DISQUS

Nicholas Lovell · 5 months ago

This has been tried several times.
Tournament.com: Went bust
Kwari: Went bust
Prizefight: Abandoned the business model to become Enemy Down.

It keeps been tried because investors (ultra-competitive alpha males) believe it's a fantastic business model. But it's a rubbish model, basically because it is ALL about skill. If someone is better than you, you're going to lose money. So before long, you stop betting on yourself, because you lose. At which point the business doesn't scale. (Tom Jubert put it well over at the GameShadow blog: http://blog.gameshadow.com/?p=62

These businesses will come round and round, but I'll be surprised if any of them ever make investor returns.

(I also covered the demise of Kwari at http://www.gamesbrief.com/2008/06/is-kwaris-dem...)

morrisredbeard · 5 months ago

I think the tool above me Nicholas Lovell is a jealous tool and when he tried to pitch investors on his idea....all they could see was his shiny forehead. And man is that a shiny forehead!!!!!!

Hey Nicholas,

Tournament.com was for only 1 game and they had millions of dollars worth of servers around the world and not enough players from around the world who only play that one COMPUTER game.

Kwari invented a COMPUTER game and couldn't get people to adapt to it's ways and controls. But again a COMPUTER game.

So clearly you should look up things before you try and talk about them, but then again maybe your HUGE SHINY forehead got in the way.

And yes its' all about Skill that's what makes the model great and amazing! Your right why would I continue to give a better skilled player my money, I WOULDN'T I would just play people in MY SKILL RANGE for better competition.

Nicholas Lovell · 5 months ago

ad hominem attacks rarely convince people of your point of view.

My professional opinion is that the costs of running a competitive gaming business (servers, anti-cheating measures, marketing, system administration) scale faster than the revenues that can be generated from persuading people to bet on themselves. Too many businesses (and I accept your point about *slightly* different business models for several of them) have failed for me to be convinced.

I am convinced that it is easier to convince investors than it is to convince millions of players.

So, for my money, I would steer clear of a skill-based cash-payment online games business.

noobiecrusher · 5 months ago

nicholas is a noobie

vincent · 5 months ago

I am not much of a talker but when it comes to settling the score i always tend to do it with sheer force and technique.

Pound my way physically into the head of the opposing force.

And do it here:
http://kabudlay.mybrute.com

david18 · 5 months ago

I read this article this morning and in 10 minutes I registered, deposited money, challenged cyberspace, and set up my first game. . . . I play tonight and I expect to have a new friend/rival by about 8pm and 200 bills in my account . . . . love the "bark box" . . . .this is the sickest idea ever ! !

shawnfoust · 5 months ago

Law relating to internet betting is a lot more complex than the game of skill/game of chance divide. It's regulated state by state (and in some cases county by county) not to mention the overarching Federal regulation. I'm not saying it can't be done, but you had better boast a pretty solid geo-filtering technology in conjunction with a carefully worded EULA and fully expect some eyebrows to be raised among the enforcement community.

That said, I would crush you all in Ms. Pacman.

forexportercom · 5 months ago

Shower Room, Steam Room

Miramon · 5 months ago

Pathetic. Doomed.

mike · 4 months ago

morrisredbeard your character bashing is about the stupidest crap I have ever heard. You probably need to shut the f up and make a real point.

laptop battery · 3 weeks ago

good article...thanks a lot for the information!