BolloxInBruges:
I think paying 30 is a nice sweet spot. Not to degrade players but the weaker competition that are actually depositing funds on WGT are the ones they want playing them. If they never even sniff a cash they aren't going to deposit to play ready gos for long (which is the reason wgt wants to pay more spots I'd assume).
Another thing to keep in mind for the people saying "wgt will never lower the rake" is that rake is just one facet of the revenue created by RGs. If more people are playing ready gos that is more people burning up expensive balls and watching advertisements. Humans like the positive reinforcement of winning (even if the winnings are less than the entry) and are therefore more likely to spend $ on more expensive balls to be more competitive.
This is spot-on. I'd add that it's not only WGT that needs contributors to the kettle. There aren't any winners without losers, and the formula that gets the most players into games is the best for everybody.
Those who are asking for a larger share to the top finishers are, in the long run, asking for slower-filling RGs that are more difficult to win.
The best existing example is the monthly premium tournaments. If you do the math, you'll see that WGT heavily subsidizes those events, that is, the payouts are larger than the entry fees that are collected. They've been like that for a while, and therefore are a terrific long-term play: One 3rd place finish in a monthly Multi-round Open puts you ahead for over four years. There's also the entertainment value of playing with thousands of credits on the line. They're great tournaments.
But almost nobody plays them. Players look at the relatively small chance of winning anything and move on to something else.
I'm all for anything that gets more players into RGs, even if it means reduced payouts at the top. Perhaps 30 really is the "sweet spot", and if so, then leave it as-is. But I really doubt that top-heavier structure would work.