Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 118555" data-attributes="member: 2525">First, to Glyfair, I would be perfectly happy with Vegas as a location for the con.  It's in reasonable driving distance to major population centers, and the flights are unusually inexpensive to fly there (because the casinos subsidize them to draw in more people).  The rooms are also cheap, and there is additional entertainment all around. Sounds like a great location to me.As for the professionals, I only mentioned them because they are one of the draws for general attendance at a con.  Some people like to see the pros.  I think the arguement stands for general attendance as well...it is easy to convince a family that isn't necessarily into the con that you should all go if you are going to a nice, sunny, coastal resort town than if you are going to a cold, non-resort location.  That means increased attendance.Now, as for Lizard...First, I don't understand your hostility. Calling me an idiot was not called for.  I asked a question - why would you be against moving the con, other than self-interest. It wasn't an accusation (and even if it had been, calling someone self-interested isn't as harsh as questioning their intelligence.) But you do it twice, later saying I haven't researched the issue sufficiently to be able to even speak to the topic.  That's just not called for.  Why are you being so defensive?Making the con "central to all" is only applicable if you are driving.  Let's face it, we live in a society where flying places outside of our region is more common than driving.    Yes, some people would drive across the country to get to the con, but it is less likely that you will drive across the country from a coast, generally with the added expense of another stay overnight in a random town along the way, than it is to fly.  Unless, of course, you put the con in a town that is not near a central airport hub, which makes the flight very expensive.  On an average basis, I think you will find that, cost-wise, it is cheaper to fly to a central airport hub, from anywhere in the US, than it is to drive there.  I'm glad you can afford the time and expense (or endurance) of driving across the nation to get to a game con, but I think most people cannot do that.Again, I would use the San Diego Comic Convention as the example (because it's at least one I know about.  I'm sure there are other very good convention examples out there).  The demographic is similar (though I'd be willing to bet a lot there are more Magic: The Gathering and Pokemon fans than comic book fans at this point.) But look at the results: The comic convention drew 53,000 attendees last year, while Gencon drew less than half that number (a bit over 25,000).  The Comic con also is widely credited with adding a significant amount of additional fans to the hobby every year, due to it's wide support within the convention city, and advertising in the surrounding population centers.  But really, how many non-fans are going to go all the way to Indianapolis just to check this gaming thing out?  Really, I'm only arguing for something that would benefit our hobby the most.  There's no reason to get angry at me for being passionate about this hobby, and believing that we should do everything we can to support its growth and prosperity.  I contend it is a good goal for gaming to make it to the critical mass necessary to slip into the "mainstream" of U.S. entertainment, and further that moving the largest gaming convention closer to a population center would help with that goal.  It makes it easier for non-fans to be exposed to the industry; easier for the professionals to travel to the convention; easier on the families of fans (who may be non-fans) to go; and easier for the greatest number of fans to cheaply and easily reach the convention.  If you want to attack something, attack those ideas, not me.</blockquote>

Verification