[Kepler]

Apologies if there have been similar topics, I searched with regards to the thread I'm linking, and couldn't find anything.

Was reading through a thread on TL about how Esports/competitive SC2 could be in for trouble if it's not monetized effectively, and MrBitter decided to chime in here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...rentpage=7#127

The gist of it is, that based on people he's talked to in the industry, some of the events we've come to know and love are really walking a tight-rope in terms of making a profit.

To be honest it has me a little worried for the future of big events like MLG, Dreamhack and IPL, and even the GSL. MLG especially announced a huge prize pool, but I have to wonder how their sponsors hope to make a profit on their investment, are they banking on effective marketing to make back the money they inject? In a lot of cases, as the thread states, streams of games are effectively free, which could be seriously impacting on the events' ability to profit.

This seems to work with other sports such as Formula racing (Marlboro etc.), Football, Rugby and so on, but does E-sports have the potential to reach such a huge audience for marketing like that to be effective?

I worry that it could be more damaging to Australian e-sports, with an already fragile infrastructure that limits us and a relatively small community, a lack of investment could cripple it permanently. Obviously smaller tournaments will always be around, Brood War tournaments in Australia lasted well into the late 2000's.

Obviously bigger names like MLG will be around for a while, as Bitter said they have a lot of financial backing, and have since before SC2 was even around. Money will always be around, but the sheer amount being thrown around is unheard of in the west to the best of my knowledge, of course in places like Korea there's always people throwing around how Flash makes 200k a year.


Talk of 'profiting' from e-sports is going to get dirty looks, but it's pretty much essential if people want e-sports to have a bigger acceptance in the western world (even then, Brood War is still effectively a niche' hobby in SK).

So what are your views? Do you think it's possible we might see E-sports events being toned down for the sake of fiscal reasons, or even the complete removal of some events because of how hard it is to be profitable?

[nirvAnA]

Here is my idea which I feel is quite radical, so keep the pitch forks at bay please, just trying to offer an alternative viewpoint.

First of all, I feel in order for any industry to be sustainable, it will have to function as a true free market system which works by letting supply / demand naturally balance itself out, and where players/casters/sponsors are driven naturally by incentives. Like all industries, there needs to be competition/rewards, this improves the overall quality of viewer/player and the industry itself. At the moment all the major events are regulated with very specific criteria that limits the competition / market, with rules in place such as complicated qualification rounds, geographical distances and obligations to their sponsors. The alternative I'm suggesting is the sponsorship dollars get spread across through natural supply / demand instead in the form of a large international site with a free market system.

IMO this could work with a massive website where people can sign up and play and win money in tournaments. This would provide a living for both the players and the casters, and provide an even better option for viewers which in turn attract sponsors - basically aiming to become a sustainable industry in itself. ATM playhem is closest to this model.

So on this site there are MANY various tournaments held DAILY with various prizes and as the entrance fees go up so do the prizes. The tournament entrance fees range from $0.01 for the lower levels to $50 entrance fees for the big leagues where you see $1,500 first prizes for say, 32 player tournaments. All the money goes to the players after minusing transaction costs.

Smurfing: Naturally lower league players won't want to waste time earning less when they can be earning more at their skill level at a higher league. So although they can play in the $0.01 cent games it doesn't make sense.. they end up winning $0.5 or something when they could be winning $5 with the skill level they have. So the tournaments will end up evening itself out naturally..

Casters: Everyone can stream, just like the playhem tournaments. People will naturally decide themselves who are the best and then watch them. Website is able to track viewers and over time these casters earn better priority and can stream the big events. Casters who are good are supported and get money from donations / adverts. This way it weeds out the bad casters and overall viewing quality is improved.

Players: The many daily tournaments provide a proper daily income for players and encourages skilled players who wanna go pro to try harder. You win what you earn. The best players will earn alot, and invest more in playing. The good but not great players still have a chance by practicing hard in their respective league levels and can get encouraged to play more after winning the smaller prizes. Best of all those players who aren't good enough won't have to risk going pro or moving to another country, they will just stop playing because they can't make enough to support themselves.

Sponsors: They pay for the entrance fees of their players. They get certain exposure on the website deliberately such as in the match preview / brackets it has their team logo / and sponsors are shown on the team pages in the website. This has to be set up very carefully so sponsors have the incentive to support their players and get more exposure. Perhaps all streamers will be require to download an overlay that is scripted from the brackets that display the sponsors of both teams, player profile details and stats etc. Money is not wasted on fat salaries for non-performing players and naturally the players who win the most end up getting sponsored, giving the sponsors a return they can "measure".

Site: Doesn't take rake or make a commission. Pretty sure has to be this way or Blizzard will shut it down or want to be involved. They earn revenue from advertisements from gaming companies like Roccat, Razer, Steelseries etc and google ads. They will do okay because if it takes off ALOT of people will be visiting the site. And perhaps they have the money to pay the admins who run the site / tournaments so its self-sustaining.

Admins: Everything is automated as much as possible on the site. One admin per tournament for disputes. Players awarded karma points after disputes to discourage BM / cheating and to make the lives of admins easier.

Live Events: Not sure how this will be done. I honestly think live events are a huge waste of money for everyone involved, from the sponsors who pay the air tickets to the tournament organizers who have to hire a venue. Alot of sponsorship money is being lost there on expensive air tickets / venues which could be better used elsewhere. TSL3 for example was carried out online (except the finals) and it was fantastic and there isn't LAN anymore so game quality doesn't improve live, in fact it inconveniences players who must adjust to jetlag and a new playing envrionment. Sponsors are given adequate coverage online already, for every event there are so many more viewers online watching then those in attendance at the live event.

IMO if a site like this exists the eSports industry will be able to grow faster and further, it will be self-sustaining and able to support the livelihood for many players and casters. For recreational players there will be games to watch everyday, or tournaments that cost almost nothing $0.01-$0.25 to play in. Our player database is there already in terms of size, we need to get all of them playing on one site and yea playhem is closest to this I don't think they have any plans to start charging though I could be wrong.

Anyway those are my thoughts for a sustainable model, and it has to use a free market system.

Quick Comments

	Kepler:	Good idea :D
	Mox:
	Jaywalk:	awesome idea, i want in on the development of this site!
	x5_dot:	wowser that is thinking outside the box!
	ToRSmotPokingFish:	i want in on this too :D
	NOM:

[Zealo]

some tournaments on playhem have an entry fee i believe?

[Kepler]

I'm actually surprised Playhem has lasted as long as it has without having some sort of subscriber fee, even with an entrance fee for tournaments it would pretty hard to stay profitable. But your idea makes a lot of sense, and I feel it could work if there were enough people interested in investing both time and (a lot of) money. I do agree with live events for the most part. TSL was incredibly good despite not being completely live.

Your players section I strongly agree with as well, as it stands going to Korea to play SC is a huge investment, and you're not even guaranteed to get a decent amount of income. NonY invested a massive amount of time, and was arguably the best foreigner we had at the time, and he managed second place in Courage, which still was not good enough to get a pro-gamer license from KESPA. Even Idra was effectively gifted a license, but he didn't earn a lot.

[ToRFutureBoy]

I belive a lot more can be done in the online market. And there can easily be more money put up by sponsors to help the community. And I genuinely believe this market is currently fairly untapped (especially here in NZ). The problem is that the market itself is all over the world, so unless you get an international sponsor (such as Intel) it doesn't work very well for sponsors.

[Frogmite]

What about online tournaments with an entry fee?

Like take for example the SEA masters cup.

With 128 players registering for 2$ the prize pools grows up over 250$.

You can implement a "e-bank account" on a site where people can charge their account (PSN style).
And everytime players register for a tournament the money is directly withdrawn from there.

Or you can also make viewers to subscribe for a list of streams for the whole competition (SEASL,....) like what gomtv do, at a lower price like for example viewers subscribe 1$ for getting access to the SEACL streams.

I don't think SEA is build up for getting sustainable sponsors because there are not enough viewers/top players. So i think a way to bring in money and make bigger tournaments could be to make spectators pay (like what gomtv do).

These are just suggestions . Today SEACL exists just thanks to JoFritz, and it's not sustainable because he can't continue giving 500$ every four months (unless he wants and then i shall marry him).

[iMSystem]

Originally Posted by Frogmite

With 128 players registering for 2$ the prize pools grows up over 250$.

Not a bad idea, but we have enough donations / generous people that this doesn't need to be implemented yet.

Originally Posted by Frogmite

You can implement a "e-bank account" on a site where people can charge their account (PSN style).
And everytime players register for a tournament the money is directly withdrawn from there.

Hell no, sorry but I don't think Nirvana has the business plan of this website to head in that direction.
If we do put an entry fee on, the fee won't show up constantly to warrant people putting money into a SC2SEA account, not to mention the fees associated with it.

Originally Posted by Frogmite

Or you can also make viewers to subscribe for a list of streams for the whole competition (SEASL,....) like what gomtv do, at a lower price like for example viewers subscribe 1$ for getting access to the SEACL streams.

Double hell no, GOM charge what they charge because it is the higest standard SC2 show on the planet. They have VODs, excellent production and everything else in between. We don't have anything of this, and we don't even have a full 1080p stream that would even be worth it.

For a separate site sure, but I would really hope not to see this on SC2SEA...

Edit: I also want to point out that mostly everything noted on the thread basically describes Playhem...

[Rockstar]

This reminds me of online poker Pokerstars etc.

[LoRDo]

Originally Posted by nirvAnA

/snip

Interesting idea.
The challenge I foresee as greatest is encouraging people to cast and manage the events from day1 where the turnover in usage would be (very) low.

I think in terms of sustainability it wouldn't be feasable to assume that SEA could do it very succesfully by itself - would need to be hitting the bigger markets - NA/EU/KR.

Cool ideas all around though. I would love to see something like this become more popular. I think Playhem is on the right track.

[|Erasmus|]

Originally Posted by System

Double hell no, GOM charge what they charge because it is the higest standard SC2 show on the planet. They have VODs, excellent production and everything else in between. We don't have anything of this, and we don't even have a full 1080p stream that would even be worth it.

For a separate site sure, but I would really hope not to see this on SC2SEA...

Edit: I also want to point out that mostly everything noted on the thread basically describes Playhem...

100% agreed with this stuff. I'm sorry, but SEACL production is not at the quality where you could realistically be charging viewers for the content. The best you could probably do is maybe some kind of premium content where members get all the replays from the premier league, and maybe some other content, but idk how much you could even charge for that.

Any kind of starcraft tournament, if it wants to remain needs to be aiming to get viewers, as it's really the only thing you can be drawing in sponsors with. If it's not sustainable with community donations, then you need to be pushing for as many viewers as possible so you can get some kind of real sponsorship for the event.

Unlike real life sports where your registration fees go to cover venue costs and insurance and all the other expenses that go on, none of that applies to online games. An entry fee to subsidise prizes might be doable, but if other tournaments are free to enter, most people who aren't likely to win will just flock to those ones.

[LoRDo]

Originally Posted by System

Edit: I also want to point out that mostly everything noted on the thread basically describes Playhem...

Yes - correct.

[TCPLemminks]

In my opinon, tournaments should be seen as another form of advertising for sponsers. The $1 million+ Dota 2 tournament comes to mind.
While it would be great if big tournaments and major LAN's can be sustainable, at the moment eSports isn't big enough to support it.

Anyway the problem with a free market is that, while it may become sustainable, there's very little incentive to attract investors who are unfamiliar with eSports in. This is primarily because of the lack of profit being made in eSports.

Then again I suppose if they do see it as a form of advertising, which means they will spend money anyway, that doesn't really matter.

[nirvAnA]

yea as system said i have no plans whatsoever to turn sc2sea into that lol, it wont work the SEA market is just too small, and it will require a significant startup cost. it has to be a big international site with pulling power, like playhem i just think it would be nice if something like that existed

[Unstable]

That system is much like poker, and the same rules will apply // most people lose lots of money. The downside to this is the majority demographic for e-sports viewers are not as financially well off as they would like. so they have to pick and choose what to play in/watch for premium subscriptions

As stated in a lot of articles all around the place most tournaments are in a lot of trouble. But its not because they aren't generating income. It is because they are simply overspending. Esports isn't growing at a slow natural rate. It has a massive boom and the crunch is coming. People spout emerging market everywhere but that only applies after constant growth over many years. The tournaments will soon shrink to accommodate the income they actually have. this will mean prize pools going down, player salaries going down etc etc. Until they sit in line with the income.

This will unfortunately mean the death of a lot of organisations in e-sports HOWEVER. The ones that survive will be far better off, thinning of the herd is sometimes a good thing.

It is then up to people to grow the viewer base. As the viewer base grows so does the income. Most tournaments are spouting 250,000 viewers yay omg! But remember that is with a WORLDWIDE audience. many of the popular tv shows etc in AU smash those viewers. and to be fair some dont. But you should get my point by now. It will also come down to which organisation can put on the better production and show to entice viewers to pay for premium subscriptions aswell.

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

I liked this post!

[Kepler]

I've always been pretty concerned at the amount of money that tournaments are throwing around without a proper and sustainable source of income, except in a few rare cases. We're in the middle of an e-sports bubble that's about to burst, it might not happen this year, but it will happen. The SC2 scene will be very different after Legacy of the Void is released, that's for sure.

[nirvAnA]

Alex Garfield (CEO, Evil Geniuses) makes a very good post on TL about MLG who are now experimenting with a $20 PPV business model for the upcoming MLG winter event. Meaning NO MORE free streams T_T.

MLG's original PPV announcement thread here.
Alex's OP here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=311778

---

So, the upcoming MLG Arena event is going to be PPV-only, priced at $20 for the entire weekend, and there are many within the community who aren’t too happy about it. A recent TL poll shows that only 15% of respondents intend to purchase a weekend pass. Many have vowed to instead turn their attention to Assembly, which runs on the same weekend as MLG Arena, and offers a free stream.

EG’s been getting a lot of questions about the situation, and I’d like to clarify our stance on some of the issues.

Why isn’t EG part of the MLG referral program for the Winter Arena?
MLG offered us the opportunity to participate in their referral program for the upcoming event, but we declined, for several reasons. Before going into why we declined, I’d actually like to applaud Sundance, Lee, and everyone at MLG for a moment, because they took action and proactively composed a revenue-sharing program of sorts, which is the kind of thing that we desperately need to exist between teams and tournaments in this industry. It’s a notable first step, and I think they deserve credit for being willing to go there.

With that being said, allow me to elaborate on why EG declined to participate in the program. Our overarching reason ties directly into another common question we’ve been getting:

What do you think of the $20 price point?
I think it’s too high - especially within the context of how other SC2 content providers’ packages are priced. I think that the weekend should cost $10. I think MLG would actually make more money with a $10 price tag for the weekend pass, because I think they’d get more than twice the subscribers at $10 than they’ll get at $20. But that may be just me.

Anyway, that’s the primary, overarching reason why EG is not participating in the referral program. As a pro team, in participating in any referral program like this, you’re essentially agreeing to try and convince your fans and community to buy a particular product. You’re basically saying, “Hey, we think this product’s pretty cool, we think it’s worth your money, and ohbytheway, if you enter this code when you’re buying it, you’ll help us earn a commission on the sale.” In that sense, participating in a program like this inherently involves some kind of product endorsement (y’know, the whole “we think it’s worth your money” part), and we at EG just don’t think the weekend pass is priced correctly.

Bottom line: we weren’t willing to ask our loyal fans to spend money on a $20 dollar product that we think should’ve cost $10, while also ourselves profiting in the process. And that’s the main reason why we’re not in the referral program. To be honest, we weren’t really thrilled with the details of the program itself either, but that reasoning was secondary to the aforementioned.

But with all of that being said, and after spending three paragraphs explaining why EG declined to participate in the referral program and why I don’t think the Winter Arena pass is priced correctly, I’m now going to try and warm you guys up to buying it anyway (and, remember, as someone who declined to be a referrer, I’m not making money on this). My reasoning ties into another common question we’ve been getting from the community:

Why PPV-only in the first place? Why no free stream?
Look, I mean, I’ll be the first one to say that I’m not thrilled - at all - with any event being PPV-only. Every pro team, as a business, acts as a reseller of advertising services. Team A essentially purchases advertising space from Player X (via a contract that requires the player to, for example, wear a particular shirt), and then resells it to Sponsor Y (via, for example, placing the sponsor’s logo on said shirt).

This is what pro teams have to do in order to stay viable as businesses. And, inherent in this model is a huge reliance on tournaments (third-party businesses that teams usually don’t have any kind of formal relationship with) to do their part, construct the virtual (or real-life) stadium, and bring the virtual (or real-life) spectators. Because, if there are only ten people watching an event, it doesn’t matter how many logos are on my team shirt, or how big those logos are, they're still only going to be seen by ten people.

So, as someone who’s relying on MLG to bring in big viewership numbers in order to maximize the value which I can correspondingly report to my sponsors, the prospect of a PPV-only event (which, it seems, will result in an 80-90% decrease in spectatorship overall) isn’t something I’m happy about.

...But at the same time, I absolutely get why MLG wants to/has to give it a shot.

We’re at (and when I say “we,” I mean, teams, tournaments, content providers, everyone) an incredibly crucial moment in the lifespan of this industry. We’re at a point at which we, as an industry, need to become less reliant on third-party, outsider revenue (like corporate sponsors), and increase the percentage of our revenue that’s generated within the eSports ecosystem (direct-to-consumer revenue like subscriptions and merchandise).

The reason for this is that it’s actually still way too hard for teams and tournaments (including those you guys view as the most prestigious and the richest in all of eSports) to make things work financially. Trying to remain viable as a business based on sponsorships and non-industry revenue alone is an unbelievably dangerous path to walk, and it’s just not sustainable in the long term. And I say this as the mind behind what is commonly viewed as the richest pro team in the industry right now.

eSports companies, whether you’re talking about EG, or MLG, need to increase their direct-to-consumer revenue in order to survive long-term. For EG, that means selling more merchandise in our store, and offering a monthly EG subscription package for our fans (which you’ll see later this year, with the release of our new website). For MLG, that means - very similarly - selling more merchandise in their store, and, you guessed it, offering more subscription-based stuff (such as the Winter Arena weekend pass).

Now, does this mean that it’s okay for entities like EG or MLG to force subscription packages down your throats this year? No, of course not. I’m a huge proponent of freemium business models, and I plan on structuring EG’s upcoming subscription stuff accordingly. I wish (for a variety of reasons) that MLG would take a freemium approach (i.e., free low-quality stream, PPV high-quality stream) to their Arena events, just as they’ll do for their Championship events.

But, the bottom line is that they’ve decided that, in order to be viable as a business in the long-term, this is where they need to draw the line in terms of where to generate more direct-to-consumer revenue. It’s not that Sundance is trying to Scrooge McDuck it up and swim freestyle through Olympic-sized pools of money. He’s just trying to make his business sustainable in the long run - and that’s something I can absolutely empathize with.

You guys, as a community, talk a lot about “supporting eSports,” and really do a great job of it. I think that the StarCraft community, in particular, is better at doing so, and overall more generous, than any other professional gaming community. You guys support your pro teams (to those who’ve bought EG merchandise: thank you very, very much), and you’ve also spent a lot of money on premium content (like the GSL, and, ahem, MLG). And I hope - I truly, sincerely hope - that after reading this very long blog, you’re more open to spending $20 on a weekend pass for MLG’s upcoming event (yes, even though I don't think it's priced correctly).

For those of you who came into reading this ready to spend the $20 because you thought it was the right price for MLG’s product, I hope you still spend the $20. But, for those of you like me, who want to support eSports, and want to see prominent eSports companies like MLG stay sustainable long-term by increasing their direct-to-consumer revenue, but at the same time still think that $20 is too high of a price point (and/or think that the Arena broadcasts should be free/discounted for those who previously purchased Gold packages), please do one of the following:

A) Purchase the $20 pass for this upcoming event, but make it abundantly clear to MLG (either via emailing them, or posting on this TL thread, or Tweeting Sundance) that you will not be purchasing a pass for the next Arena event unless the price point is reduced.

B) Don’t purchase the $20 pass for this upcoming event, but make it abundantly clear to MLG (through the same avenues of communication as above) that you would have bought a pass if the price were lower and more reasonable.

C) If you’re a Gold member, whether you purchase the $20 pass or not, make it abundantly clear to MLG that you feel you deserve, at the very least, a discount on the Arena events.

or D) If you don't like any of the above, reach out to MLG in some kind of meaningful way, and tell them what they need to do in order to take your money. They'll listen.

Just, whatever you do, don't decide to punish MLG by giving them no feedback at all. It won't help them, and it certainly won't help you get what you want.

As for myself, I've selected option A. Sundance has my twenty bucks this time, and there's already an email in his inbox right now stating that, if he decreases the price for the next Arena event, he'll be able to take more of my money.

Thanks for your time.

-Alexander (CEO, Evil Geniuses)
@ottersareneat on Twitter

[breadfan]

Spot on

I never mind shelling out money for things like this, but for $20 for an arena pass (which is one of the 'lesser' events on the circuit) is too much.

I'm in the B category

[nirvAnA]

By Sundance DiGiovanni

For $20 you get a full weekend of nothing but the absolute best StarCraft 2 in the world. That’s roughly the same cost as a trip to the movies (with a stop at the concession stand), a large pizza, a small venue concert, or a round of drinks. Don’t want to buy anything without seeing it first? We agree, and we wouldn’t ask you to. You should know exactly what you’re getting. We’ll be streaming the first match from the Main Stream and each of the three gameplay streams on Friday and Saturday for free. And the Dr Pepper MLG Ultimate Access Stream (more info on this soon) will be free to all, without an Arena pass, all weekend long. Go check out a full demo of the premium streaming page and we promise you’ll be hooked for the entire weekend.

IMO sundance makes a very valid argument. We have been getting a free ride for quite awhile, the MLG experience has always been amazing and high quality and it is well worth paying even $20 for. I see him as someone just trying to make his business sustainable, so it can keep going on and doesn't go bust after 1-2 years when all the "sponsorship money" dries up.

However I do think they have to rework the way they have spent their money. Spending 100k on flights/accommodation for 32 invited players just so they can play live only 20k for prizes is NOT the way to go. Would very much have it the other way around, 100k for prizes, 20k on accommodation/tickets. Hell the best model imo would be 30k Prizes, 20k accomodation, 20k to MLG for admin / bandwidth expense etc and the other 50k is sponsor money wisely saved for the future, or since that money is not used, there isn't the need to charge viewers and everyone watches HD free.

Everything done TSL3 style (which was all online and AMAZING) and perhaps only the finals / Top 4 done live. I still fail to understand the obsession with having tournaments done offline since there are so many more viewers ONLINE then there are offline and they must see the mandatory commercials, overlays etc that sponsors care about and the live audience can simply choose not to see.

Lastly, I do agree with Alex/Breadfan that $10 is a much better pricing, especially since this is their first time ever. They should have aimed to start low if anything so people are more receptive of the idea and upscale if necessary, not the other way around.

[breadfan]

Originally Posted by nirvAnA

IMO sundance makes a very valid argument. We have been getting a free ride for quite awhile, the MLG experience has always been amazing and high quality and it is well worth paying even $20 for. I see him as someone just trying to make his business sustainable, so it can keep going on and doesn't go bust after 1-2 years when all the "sponsorship money" dries up.

However I do think they have to rework the way they have spent their money. Spending 100k on flights/accommodation for 32 invited players just so they can play live only 20k for prizes is NOT the way to go. Would very much have it the other way around, 100k for prizes, 20k on accommodation/tickets. Hell the best model imo would be 30k Prizes, 20k accomodation, 20k to MLG for admin / bandwidth expense etc and the other 50k is sponsor money wisely saved for the future, or since that money is not used, there isn't the need to charge viewers and everyone watches HD free.

Everything done TSL3 style (which was all online and AMAZING) and perhaps only the finals / Top 4 done live. I still fail to understand the obsession with having tournaments done offline since there are so many more viewers ONLINE then there are offline and they must see the mandatory commercials, overlays etc that sponsors care about and the live audience can simply choose not to see.

Lastly, I do agree with Alex/Breadfan that $10 is a much better pricing, especially since this is their first time ever. They should have aimed to start low if anything so people are more receptive of the idea and upscale if necessary, not the other way around.

It's a sensible argument, but doesn't sway me. Yeah, $20 is a trip to the movies. Which is an experience. I go out and sit in a comfy chair and someone else cleans my shit. I get to watch the movie on a massive screen with massive surround sound. I don't love the movies, but the content of the movie isn't all that's worth that $20. I disagree that it's the same value for money that I get to watch a stream on my couch (and I'm someone who watches on a TV, not sat at my computer), using my bandwidth to do so.

I think a fairer comparison would be renting a DVD.

[Stallion]

its a good point i follwed the EG ceos advice and tweeted at sundance that for me its $30 dollars NZ and as a student i cant throw that much away for a weekend as much as id love to