it.

    Remember: people in Group 1 do not care what the reasons people have are for going to Prime. They are not in the business of judging from on high who has a legitimate reason to go to Prime over East and who does not, nor are they in the business of judging who is deserving of a Prime badge over an East badge. Group 1 members do not care for those things. Group 1 members simply want ALL of PAX, which means each individual venue in addition to the whole operation, to be as inclusive as each one can be, and if changes are necessary for that to happen, they should be on the table.

    JackKieser on

    Balanced-Brawl-Sig-2.gif?t=1271711610
  • Cultural Geek GirlCultural Geek Girl Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    JackKieser wrote: »
    To some extent, you're correct: those who wanted to go to Prime and couldn't are claiming that they want Prime to change (I'm sure they'd rather say "evolve") in a fashion that allows them to go to Prime. If that, realistically, could be done in Seattle, they'd be cool with that. It does not seem that this is the case.

    You're also right that East intended purpose was to increase possible PAX attendance. I think you'd be willing to agree (whether you think this is the case or not) that sometimes things "intended purposes" do not end up actually being how or why they exist / are used. Group 1 members would argue that, regardless of the Founder's intentions, East and Prime (and soon-to-be Australia) do not fill comparable or equitable roles. They are evolving their own cultures, and so, whereas year one East might have been a suitable replacement for most, it is quickly becoming the case that East is deviating from that intended purpose. Soon, if not now, East will not be a suitable replacement, the the pure sense of the word, to Prime.

    So, yes, some people, maybe a growing minority, want Prime to evolve through a venue change. You say it is out of some sort of selfish desire that runs counter to the Founder's solution, and therefore claim they have no right to ask (not even demand) that a venue change be considered. However... consider this:

    Every time someone gets up at a QA and thanks Gabe and Tycho for PAX, how do they react? What do they always say, without fail, every single time? "PAX is not ours, this is not for us. PAX is yours, and we do this for you. If it wasn't for you, the attendee, PAX would not exist; we would walk out on stage to "Hustlin' " and no one would be there to see it. We may organize PAX, but PAX does not belong to us, it belongs to you."

    Now, I'm sure you can see, understand, and appreciate why and how someone would hear that, year after year, straight from the mouths of the Founders and interpret that to mean "if you have a legitimate, credible idea for the improvement of PAX (either as a whole, or particular venues), you are within your rights to ask for it", and how to those people, asking for a venue change, specifically for the reasons I've outlined above, is not unreasonable... far from it.

    I think we may be reaching more of an understanding, now.

    I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest a venue change. I think it's unreasonable to insist it's the only fair solution, or to harangue them for not doing it... which is what many people in favor of a venue change are doing... basically saying that it's unconscionable for them to keep PAX in Seattle.

    However, a substantial number of other fans are saying "We do like it here, and we'd be grateful if you don't move it." So it's fair for them to listen to that feedback, too.

    I also know a lot of con staff, and they will tell you: moving to a different city hugely affects the total experience of your attendees, if they spend even an hour each day outside the convention hall itself. Eating in a restaurant that has the attitude "It's PAX time again! Hurray Nerds!" rather than "Ugh, another convention is here. Spend your money or get out" IS a factor to how a convention feels, no matter what you might think. The ability to run events like the Triwizard, the Pre-PAX dinner, and the Post-PAX party are factors, too - and those things are more possible when you're collaborating with businesses people have worked with before. From the objective standpoint of a convention runner, the first year PAX is in another city would be different. It is a simple fact of running conventions that the first year in a new city is immensely difficult, and sometimes that ends up having a negative effect on your attendees' enjoyment. Anyone other than the core con staff trying to set up events could potentially have problems as well. Essentially, the smaller and less corporate you are, the more potential a city change has to screw you over.

    For the first few years, it would be objectively harder to run the community events. I know those events don't matter to everybody, but I think that it's necessary that we acknowledge that, specifically.

    There's also the issue of Enforcers. A lot of them live near the show they work for, and establishing a new base in a new city would take time. Not that none of the existing enforcers would travel, but it's another hurdle.

    There are things about PAX that would definitely, 100% objectively change if it moved. If Gabe and Tycho did decide to move it, I wouldn't rage... but if the Triwizard stopped happening, I would be very very sad. Ultimately though, I'd say "they took into consideration everyone's preferences and made the call. It's their call."

    Gabe and Tycho have heard this suggestion. They've heard it thousands of times. They've said that they've considered and discussed it. If people really want to continue to politely suggest it, please do. I only take offense when someone implies that they haven't considered the suggestion, or that they are ignoring it, or acting wrongly by not following it.

    Cultural Geek Girl on
    Buttoneer, Brigadeer, and Keeper of the Book of Wil Wheaton.
    Triwizard Drinking Tournament - '09 !Hufflepuff unofficial conscript, '10 !Gryffindor
    Nerd blog at culturalgeekgirl.com
  • sterbacblusterbacblu Houston, TXRegistered User regular
    I'm probably going to repeat a lot of what I said on another thread, but I'm just not sure that multiple venues will help. A lot of people can only go to one PAX, and if they do, I don't think they'd go to their "local" PAX, I think they'd go to Prime. I'm a few hours from Austin, but if I could only attend one PAX for some reason, it would be Prime, which, technically, I'm also a few hours from, just via plane instead of car. A lot of publishers and developers, especially smaller ones, won't be able to go to 4 or 5 PAXes, and they're going to go to the more popular show, which would remain prime. Same with the panelists and bands. If you want to have a gathering for the gaming community without the "flair" that makes PAX what it is, you can do that without watering down the PAX name. Now as for what venue Prime is located in, the only way changing the venue would help is if you're absolutely certain the content is going to grow with it. Taking everything from a PAX and putting it in a venue that is twice the size means it's going to be twice as difficult to do everything you want to. If they can guarantee the content is going to increase in size as well, then fine, move it wherever. But wherever Prime is, that will always be the one true PAX.

  • ShocknaShockna Registered User regular
    JackKieser wrote: »
    For every person who passionately wants to go to PAX that can't

    Now, this is going to be a seriously unpopular nitpick, I'm sure, but I'd have to dispute this; even with the ticketing issues, the most passionate/obsessive who couldn't devote the time to watching the site (due to work or what have you) can still go to PAX, precisely because of the vultures that everybody rightly hates (or at least passionately dislikes >.>): scalpers.

    Now, paying an extra $120-200 is hardly an optimal situation, but I know I was prepared to do just that if I'd been timed out of a pass (which felt like it could actually happen, given my experience with showclix).

  • AlazullAlazull Your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park. Enjoy the ride.Registered User regular
    Yeah, moving the convention out of Seattle to get more space isn't really going to fix the problems. If anything, even when they do expand the convention center it will still not be enough to prevent the show selling out as fast as it does. And there are measures to be taken to make sure that the ticket selling process is fairer, but even still space is an issue.

    Prime needs to be in Seattle because without Seattle it just wouldn't be Prime anymore. Sure, I'm from Washington, but I live relatively far from the city and my job as a chef makes getting time off in the Summer really hard, like I work for weeks before and after without days off to get that weekend. So trust me, it being in a bigger place or at a more convenient time are of interest to me. But Prime isn't about just the guests who make it, or the bands who play, or the games in the expo hall, or the community events. It's about all of those, and I don't think its the kind of thing one can pick up and just set down any place.

    Seattle is vibed for this kind of event, its a very technology oriented city. Places like the Victory Lounge put people into contact with less common card and board games. People who live in town and don't know about PAX find it fascinating. We aren't just some people who show up for some expo and take over downtown and leave. We're PAX. Locals even look out for us, because as a whole we're good to them and have been for years. As someone who works in the hospitality industry, that's something that is hard won. Vegas would be fun, but come on we all know it would just be convention hall by day the Strip by night. What's the point of organizing something like the Triwizard for a city that is already one huge bacchanalian party? Portland is no offense a pretty hipster place and not too friendly to someone who really likes video games but couldn't tell you the name of the newest prog rock band. California has lots of large venues but why go to E3/SDCC territory with Prime?

    I guess my point is that all of the suggested cities make great expansions, but Prime without Seattle isn't Prime anymore. Maybe I'm overly romantic about it, but it just would never feel the same. PAX is what it is today because Jerry and Mike decided to try to make a gaming convention and the community picked up the torch and ran with it. That's what PAX should be focused on, and its something Prime has gotten away from a little bit but I think the guys do try hard to keep the spirit there.

    There are other options. We could have another convention. We could try to make all the conventions better! We could even move them to roughly the same time of year so that nobody felt left in the cold, both figuratively and literally. The WSTCC will eventually be expanded, and more people will be able to go! And if we make it so no one feels like they are truly at a lesser PAX, then there won't be as much drive to make it to Prime.

    And before you tear me apart, realize I didn't get passes either and I know Enforcers and people who work at video game companies. So yes, I am every bit as butthurt about it as you are.

    User name Alazull on Steam, PSN, Nintenders, Epic, etc.
  • RidleyDragonRidleyDragon Registered User regular
    Here's what it comes down to. There is another venue for PAX, it's in Boston, and happens in Spring.

    PW0oFIs.png
  • mostlyharmlessmostlyharmless Registered User regular
    To those who keep touting the "Go to East" perspective: I live in Seattle. Where is the logic in flying across the bloody country to attend a convention that is in my very backyard? (if only there was preference given to locals. Not that I don't love all the folks who come from out of town, but it certainly sucks when you can't get passes to a convention in your own city)

    I think expansion may be the necessary course, not expansion of Prime (not plausible at this point), but adding an additional PAX, at a different venue. The added opportunities to attend would, hopefully alleviate some of the pressure. I sincerely doubt there will ever be a point where the occupancy meets the demand for Prime. In this, I feel that East may have added to the demand of going to Prime, because we have many people who attend both East and Prime. Take it for what you will. I support the idea for having PAX Vegas or something to that variety. That may, in fact, be the best option. And, if you wander around Vegas in costume, nobody will look at you cross-eyed. They seem accustomed to unusual happenings and can handle big events like a boss.

  • QuintiousQuintious Registered User regular
    To those who keep touting the "Go to East" perspective: I live in Seattle. Where is the logic in flying across the bloody country to attend a convention that is in my very backyard? (if only there was preference given to locals. Not that I don't love all the folks who come from out of town, but it certainly sucks when you can't get passes to a convention in your own city)

    I think expansion may be the necessary course, not expansion of Prime (not plausible at this point), but adding an additional PAX, at a different venue. The added opportunities to attend would, hopefully alleviate some of the pressure. I sincerely doubt there will ever be a point where the occupancy meets the demand for Prime. In this, I feel that East may have added to the demand of going to Prime, because we have many people who attend both East and Prime. Take it for what you will. I support the idea for having PAX Vegas or something to that variety. That may, in fact, be the best option. And, if you wander around Vegas in costume, nobody will look at you cross-eyed. They seem accustomed to unusual happenings and can handle big events like a boss.

    As a local, you have another option: Buy from a reseller standing outside the convention center the day it starts. Yeah, it's not as cheap, but it is an option for you. People from out of town are leery to do that because of the expense involved with getting here and having to take the "risk" of whether or not they'll be able to find a badge. You have no such expense variable.

    Or else make friends with people who will always have access to badges.

  • PurpleSkyPurpleSky Registered User regular
    I think it should be noted that East is going to become just as difficult to get into as Prime. It is showing the same signs as Prime did where every year the amount of time it takes for badges to sell out decreases. I believe 3 day badges for East were gone in 1 day this year. So this isn't as much of an issue of space (although space is a factor) as it is more of demand. Granted East is awesome in terms of space but the demand can and probably will grow (especially since now more attention will be put on East because it is hard to get into Prime) to the point that two PAXes are not able to accommodate. I can't stress enough how much a 3rd one is needed and the PAX organizers will have to think of a way to encourage developers to show up to another one. That is, as others have mentioned in this discussion, one draw back to another PAX. Developers not wanting to invest in appearing at a 3rd due to diminishing returns. But I don't believe that is a big enough problem to keep from a 3rd PAX from happening.

  • sarge1445sarge1445 Registered User regular
    JackKieser wrote: »
    sanovah wrote: »
    An interesting side effect to not changing the venue and letting the event continue to grow is the inevitable ability of people to fill the void that the convention leaves in their schedules. I'm talking about community run events, which I predict will get more involved and more interesting as future PAXes become more crowded and the one-day passes get more attention.

    A lot of people - especially the forumers - go to PAX as much for the community as for the convention itself. Think about the things you like doing at PAX and then think about how much of that is really dependent on being physically inside the convention versus being in the same city with a bunch of like minded people who have shared interests. There's not that much that can only happen inside the WSCC. Want to see Front in concert? Go to his Post-PAX show. Want to get some boardgame on? Go to one of the many boardgame meetups before and after PAX. Can't attend a panel? Get together at someone's hotel room and stream it on Twitch TV.

    I predict that the venue won't change, but instead we're going to see more and more PAX-centric events - both planned and spontaneous - outside of PAX that are thrown by attendees who only got partial tickets. It's not unrealistic to envision a day in the near future where PAX attendees come to Seattle and schedule their PAX tickets around the other events that are happening.

    I personally don't see the popularity of the con as some huge problem to overcome, I see it as an opportunity for community members to come forward and expand PAX on their own. As individuals, we can define the convention as broadly or narrowly as we want to but in the end, what makes PAX special is the amazing community that's attracted to it, and to fully experience that, we don't need no stinkin' badges.

    But does PAX have to be in Seattle for any of this to happen?

    Don't get me wrong I love Seattle and Washington, hell I'm moving up there, but PAX has grown to big for Seattle to accommodate. You guys are planning an expansion but that's probably years off. So do we just tell everyone to suck it up and go to east or not at all until the expansion is finished because PAX is too big for the current convention center? I love PAX and the city it's in but it's undeniable that it's grown too big for where it is and until that changes the venue needs to and should change.

    My ideal solution would be to leave Seattle for say SF or Vegas for a couple years. Let Seattle expand the center and come back bigger and better than ever when it's finished.

    PAX does belong in Seattle but at the current time they can't give it the space it needs. We've expanded into Seattle but that doesn't mean any more can attend.

    At this point, I think we've mostly coalesced into two main groups.

    Group 1: It's OK to sacrifice a walkable, hospitable city, PA and the community's established relationships with local hotels and venues, and the entire general vibe of the original PAX to simply provide a larger PAX that takes place during key marketing times when vendors would spend more money on making fancy booths.

    Group 2: The walkable, hospitable city and our relationships with local organizations and vendors are a key part of PAX. If you want to easily buy tickets, go to East. Maybe we'll get some more PAXes later, but there's something about Seattle that makes it a nice place. Also, the weather there is better, this time of year, than most other places.

    At this point, it's a matter of opinion. I barely go to the show floor, (cause cookies!), so I don't feel like going to PAX East instead is the booby prize. The only thing that's worse about PAX East than PAX Prime for me is the area I step out into when I step outside the door. The first year of PAX East, it was in the beautiful center of marvelous Boston. Now it's in a bigger con center, at the expense of having anything fun or useful within walking distance of the con itself.

    I understand thinking the fancy "Ok guys, this is our marketing PUSH! Gogogo!" show floor being a huge draw, and the one at East being slightly less amazing, but I don't think it's worth it to sacrifice the total package that is Seattle so that more people can go to the convention that happens to coincide with prime marketing season.

    Ok, that is disingenuous. Your characterization of group 1 is entirely oversimplified, at best, and completely wrong, at worst. It should say:

    Group 1: PAX is about the community, first and foremost, and that means two things (that are the same thing). First of all, the more people who can come to a PAX, the better, because the community is larger. Larger community means more fun, even if it's a bit more unwieldy. Second, the more people that are excluded, the worse off we all are. PAX has always been about inclusion, above all else: include the tabletop players, the video gamers, the card players, the all-purpose nerds... everyone gets in. For every person who passionately wants to go to PAX that can't, PAX isn't living up to its creed; it's a disservice to us all. We may love the city of Seattle and have emotional reasons for staying here, but they are just that: emotional. Besides tradition, the one possible bad thing about moving is longer Expo hall lines, and that's hardly a deal breaker. If the cost of increasing the PAX community is moving to another city, then that's an acceptable cost for all of the good that the increased inclusion would bring. Therefore, move PAX Prime.

    Group 2: PAX Prime is characterized by Seattle; being anywhere else means it's not really Prime anymore. The emotional context of PAX is important, because many people come to PAX because of what it means to them: the family feeling, the feeling of home. To move Prime somewhere else undermines that feeling, make Prime less authentic. Yes, the city / venue is imperfect, but those imperfections are part of what gives Prime its character and feel. The side events, the extra stuff, Seattle (as a city)... all of those things are inextricable parts of Prime. Yes, we've reached capacity, and yes, that's a sad thing. But, if we move Prime, we'll be giving up a huge part of both PAX Prime and ourselves, as Prime attendees. Sure, we can add some more people to the list of attendees by moving, but if doing so destroys the heart of Prime, what is the point? Therefore, PAX Prime must stay in Seattle.

    You'd have a point, except for one vital flaw: East exists.

    If you want to go to a PAX you can be guaranteed to get into, go to East. If PAX is PAX no matter where it is, then go to East. At this point, you can definitely get into East if you plan ahead even a little bit. Saturday passes for PAX East lasted more than a month... almost two months.

    If PAX is PAX wherever you go, then go to East. Everyone who cares enough about PAX to buy tickets within a week of when they go live can still probably go to all days of East, and pretty much anyone can go to East for at least a couple days.

    If PAX is PAX wherever it is, then PAX East is just as good as PAX Prime. Right?
    Problem is for people living on the west coast going to Seattle or another west coast city for vacation is far cheaper and more reasonable than going to Boston or Australia

    I AM THE VAMPIRE
  • mostlyharmlessmostlyharmless Registered User regular
    Quintious wrote: »
    To those who keep touting the "Go to East" perspective: I live in Seattle. Where is the logic in flying across the bloody country to attend a convention that is in my very backyard? (if only there was preference given to locals. Not that I don't love all the folks who come from out of town, but it certainly sucks when you can't get passes to a convention in your own city)

    I think expansion may be the necessary course, not expansion of Prime (not plausible at this point), but adding an additional PAX, at a different venue. The added opportunities to attend would, hopefully alleviate some of the pressure. I sincerely doubt there will ever be a point where the occupancy meets the demand for Prime. In this, I feel that East may have added to the demand of going to Prime, because we have many people who attend both East and Prime. Take it for what you will. I support the idea for having PAX Vegas or something to that variety. That may, in fact, be the best option. And, if you wander around Vegas in costume, nobody will look at you cross-eyed. They seem accustomed to unusual happenings and can handle big events like a boss.

    As a local, you have another option: Buy from a reseller standing outside the convention center the day it starts. Yeah, it's not as cheap, but it is an option for you. People from out of town are leery to do that because of the expense involved with getting here and having to take the "risk" of whether or not they'll be able to find a badge. You have no such expense variable.

    Or else make friends with people who will always have access to badges.

    Buying from scalpers only exacerbates the problem. We should not consider buying from a reseller an option, ever. And 9 times out of 10, that reseller is selling fakes.

    That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the issue of the venue. Our wonderful event is clearly outgrowing the accommodations.

  • QuintiousQuintious Registered User regular
    Quintious wrote: »
    To those who keep touting the "Go to East" perspective: I live in Seattle. Where is the logic in flying across the bloody country to attend a convention that is in my very backyard? (if only there was preference given to locals. Not that I don't love all the folks who come from out of town, but it certainly sucks when you can't get passes to a convention in your own city)

    I think expansion may be the necessary course, not expansion of Prime (not plausible at this point), but adding an additional PAX, at a different venue. The added opportunities to attend would, hopefully alleviate some of the pressure. I sincerely doubt there will ever be a point where the occupancy meets the demand for Prime. In this, I feel that East may have added to the demand of going to Prime, because we have many people who attend both East and Prime. Take it for what you will. I support the idea for having PAX Vegas or something to that variety. That may, in fact, be the best option. And, if you wander around Vegas in costume, nobody will look at you cross-eyed. They seem accustomed to unusual happenings and can handle big events like a boss.

    As a local, you have another option: Buy from a reseller standing outside the convention center the day it starts. Yeah, it's not as cheap, but it is an option for you. People from out of town are leery to do that because of the expense involved with getting here and having to take the "risk" of whether or not they'll be able to find a badge. You have no such expense variable.

    Or else make friends with people who will always have access to badges.

    Buying from scalpers only exacerbates the problem. We should not consider buying from a reseller an option, ever. And 9 times out of 10, that reseller is selling fakes.

    That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the issue of the venue. Our wonderful event is clearly outgrowing the accommodations.

    YOU were discussing your inability to go. I'm stating you have options. The venue, whilst a maze, is fine. More people != better PAX. You have options. If you find that option distasteful, make friends. As I mentioned in another thread - there is not a single person in my circle who will want to attend and will not be able to get in, because we've got em covered. This isn't an invite to come befriend me or anything, it's just a statement of fact that those who want to attend, can attend. This is doubly true when you consider that you can hold up a sign outside the convention centre asking to buy someone's one-day badge when they're done with it, and get in no later than about 1 o clock on any given day.

    The event hasn't outgrown the accommodations. The people who wish to participate in the event have outgrown the event's logical terminal capacity.

  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    So how feasible would it be to lock down conference rooms in the surrounding hotels?

    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • zerzhulzerzhul Registered User, Moderator mod
    Dracil wrote: »
    So how feasible would it be to lock down conference rooms in the surrounding hotels?

    I just answered that in the other thread. They already do. They take over the Hyatt, Sheraton, and Red Lion hotels, and this year they will be expanding even further into downtown Seattle than in previous years.

  • QuintiousQuintious Registered User regular
    Dracil wrote: »
    So how feasible would it be to lock down conference rooms in the surrounding hotels?

    I think they're already doing that, but it's not going to create more ticket capacity. Beyond that, adding more surrounding space is getting to the point that it's kind of a pain. Hell, I *live* here, and last year there was more than one time where I was trying to get to a spot and was like "wait, where is that hotel at around here, again?" And, of course, as a man I can't let myself be seen using a map.

  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    Yeah I thought the other thread was this thread so reposted here and edited the other one. The reason I like the idea of sprawl is that since much of PAX Prime fun is the unofficial events, the more sprawl, the more unofficial events that can theoretically be done outside the convention, which if nothing else, gives locals who who couldn't get a ticket a way to still somewhat participate.

    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • zerzhulzerzhul Registered User, Moderator mod
    I'm not exactly sure how the sprawl affects unofficial events at all, except making it potentially harder to find a venue ;)

  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    Yeah, I dunno either. I guess I'm thinking of stuff like the Tabletop stuff in the hotels, which I think didn't require a badge at all.

    I mean, the reason tickets are limited is really the actual expo space right? So theoretically there could be more tickets if access to the expo space was restricted. e.g. You'd have to tack an add-on to your badge for every day of the expo you want to go to, whereas you could have unlimited access to the sprawl part.

    That was the idea of the limited 4-day passes wasn't it? To get people to not take up every single day's slot when they didn't really need to.

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • mostlyharmlessmostlyharmless Registered User regular
    Quintious wrote: »
    Quintious wrote: »
    To those who keep touting the "Go to East" perspective: I live in Seattle. Where is the logic in flying across the bloody country to attend a convention that is in my very backyard? (if only there was preference given to locals. Not that I don't love all the folks who come from out of town, but it certainly sucks when you can't get passes to a convention in your own city)

    I think expansion may be the necessary course, not expansion of Prime (not plausible at this point), but adding an additional PAX, at a different venue. The added opportunities to attend would, hopefully alleviate some of the pressure. I sincerely doubt there will ever be a point where the occupancy meets the demand for Prime. In this, I feel that East may have added to the demand of going to Prime, because we have many people who attend both East and Prime. Take it for what you will. I support the idea for having PAX Vegas or something to that variety. That may, in fact, be the best option. And, if you wander around Vegas in costume, nobody will look at you cross-eyed. They seem accustomed to unusual happenings and can handle big events like a boss.

    As a local, you have another option: Buy from a reseller standing outside the convention center the day it starts. Yeah, it's not as cheap, but it is an option for you. People from out of town are leery to do that because of the expense involved with getting here and having to take the "risk" of whether or not they'll be able to find a badge. You have no such expense variable.

    Or else make friends with people who will always have access to badges.

    Buying from scalpers only exacerbates the problem. We should not consider buying from a reseller an option, ever. And 9 times out of 10, that reseller is selling fakes.

    That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the issue of the venue. Our wonderful event is clearly outgrowing the accommodations.

    YOU were discussing your inability to go. I'm stating you have options. The venue, whilst a maze, is fine. More people != better PAX. You have options. If you find that option distasteful, make friends. As I mentioned in another thread - there is not a single person in my circle who will want to attend and will not be able to get in, because we've got em covered. This isn't an invite to come befriend me or anything, it's just a statement of fact that those who want to attend, can attend. This is doubly true when you consider that you can hold up a sign outside the convention centre asking to buy someone's one-day badge when they're done with it, and get in no later than about 1 o clock on any given day.

    The event hasn't outgrown the accommodations. The people who wish to participate in the event have outgrown the event's logical terminal capacity.

    Who said I wasn't able to go? I have a 4-day pass, and a group of comrades who watch my back. I'm speaking for the sake of those who don't have what I have. This isn't about me. It isn't about any one person. This about the locals of the Pacific Northwest, who are unable to attend the event in their own city. Call me what you will, but I will speak in support for locals who can't go. That was the point of having East. The point was to give people on the East coast a PAX to go to, to ease the strain on Prime.

  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    It would be nice to see the actual breakdown of attendees from East/West to Prime/East respectively. I suspect that much if not most of the demand for Prime probably comes from the West.

    e.g. I'm in SF, so it's still cheaper for me to go to Prime than East (esp. with the train)

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • zerzhulzerzhul Registered User, Moderator mod
    Dracil wrote: »
    Yeah, I dunno either. I guess I'm thinking of stuff like the Tabletop stuff in the hotels, which I think didn't require a badge at all.

    I mean, the reason tickets are limited is really the actual expo space right? So theoretically there could be more tickets if access to the expo space was restricted. e.g. You'd have to tack an add-on to your badge for every day of the expo you want to go to, whereas you could have unlimited access to the sprawl part.

    That was the idea of the limited 4-day passes wasn't it? To get people to not take up every single day's slot when they didn't really need to.
    Well, as PAX takes over more hotel space, that's actually *less* hotel space for things that do not require badges. Anything that is officially PAX requires a badge, even if it's not in the main site.

    Also I'm not sure what you mean by "limited 4-day passes." There's never been an accurate statistic released for those. And no, expo space is not the only limit on ticket sales. It's a complex calculation based on the capacity of all of pax, and is likely worked out via fire codes. I don't think they assume that they have to accommodate every single person in the expo hall at once.
    Dracil wrote: »
    It would be nice to see the actual breakdown of attendees from East/West to Prime/East respectively. I suspect that much if not most of the demand for Prime probably comes from the West.

    e.g. I'm in SF, so it's still cheaper for me to go to Prime than East (esp. with the train)
    In general, yes, more demand for Prime comes from the west, and more demand for East comes from the east, but it's not an even split. I have done maps for the attendee locations on the forums for the past few paxen (and I'll set up another one soon for this prime) that show a pretty good cross section of the locations of forumers anyhow. It's certainly not a representative full NUMBER, but I think it's a reasonable cross section.

  • CuvisTheConquerorCuvisTheConqueror They always say "yee haw" but they never ask "haw yee?" Registered User regular
    You know, I wonder if simply changing Pax Prime to Pax West would help. Make it clear that these are two equal conventions, not the "prime" convention and the "other" convention.

    xderwsaxganu.png
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    It probably would, at least for newer attendees.

    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • zerzhulzerzhul Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited April 2013
    For now, we're tabling this discussion until post-pax. There will be a "Constructive Feedback Thread" after PAX, and PA will send out a survey. These are both read, and taken seriously.

    Geth, close this thread.

    zerzhul on
  • GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative zerzhul. Closing thread...

This discussion has been closed.