500 万人抽签看陈奕迅，AI 会终结「抢票时代」吗？
歌迷朋友们，看到这篇文章时别忘了到 Cityline 手动查询——陈奕迅 26 场特别录音演出的首轮抽签结果下午刚刚公布，说不定你就是那个幸运儿。
介绍一下：这次系列演出并非传统演唱会，而是和观众一起现场录制唱片的 Live Album 沉浸式试验。它的场地定在仅 1181 座的香港演艺学院歌剧院，扣除 10% 内部保留票，26 场连开，能够放出来的票数不过两万多张，不到 496 万登记申请人次的零头。
也就是说，中签概率恐怕低于在街角咖啡店碰见陈奕迅本人的概率。今天注定是一人欢喜百人愁。
但中不中签另说，这次「抢票」的轻松程度在我人生中绝对算得上是数一数二的：花一分钟注册网站、确认邮件，几天后坐等抽签结果，这就是全过程。完全不需要像之前抢 The Weeknd 门票那样调好闹钟、焚香沐浴、发动亲友团一起帮忙……
那么，抽签制这样的好文明，以前为什么就没有推广开呢？
门票不靠抢，还能怎么买？
用抽签的方式来分配门票，在国内并不多见，但也不是没有先例。
早在 2016 年，苏打绿《谢天谢地》演唱会就采取了实名登记、电脑随机抽签的售票方式，在售票说明中，苏打绿明言这是为了「杜绝黄牛」；随后几年，久石让与香港管弦乐团音乐会以及林家谦红馆演唱会，都采用了类似的「先登记，后抽签」模式。
至于演唱会之外的大型活动，比如 2008 年北京奥运会、2010 年广州亚运会以及 2020 年英雄联盟 S10 全球总决赛也都尝试过门票公开抽签，从结果上看执行得相当不错。
而把目光放到全世界，会发现这套制度在日本早已非常成熟，甚至是演唱会的主流购票方式——
不同于国内演唱会普遍选择逐站开放、分别抢票，日本的演唱会往往会提前公布全部场次，粉丝接下来只需要「填报志愿」，也就是到网站上选择自己希望看的场次、每个场次希望购买的坐席等级，然后将申请按优先级排序，接下来就是等待最终结果：可能一口气中签多个「志愿」，也有可能遭遇「调剂」。
当然，这套机制也不代表绝对的公平和无门槛。实际上，它催生了一套「官方黄牛」溢价生意：粉丝们要花数千日元的年费加入「粉丝俱乐部」，才能参与首批「粉丝专供票」的抽签；在部分抽选中，甚至可以付费购买更多的抽签轮次和中签权重。
但往好的方面想，这些溢价至少都合法合理收归到了主办方、唱片公司和艺人手中，而不是喂肥了作为中间商的黄牛。
更别说，愿不愿意加入粉丝俱乐部本身就是一种筛选歌迷的软门槛，可以确保部分门票落入「最想看演出」的人手中；再者，额外的经济投入也只能提升相对中签概率，而不会像抢票制那样，仅凭金钱就能让演唱会私有。
来到技术与用户体验的维度，抽签制对所有人而言还是一种解脱。
回想一下，传统的定时抢票，本质上是主办方人为制造的一场 DDoS 攻击——数以百万计的人约定在同一秒点击同一个购票按钮，票务平台需要为此向云服务商采购昂贵的瞬时弹性带宽和负载算力，而这些高昂的基建成本最终都会转嫁到票价与服务费里。
即便如此，在热门演出的抢票场合中，绝大多数人见到的也只会是卡死的页面、报错、一旦刷新就要重来的排队加载框，以及页面终于加载出来后显示的灰色售罄按钮。
根本没有出手的机会，就败给了不可名状之力，没有什么能比这更让人挫败了。
到这里我们又不得不再重复一遍开头的问题了：既然抽签制用户体验更好、服务器压力更小，还能巧妙地变相创收，为什么在陈奕迅的演艺学院录音演出之前，我们几乎找不到采用抽签制的「现象级演出」？
抢票制的合理性
抽签制未能全面接管市场，或许最根本的原因在于：抢票制确实有它的经济合理性。
用时下流行的「理解所有人」句式来说，我是乐迷的话我也想要抽签，但我是主办方的话我也要让你抢。
站在主办方和票务方的立场上，先到先得的秒杀抢票制就是最高效的「印钞机」。
数周后亲临现场看演出的预期、眼看着余票迅速减少而害怕错过机会的预期、转手套利的预期……在精心设计的定时抢票场景里，每个人都有充分的动机抢下门票并立即支付。
这样一来，前期投入的场租、舞美、宣传、演职人员等成本可以迅速回笼，而迅速售罄的事实，也可以为后续的巡演加场和赞助招商造足声势。
即使有人付款失败，或者临时放弃购买，平台也可以迅速把库存释放出来，让下一位排队的顾客接手。而等你冷静下来，意识到自己不是非得去看时，平台还会告诉你：商品性质特殊，不设退换。
正如很多人注意到的，票务生态还存在获利丰厚的灰色地带。
比方说，为了表现出对歌迷的公平，演唱会的门票定价一般远远低于均衡价格，但在二手平台上，最终的成交价格往往也会远高于票面价。
中间的差价，就落入了主办方、票务平台和二级市场心照不宣的利益链条中。
2025 年，美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）就对北美票务霸主 Ticketmaster 提起诉讼，指控后者明知「黄牛」注册大量账户绕过购票限制，却仍允许这些门票在自己的转售平台上以更高价格交易，甚至推出了名为 TradeDesk 的软件帮助票贩子统一管理不同渠道来源的门票。
反观抽签制，它对歌迷来说当然很轻松，但一方的轻松就是另一方的负担——票务方必须预留登记期、清理重复申请、抽出中签者，然后等待他们在付款日决定是否购买；如果中签者日程变化、经济紧张或仅仅是凑热闹而登记，那么余票还要流入第二轮甚至第三轮购票中。
在这个过程中，主办方的资金回笼周期会被迫拉长，平台还要维护一套更复杂的票务分配系统。作为规则的制定者，除非艺人方面要求，否则他们着实没有动机去做多少带点公益的抽签制。
事实上，苏打绿 10 年前的抽签制试验，只进行了一场就宣告中止。根据当年的媒体报道，原因正是部分歌迷中签后没有付款，导致门票重新释放，而如何分配这批余票，后续又造成了不少争议。
来到 2026 年，陈奕迅的录音演出也不再是纯粹的抽签制，而更像是某种混合制度：今天没有卖完的票，将会在 11 月 9 日的次轮抽签售票中，面对所有中签者实行先到先得的「抢票式」售票，从而确保门票可以在两轮售票中悉数售出。
AI 时代，淘汰抢票制是大势所趋
说起来，虽然抢票制因为种种弊端在今天已经是众矢之的，但「抢票」这件事一度是有一点浪漫色彩的。
在中国摇滚乐进入商业化早期，「90 现代音乐会」的举办，就曾让首都体育馆售票厅前排起一里多长的队伍；日本票务公司 e+ 发明互联网抽签预售系统「プレオーダー」（Pre-order）之前，到现场排队买票还是当地死忠乐迷的标志。
互联网不发达的年代，抢一张热门演唱会的门票，可能意味着半夜三点顶着星夜、裹着外套去售票窗口排队，和一群不相识的歌迷一起等到天亮。你可能不认同他们的目标，却依然会被这种热血感动，这正是浪漫主义的灵魂所在。
而这些愿意付出时间的歌迷最终买到票，想必大多数人也是服气的。
在诺奖得主丹尼尔·卡尼曼和理查德·塞勒等人在 1986 年发起的调查里，被问到哪种竞争门票的方式最公平时，大多数人都选择了「排队」，然后是「抽签」，最后才是远远落后的「竞价」。
道理也很简单——在直觉里，排队可以很好地衡量付出的意愿，而且我们在时间上的「贫富差距」要远小于金钱上的「贫富差距」。
即使来到互联网时代，「抢票」依然是一种「用心」的证明：粉丝可能会提前准备个人信息、调好闹钟、练习手速、确保网络通畅，甚至组织亲朋好友同时作战。经过一系列精心准备，如果最终真的击败数十万人抢到门票，确实能产生一种巨大的成就感。
但这种成就感，也许很快就会成为一种失传的艺术——因为我们的对手不再是人类了。
也许从十多年前开始，我们就开始接受这么一个事实：有很多抢票软件正在和我们同场竞技。但只要黑灰产业从业者的数量有限，「上科技」还有门槛，那总有一些票能落到普通人手中，抢票就依然是一种可能产生回馈的活动。
但今天，AI Agent 和 Vibe Coding 似乎已经消除了技术作弊的门槛。
哪怕是一个毫无技术基础的学生，也可能调用具备电脑操控能力（Computer Use）的 AI Agent 来为自己抢票，或是 Vibe 出一个足以绕开官方风控机制的自动化抢票脚本。仅仅是最近几个月，GitHub 上就出现了好几个显然由 AI 参与编写的抢票脚本项目。
短时间内，也许票务平台还能继续升级检测机制，但长期来看，人们与售票网站交互的方式，正在从手动操作转向机器代理的大趋势是不会变的。
「科技大战」的结果，必然是自动化系统取代人工抢票。到这一步，所谓先到先得，已经很难再被视为对个人「努力」的奖励。
既然拼手速已经失去了公平性，为什么不让抽签制和它背后的运气来主宰一切？
从这个角度来看，我们有理由去期待和欢迎更多的陈奕迅，去欢迎更多的抽签制演唱会，工我们能坦然地接受命运分配的结果。
至于现在，先预祝打开查询页面的你，能看到那句「恭喜您！您已成功在中签登记首轮中被选中」。
本文由 AI图鉴自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
Five million people are drawing lots to see Chen Xianxian, will AI end the "census of robbery"?
The fan friends, when you see this article, don't forget to ask Cityline manually -- Chen Xianxiao 26 special recording shows with the results of the first round of the drawing of lots just came out this afternoon, and maybe you're the lucky one.
Introduction: This series is a non-traditional concert, but a Live Album immersion experiment with a viewer to make live records. It is located at the 1181 Hong Kong Academy of Performing Arts Opera, less 10 per cent of internal reserved tickets, 26 consecutively, and can produce less than 20,000 votes, less than a fraction of the 4.96 million registered applicants.
In other words, the probability of a sign-in is less than the probability of meeting Chen Xuan himself at a corner coffee shop. Today is destined to be a happy day for everyone.
But instead of signing, the ease of this "barrel" in my life is definitely one or two: it takes one minute to register the website, confirm the mail, and wait a few days for the drawing of lots, which is the whole process. There's no need to set the alarm clock, burn the incense, start the family and friends to help like the Weeknd ticket.
Why, then, did the drawing of lots of such a good civilization have not been promoted before?
How can I buy tickets instead of stealing them?
The allocation of tickets by drawing lots is not uncommon in the country, but it is not without precedent.
As early as 2016, the Soda Green " Thank God " concert adopted a veritable registration and random drawing of tickets by computer. In the notes to the tickets, Soda Green stated that it was intended to "eliminate yellow cattle"; in the following years, Kushishi and Hong Kong Orchestra concerts and the Rin Jia's "first registration and then drawing of lots" were all similar.
As for events outside the concerts, such as the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, the 2010 Guangzhou Asian Games and the 2020 Heroes' Alliance S10 Global Finals, there were also attempts to draw public lots, and the results were fairly well implemented.
And by looking at the world, the system is very mature in Japan, even in the mainstream way of buying tickets for concerts -
Unlike national concerts, which have generally chosen to be open on a stand-by basis and separate tickets, Japanese concerts often publish the whole set in advance, and fans then need only "fill volunteering" – i.e. go to the website and choose the level of seats they want to buy for each session, and then apply for priority, and then wait for the end result: there may be more than one "volunteer" in one breath, and there may be a "motion."
Of course, this mechanism does not represent absolute fairness and no threshold. In fact, it has created an "official cow" premium: fans have to pay thousands of yen per year to join the "celebrate club" in order to participate in the first grouping of "celebrants' tickets"; in part, they can even buy paid more draw rounds and sign weights.
On the positive side, however, these premiums were at least legally and reasonably in the hands of the sponsors, record companies and artists, rather than feeding the cattle as intermediaries.
Not to mention, being willing to join a fan club is itself a soft threshold for sifting fans, ensuring that some of the tickets fall into the hands of those who want to watch the show most; moreover, additional economic investment can only increase the relative probability of being a medium-signer, rather than allowing the concert to be privately owned by money alone, as in the case of ticket-taking.
To reach the dimensions of technology and user experience, drawing lots is a relief for all.
In retrospect, the traditional timing is essentially a DDoS attack created by the sponsors. – Millions of people have agreed to click on the same ticket-buying button at the same second, for which the platform needs to procure expensive instant-flexible bandwidth and load calculations from cloud service providers, which ultimately translate into fares and service charges.
Even so, the vast majority of people in a hot show can only see the pages that died, the errors that were reported, the queues that were to be reloaded once they were refreshed, and the grey-solding buttons that were shown when the pages were finally loaded.
There is no opportunity to do so, and nothing can be more frustrating.
And here we have to repeat the question of the beginning: since the drawing of lots has a better user experience, lower server pressure, and is cleverly disguised to generate income, why can we hardly find a "modern performance" based on the drawing of lots before Chen's recital?
Reasonability of ticket-taking
The drawing of lots did not fully take over the market, perhaps the most fundamental reason being that it did indeed have its economic legitimacy.
I'd like to draw lots if I'm a fan, but if I'm the host, I'll let you take it.
On the side of the sponsors and ticketers, first-in-first-in-first-in-second ticket-making is the most efficient "money-printer".
A few weeks later, the expectation to see the show in person, the expectation to see the rest of the vote decline rapidly and the expectation to miss the opportunity, the expectation to turn the gloves... In a carefully designed and timed robbery scene, everyone has a strong incentive to take the tickets and pay them immediately.
As a result, the costs of renting, dancing, advertising, performing staff and so on can be quickly returned to the cage, while the fact that they have been sold quickly can also be used to raise momentum for subsequent tours and fund-raisers.
Even if the payments fail or the purchase is temporarily abandoned, the platform can quickly release the inventory and let the next queue customer take over. And when you calm down and realize you don't have to see it, the platform will tell you that commodities are special and do not have to be replaced.
As many have noted, there are also lucrative grey areas in the voting ecology.
For example, in order to show fairness to fans, concert tickets are generally priced well below the average price, but on second-hand platforms, the final offer is often much higher than the nominal price.
The difference between the prices falls into the chain of interests that the host, the ticket platform and the secondary market are undeclared.
In 2025, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a lawsuit against North American vote-makers, Ticketmaster, who accused the latter of allowing them to trade at higher prices on their own resale platforms, knowing that the “Cow” registered a large number of accounts bypassed the ticket restrictions, and even launched a software called TradeDesk to help ticket dealers to manage their different sources.
Reverseing the drawing of lots is certainly easy for fans, but the ease of one side is the burden on the other — the ticketers must set aside the registration period, clear the duplicate application, draw out the mid-signer and wait for them to decide whether to buy it on the day of payment; if the mid-signer's schedule changes, the economy is tense or is simply registered, the remaining votes will flow into the second and even the third round.
In the process, the funding cycle of the sponsors will be forced to increase and the platform will maintain a more complex voting distribution system. As rule-makers, there is no real incentive for artists to draw lots with a few points of public interest unless they so request.
In fact, the drawing of lots experiment, 10 years ago, was suspended in one case. According to the media reports of the year, it was because of the non-payment of part of the fans, which led to the re-release of the tickets, and the distribution of the remainder of the tickets, which subsequently led to considerable controversy.
In 2026, Chen’s taped show was no longer a pure drawing of lots, but rather a mixed system: the tickets that were not sold today would be sold in the next round on November 9, with the first-to-preliminary “truck-and-take” tickets in front of all the top-notches, thus ensuring that the tickets could be sold in both rounds.
The AI era, it's a big deal to get rid of the robbery system. Trends
In other words, while the robbery system has been targeted today because of all its ills, it was once a little romantic.
In the early days of the commercialization of Chinese rock music, the "90 Modern Concerts" were held in front of the National Stadium for more than a mile; before the Japanese ticket company e+ invented the Internet 'Pre-order 's pre-selling system, it was also a sign of local loyalty.
In the underdeveloped years of the Internet, stealing a ticket to a popular concert may mean queuing in front of a star at 3 p.m., wearing a coat to the ticket window, waiting until dawn with a group of unrecognized fans. You may not agree with their goals, but you are still touched by this passion, which is the soul of romance.
And those fans, who are willing to pay their time, will eventually buy the tickets, and most of them will certainly be.
In an investigation launched in 1986 by Nobel laureates Daniel Kanyman and Richard Seller, when asked about the most fair way to compete, most people opted for "queuing" and then "drawing lots" and, finally, "biding."
The truth is also simple — intuitively, the desire to give is well measured in line, and our time gap between rich and poor is much smaller than our money gap between rich and poor.
Even in the age of the Internet, "vote-taking" is a proof of "intentional": fans may prepare personal information ahead of schedule, set alarm clocks, practice hand speed, ensure a smooth network, and even organize family and friends to fight simultaneously. After a series of well-prepared preparations, it is true that a sense of great achievement can be created if hundreds of thousands of people are finally defeated.
But this sense of achievement may soon become a lost art — because our opponent is no longer human.
Perhaps from more than a decade ago, we began to accept the fact that a lot of ticket-taking software is competing with us. But as long as the black-and-shell industry has a limited number of practitioners and a threshold of "technologies", there will always be votes in the hands of ordinary people, and ticket-taking will remain an activity that can generate feedback.
But today, AI Agent and Vibe Coding seem to have removed the threshold of technical fraud.
Even a non-technical student could call on AI Agent, who has computer manipulation skills, to collect tickets for himself, or Vibe to produce an automated ticket-taking script that would circumvent the official wind control mechanism. In recent months alone, GitHub has witnessed several projects that were apparently prepared with the participation of AI.
In a short period of time, it may be possible for the platform to continue upgrading the testing mechanism, but in the long run, the general trend of people interacting with the ticketing website from manual operations to machine agents will not change.
As a result of the "Technology War", automated systems must be replaced by manual robbery. At this point, it is already difficult to see first-come, first-served, as a reward for individual " efforts".
Since velocity has lost its fairness, why not let the drawing of lots and the luck behind it prevail?
From that point of view, we have reason to look forward to and welcome more tact and to welcome more lot-drawing concerts, and we can honestly accept the results of the distribution of destiny.
As for now, if you open the query page, you can see the phrase "Congratulations! You have successfully been selected in the first round of the register."
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Atlas. All rights belong to the original author.