You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
you know something we have done this to ourselves, signing are just the start, because people find ways to cheat, when i first went in 2013 going at 4am it was good, I was one the 1st 100 for so people, 2017 i would have to line up at 8pm or earlier the day before, look at hall H were there not line forming 48 hours before the panel, whats next starting the sunday panel line on thursday
There are benefits and drawbacks to both systems, but I still prefer the existing system. I have spent the night in line and pulled losing tickets, but it's still better to me than entering alongside 40,000 other people where my chances are less than 1%. The benefit to the random drawings: a) It will eliminate the people who bring their kids and have them pull over and over again. b) It will eliminate people skipping in line. c) It will eliminate massive lines and the logistical nightmare they have every morning with the drawings. Both a) and b) are big deals for me - last year someone let 17 people in the Marvel line in front of me and when I complained to them one of them threatened me (his exact words: 'there are 15 of us, and 1 of you. What are you going to do?'). When I told the Marvel people (and the line people at Marvel are awesome, btw - they probably have the hardest job on the con floor because that booth is a non-stop madhouse) they couldn't remove them because they didn't see it happen.So the random drawings would eliminate me seeing the same 10 people who somehow are first in line and pull the winning Game of Thrones tickets every year, the exhibitors who win the big Marvel signings by being over there before the floor ever opens, or the people who run from the bay and get into the Funko line and I like that. But I also don't like the idea that my con experience is determined by a random draw a month before I ever get there. If I want to put the effort in to wait and pull for autographs, that is my con experience. I get that my con itself is already determined by random chance as to whether or not I even get tickets or a hotel, and I get the people who say there is so much going on and autographs are a small part of the overall experience, but I go there primarily to get famous people to sign their names and with this change I would be lucky to win one or two things a year and that ends SDCC for me.I am close to 'retiring' anyway - I am about to have a new mortgage so I need to find places to save money, I have a bad hip, the people I go with are tired of going after 17 years - so this would just speed up the inevitable anyway. But that's my rambling 2¢.
Do you just/mainly go to Comic-Con for autographs?I've mostly been pretty 'meh' about autographs, and Bruce Campbell solidified that with his thoughts about fans in "If Chins Could Kill." It's not like you really get have quality time, or even really talk to celebrities when signing. If you're a huge fan of a property I can see getting, say, a poster of a favorite movie by the director or stars or something (I got a rad Mike Mignola INCREDIBLES poster signed by he and Brad Bird after the Incredibles panel one year a long time ago), or a favorite comic signed by a writer or illustrated or something like that. But I've never really had a huge interest in that stuff (meaning, I will definitely not be a 'well I didn't want to wait in line but maybe now I'll jump in the lotto and try my luck" guy).If all of the booths charged for autographs what would you all think? Like if, say, Marvel had the INFINITY WAR cast signing posters and charged $100 would you be into that? That seems like it would cut down on a lot of superfluous casual collectors. I always think with lottos there should be a happy medium: like, maybe half of the autograph 'slots' go randomly in a lotto while others can try their luck and camp out still. That way people who feel like they have the legit advantage and desire camping out for hours on end for autographs can still do that, and randos can try their luck in the lotto. Maybe those of you avid collectors can bring this up at the Talk-Back on Sunday if you're not happy with the lotto.Just my mostly casual thoughts: I don't really care either way and I'm not really impacted at all.
My one comment on the article is it doesn't really mention the counter plus side to the lottery at all. AKA it says people who were used to the old ways had worse odds and didn't always win, but no comment about people who had never been able to get signings before now getting this new opportunity.
That's a fair point, but I talked to perhaps 100 people and there was no one who said that they weren't interested in signings but had won anyway. I simply did not find any attendees in that category.
Sorry that's not quiet what I meant. I mean people who were interested in signings, but previously not been able to wait in the lines to get them, but now thanks to the new system had an opportunity (whether or not they won.)