|
On May 28 2010 00:49 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 00:40 nttea wrote:On May 28 2010 00:09 Chill wrote:On May 27 2010 23:14 Sashimi wrote:
Good post, I have always wanted to say that what Blizzard has done right in past, made it successful, now they are doing everything against their old successes. Everything now is driven by greed. Ever after the success of WOW, they saw the potential of milking more money out of their future franchise games. How is regaining control of your titles greed? imo blizzard should make the game> sell the game and then stay the fuck out of what anyone does with it! And I and Blizzard disagree. It's not greed to protect what is yours.
Agreed. it's clearly a case that in Korea, Intellectual Property right laws aren't either enforced enough or through international jurisdiction, it's hard for Blizzard to fight this case as of until now.
If this was in America, KeSPA would of been forced to sign under Blizzard's terms already or cease operations... It's amazing that they've gotten this far without compensating Blizzard for their IP rights.
The main thing is, regardless how much you the consumer assume Blizzard is doing this out of greed, it isn't. They never fought about this issue until KeSPA started using licensing agreements over a game that they didn't technically own. KeSPA can argue all they wish about the passive marketing they've done for SC over the years but it's not the case of "We made you famous now we can do whatever we want", it's just Blizzard is releasing the sequel of this game and realized they want their compensation for developing this epic sequel. The average joe who plays sc2 will not care what makes or breaks in korea.
|
kespa will have to pay 2 fees
one for running bw leagues
one to not run sc2 leagues
|
I've done some research on the licensing laws for Blizzard's other games, War3 and WoW. I'll say this much; the licensing fee isn't that big of a sum of money. I'm not sure what Blizzard is trying to ask out of GomTV or KeSPA but I'm sure it was considered reasonable under the circumstances. Regardless of all the other logistical issues, clearly GomTV saw this as a opportunity and will be making a strong investment in it.
|
On May 28 2010 00:09 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2010 23:14 Sashimi wrote:
Good post, I have always wanted to say that what Blizzard has done right in past, made it successful, now they are doing everything against their old successes. Everything now is driven by greed. Ever after the success of WOW, they saw the potential of milking more money out of their future franchise games. How is regaining control of your titles greed?
Chill, can you define what you mean by "control of your titles"? As I said repeatedly, I am all in favor of KeSPA paying up when it comes to royalties (possibly even to the extent of back-payments for the last 12 years). However, while I'm not an IP lawyer, I don't see how Blizzard can reasonably ask for actual control of something that they didn't create, which in this case would be the esports scene in Korea - certainly not to the degree that (at least KeSPA alleges) they are apparently trying to get.
I understand that the originally-from-Blizzard-but-not-really-from-Blizzard complication of the growth of Korean esports causes a difficult situation, but I don't think Blizzard making a power-grab for control of the SC:BW scene is the right option here. (They want to run SC2 themselves, fine; new game.) It may be legally within their rights (although again not being a lawyer I can't say that for sure), but it doesn't quite seem right for them to be making demands beyond licensing fees and/or royalties.
|
Calgary25998 Posts
On May 28 2010 01:15 Musoeun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 00:09 Chill wrote:On May 27 2010 23:14 Sashimi wrote:
Good post, I have always wanted to say that what Blizzard has done right in past, made it successful, now they are doing everything against their old successes. Everything now is driven by greed. Ever after the success of WOW, they saw the potential of milking more money out of their future franchise games. How is regaining control of your titles greed? Chill, can you define what you mean by "control of your titles"? As I said repeatedly, I am all in favor of KeSPA paying up when it comes to royalties (possibly even to the extent of back-payments for the last 12 years). However, while I'm not an IP lawyer, I don't see how Blizzard can reasonably ask for actual control of something that they didn't create, which in this case would be the esports scene in Korea - certainly not to the degree that (at least KeSPA alleges) they are apparently trying to get. I understand that the originally-from-Blizzard-but-not-really-from-Blizzard complication of the growth of Korean esports causes a difficult situation, but I don't think Blizzard making a power-grab for control of the SC:BW scene is the right option here. (They want to run SC2 themselves, fine; new game.) It may be legally within their rights (although again not being a lawyer I can't say that for sure), but it doesn't quite seem right for them to be making demands beyond licensing fees and/or royalties.
An analogy:
i. A startup artist creates a full-length animation for profit.
ii. A porno magazine creates a business by buying copies of the animation and then manipulating still shots from this animation. They pay only the cost of buying the animation. This is the first instance of this happening.
iii. The startup says stop doing that.
My argument: Yes, they should be able to control their property.
Your argument: No, they can get money for it but they can't control an industry they didn't make.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how shit works or even if that's a valid analogy, but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it.
|
5003 Posts
but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it.
And what is your rationale behind that? You seem to make no exceptions to this rule, so I'm wondering how you back up the rationale and what you believe to be the purpose of that rule.
|
Calgary25998 Posts
On May 28 2010 01:38 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote + but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it. And what is your rationale behind that? You seem to make no exceptions to this rule, so I'm wondering how you back up the rationale and what you believe to be the purpose of that rule.
Because what they're doing may not agree with how you brand your creation. You should be in control of what you created. Maybe Blizzard doesn't want Starcraft to be Korea-dominated and have the connotation of slaves training for 16 hours a day? I don't know what they want, I just know it's logical that they protect their brand.
|
It seems perfectly fine that Blizzard sets the terms for how their game is being used by other companies. They created the game, the art, the sounds, the music. Kespa has been exploiting Starcraft 1 for years to make money. Intuitively it seems like Blizzard has missed out on some revenues that they were entitled to, if only just for playing the Starcraft music on TV. Legally it may not be that simple. But I think the fact that an agreement was reached between GOM and Blizzard indicate that there is some legal leverage. Otherwise GOM would be stupid to make a deal for something worthless.
Esports will live on even without OGN, MBC Game and Kespa if there is demand for it.
|
5003 Posts
On May 28 2010 01:43 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 01:38 Milkis wrote: but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it. And what is your rationale behind that? You seem to make no exceptions to this rule, so I'm wondering how you back up the rationale and what you believe to be the purpose of that rule. Because what they're doing may not agree with how you brand your creation. You should be in control of what you created. Maybe Blizzard doesn't want Starcraft to be Korea-dominated and have the connotation of slaves training for 16 hours a day? I don't know what they want, I just know it's logical that they protect their brand.
I see that logic, but I think the biggest difference is that people don't like the restrictions that may come with it. The reason why proleagues developed was because of the lack of restrictions, and people are afraid that this will happen at this point.
I also believe that logic is too suffocating. I'm not too sure if you're willing to let me stretch your logic, but there's often many cases your creation being branded like that (see: ideas). it's like saying "If you read this book, you can only interpret it this way, the authorial intent" rather than allowing people to derive their own meanings from it because of control. But that's how books, doctrines, ideas, and I believe, Starcraft as a game, can grow. There is a lot of benefits that we have been reaping from Blizzard not being able to control Starcraft for so long and that's why I believe sticking to that rock solid logic may not be the best plan of action if we're looking forward to e-Sports improving. That's probably why there's a lot of disagreement with what you're saying right now -- you're looking at what you believe to be fundamental, and a lot of other people (including me) are looking at the benefits that can come from it.
|
On May 28 2010 01:53 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 01:43 Chill wrote:On May 28 2010 01:38 Milkis wrote: but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it. And what is your rationale behind that? You seem to make no exceptions to this rule, so I'm wondering how you back up the rationale and what you believe to be the purpose of that rule. Because what they're doing may not agree with how you brand your creation. You should be in control of what you created. Maybe Blizzard doesn't want Starcraft to be Korea-dominated and have the connotation of slaves training for 16 hours a day? I don't know what they want, I just know it's logical that they protect their brand. I see that logic, but I think the biggest difference is that people don't like the restrictions that may come with it. The reason why proleagues developed was because of the lack of restrictions, and people are afraid that this will happen at this point. I also believe that logic is too suffocating. I'm not too sure if you're willing to let me stretch your logic, but there's often many cases your creation being branded like that (see: ideas). it's like saying "If you read this book, you can only interpret it this way, the authorial intent" rather than allowing people to derive their own meanings from it because of control. But that's how books, doctrines, ideas, and I believe, Starcraft as a game, can grow. There is a lot of benefits that we have been reaping from Blizzard not being able to control Starcraft for so long and that's why I believe sticking to that rock solid logic may not be the best plan of action if we're looking forward to e-Sports improving. That's probably why there's a lot of disagreement with what you're saying right now -- you're looking at what you believe to be fundamental, and a lot of other people (including me) are looking at the benefits that can come from it.
Ya it's not like Kespa doesn't create the same "stifling" situations?
Does nobody remember the Kespa rejection of Item-Mania as a team sponsor?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=76380
|
On May 28 2010 01:53 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 01:43 Chill wrote:On May 28 2010 01:38 Milkis wrote: but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it. And what is your rationale behind that? You seem to make no exceptions to this rule, so I'm wondering how you back up the rationale and what you believe to be the purpose of that rule. Because what they're doing may not agree with how you brand your creation. You should be in control of what you created. Maybe Blizzard doesn't want Starcraft to be Korea-dominated and have the connotation of slaves training for 16 hours a day? I don't know what they want, I just know it's logical that they protect their brand. I see that logic, but I think the biggest difference is that people don't like the restrictions that may come with it. The reason why proleagues developed was because of the lack of restrictions, and people are afraid that this will happen at this point. I also believe that logic is too suffocating. I'm not too sure if you're willing to let me stretch your logic, but there's often many cases your creation being branded like that (see: ideas). it's like saying "If you read this book, you can only interpret it this way, the authorial intent" rather than allowing people to derive their own meanings from it because of control. But that's how books, doctrines, ideas, and I believe, Starcraft as a game, can grow. There is a lot of benefits that we have been reaping from Blizzard not being able to control Starcraft for so long and that's why I believe sticking to that rock solid logic may not be the best plan of action if we're looking forward to e-Sports improving. That's probably why there's a lot of disagreement with what you're saying right now -- you're looking at what you believe to be fundamental, and a lot of other people (including me) are looking at the benefits that can come from it.
I definitely agree with this, although I can also see where Chill is coming from. I believe it's Blizzard's right to have complete control over what people do with their game, especially if people are making money from it. But Blizzard having complete control over their game doesn't mean that Blizzard know what's best for their game. They might not pick the best rules for tournaments, they might not run tournaments smoothly, they might not know what's best for the players etc.. I wouldn't argue that Kespa, MBC or OGN are the best thing for Starcraft, but I see benefits in having the game broadcast and played without such harsh restrictions.
|
On May 28 2010 01:43 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 01:38 Milkis wrote: but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it. And what is your rationale behind that? You seem to make no exceptions to this rule, so I'm wondering how you back up the rationale and what you believe to be the purpose of that rule. Because what they're doing may not agree with how you brand your creation. You should be in control of what you created. Maybe Blizzard doesn't want Starcraft to be Korea-dominated and have the connotation of slaves training for 16 hours a day? I don't know what they want, I just know it's logical that they protect their brand.
I'm sure that Diablo and WoW nerds running/raiding 24/24 7/7 and spending money to get their l33t gear are a way better connotation indeed
That "moral" argument is ridiculous. Blizzard doesn't care about slaves or people nerding.
|
5003 Posts
On May 28 2010 01:57 GogoKodo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 01:53 Milkis wrote:On May 28 2010 01:43 Chill wrote:On May 28 2010 01:38 Milkis wrote: but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it. And what is your rationale behind that? You seem to make no exceptions to this rule, so I'm wondering how you back up the rationale and what you believe to be the purpose of that rule. Because what they're doing may not agree with how you brand your creation. You should be in control of what you created. Maybe Blizzard doesn't want Starcraft to be Korea-dominated and have the connotation of slaves training for 16 hours a day? I don't know what they want, I just know it's logical that they protect their brand. I see that logic, but I think the biggest difference is that people don't like the restrictions that may come with it. The reason why proleagues developed was because of the lack of restrictions, and people are afraid that this will happen at this point. I also believe that logic is too suffocating. I'm not too sure if you're willing to let me stretch your logic, but there's often many cases your creation being branded like that (see: ideas). it's like saying "If you read this book, you can only interpret it this way, the authorial intent" rather than allowing people to derive their own meanings from it because of control. But that's how books, doctrines, ideas, and I believe, Starcraft as a game, can grow. There is a lot of benefits that we have been reaping from Blizzard not being able to control Starcraft for so long and that's why I believe sticking to that rock solid logic may not be the best plan of action if we're looking forward to e-Sports improving. That's probably why there's a lot of disagreement with what you're saying right now -- you're looking at what you believe to be fundamental, and a lot of other people (including me) are looking at the benefits that can come from it. Ya it's not like Kespa doesn't create the same "stifling" situations? Does nobody remember the Kespa rejection of Item-Mania as a team sponsor? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=76380
Obviously, KeSPA can be considered another bottleneck that contributes to such a situation. I don't think I implied otherwise.
|
Calgary25998 Posts
On May 28 2010 01:53 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 01:43 Chill wrote:On May 28 2010 01:38 Milkis wrote: but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it. And what is your rationale behind that? You seem to make no exceptions to this rule, so I'm wondering how you back up the rationale and what you believe to be the purpose of that rule. Because what they're doing may not agree with how you brand your creation. You should be in control of what you created. Maybe Blizzard doesn't want Starcraft to be Korea-dominated and have the connotation of slaves training for 16 hours a day? I don't know what they want, I just know it's logical that they protect their brand. I see that logic, but I think the biggest difference is that people don't like the restrictions that may come with it. The reason why proleagues developed was because of the lack of restrictions, and people are afraid that this will happen at this point. I also believe that logic is too suffocating. I'm not too sure if you're willing to let me stretch your logic, but there's often many cases your creation being branded like that (see: ideas). it's like saying "If you read this book, you can only interpret it this way, the authorial intent" rather than allowing people to derive their own meanings from it because of control. But that's how books, doctrines, ideas, and I believe, Starcraft as a game, can grow. There is a lot of benefits that we have been reaping from Blizzard not being able to control Starcraft for so long and that's why I believe sticking to that rock solid logic may not be the best plan of action if we're looking forward to e-Sports improving. That's probably why there's a lot of disagreement with what you're saying right now -- you're looking at what you believe to be fundamental, and a lot of other people (including me) are looking at the benefits that can come from it.
That's fair, I'm looking at it like it's not Blizzard and Starcraft. I feel a lot of people start at "This will change things for the worse" and then work backwards to justify it. I think it's perfectly just and I'm just along for the ride to see how it changes things.
|
Calgary25998 Posts
On May 28 2010 02:01 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 01:43 Chill wrote:On May 28 2010 01:38 Milkis wrote: but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it. And what is your rationale behind that? You seem to make no exceptions to this rule, so I'm wondering how you back up the rationale and what you believe to be the purpose of that rule. Because what they're doing may not agree with how you brand your creation. You should be in control of what you created. Maybe Blizzard doesn't want Starcraft to be Korea-dominated and have the connotation of slaves training for 16 hours a day? I don't know what they want, I just know it's logical that they protect their brand. I'm sure that Diablo and WoW nerds running/raiding 24/24 7/7 and spending money to get their l33t gear are a way better connotation indeed That "moral" argument is ridiculous. Blizzard doesn't care about slaves or people nerding.
What moral argument? You put words in my mouth and then chastised me for them. Don't call me a racist!
|
On May 28 2010 02:01 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 01:57 GogoKodo wrote:On May 28 2010 01:53 Milkis wrote:On May 28 2010 01:43 Chill wrote:On May 28 2010 01:38 Milkis wrote: but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it. And what is your rationale behind that? You seem to make no exceptions to this rule, so I'm wondering how you back up the rationale and what you believe to be the purpose of that rule. Because what they're doing may not agree with how you brand your creation. You should be in control of what you created. Maybe Blizzard doesn't want Starcraft to be Korea-dominated and have the connotation of slaves training for 16 hours a day? I don't know what they want, I just know it's logical that they protect their brand. I see that logic, but I think the biggest difference is that people don't like the restrictions that may come with it. The reason why proleagues developed was because of the lack of restrictions, and people are afraid that this will happen at this point. I also believe that logic is too suffocating. I'm not too sure if you're willing to let me stretch your logic, but there's often many cases your creation being branded like that (see: ideas). it's like saying "If you read this book, you can only interpret it this way, the authorial intent" rather than allowing people to derive their own meanings from it because of control. But that's how books, doctrines, ideas, and I believe, Starcraft as a game, can grow. There is a lot of benefits that we have been reaping from Blizzard not being able to control Starcraft for so long and that's why I believe sticking to that rock solid logic may not be the best plan of action if we're looking forward to e-Sports improving. That's probably why there's a lot of disagreement with what you're saying right now -- you're looking at what you believe to be fundamental, and a lot of other people (including me) are looking at the benefits that can come from it. Ya it's not like Kespa doesn't create the same "stifling" situations? Does nobody remember the Kespa rejection of Item-Mania as a team sponsor? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=76380 Obviously, KeSPA can be considered another bottleneck that contributes to such a situation. I don't think I implied otherwise.
I think you definitely implied otherwise, talking about how proleagues are built upon some great freedom and that now that Blizzard is in control (rather than Kespa) it's creating a different situation that will kill the leagues.
If that wasn't your intention then I'm sorry.
|
5003 Posts
On May 28 2010 02:03 GogoKodo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 02:01 Milkis wrote:On May 28 2010 01:57 GogoKodo wrote:On May 28 2010 01:53 Milkis wrote:On May 28 2010 01:43 Chill wrote:On May 28 2010 01:38 Milkis wrote: but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it. And what is your rationale behind that? You seem to make no exceptions to this rule, so I'm wondering how you back up the rationale and what you believe to be the purpose of that rule. Because what they're doing may not agree with how you brand your creation. You should be in control of what you created. Maybe Blizzard doesn't want Starcraft to be Korea-dominated and have the connotation of slaves training for 16 hours a day? I don't know what they want, I just know it's logical that they protect their brand. I see that logic, but I think the biggest difference is that people don't like the restrictions that may come with it. The reason why proleagues developed was because of the lack of restrictions, and people are afraid that this will happen at this point. I also believe that logic is too suffocating. I'm not too sure if you're willing to let me stretch your logic, but there's often many cases your creation being branded like that (see: ideas). it's like saying "If you read this book, you can only interpret it this way, the authorial intent" rather than allowing people to derive their own meanings from it because of control. But that's how books, doctrines, ideas, and I believe, Starcraft as a game, can grow. There is a lot of benefits that we have been reaping from Blizzard not being able to control Starcraft for so long and that's why I believe sticking to that rock solid logic may not be the best plan of action if we're looking forward to e-Sports improving. That's probably why there's a lot of disagreement with what you're saying right now -- you're looking at what you believe to be fundamental, and a lot of other people (including me) are looking at the benefits that can come from it. Ya it's not like Kespa doesn't create the same "stifling" situations? Does nobody remember the Kespa rejection of Item-Mania as a team sponsor? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=76380 Obviously, KeSPA can be considered another bottleneck that contributes to such a situation. I don't think I implied otherwise. I think you definitely implied otherwise, talking about how proleagues are built upon some great freedom and that now that Blizzard is in control (rather than Kespa) it's creating a different situation that will kill the leagues. If that wasn't your intention then I'm sorry.
Proleagues were built upon Blizzard not being able to control the game to fit their needs. It is, built on some Freedom. However, this does not mean KeSPA isn't also stifling the situation at hand.
There's two layers -- Blizzard is the first, KeSPA is built on Blizzard ceding control, and then there's E-Sports based on it. I'm looking at the Blizzard -> E-Sports connection rather than KeSPA -> E-Sports connection.
I'm completely and utterly paranoid of Blizzard being in control. If they have sent positive and good signals about where they want to take E-Sports, I wouldn't mind. My issue is that the only signals Blizzard has given about E-Sports is Battle.net 2.0 and the rights that they demanded from KeSPA, which I believe is extremely and utterly suffocating.
If Blizzard actually looked like they were trying to build E-Sports, the direction that it was going (which obviously includes improvement of player conditions, and yes, it has been improving), then I don't think anyone would be supporting KeSPA right now. Based on what I have seen from Blizzard, I don't think we can expect them to be able to do better than what we have now.
|
On May 28 2010 01:28 Chill wrote:
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how shit works or even if that's a valid analogy, but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it.
See, this is where stuff starts to break down. Generally speaking I agree with you: but here we've got the situation:
Blizzard approves of SC as an esport, we know this.
If Blizzard just wanted to be paid, there wouldn't be any argument (I hope) about who was right.
But from my perspective, what Blizzard is saying is, "No you can't do that because we want to now," even though the idea (esports leagues) they want to control isn't actually their idea. It's not exactly KeSPA's idea either of course, but KeSPA is the closest thing to a reputable esports organization there is. Blizzard is saying, "Yo, you guys can't do this any more unless you do it our way."
I guess they may be within their rights, but it's stupid. Blizzard should have been saying, "Hey, pay up. BTW, we'd like to partner with you, how do you keep this stuff running?" but instead they were making demands when they don't actually have any experience running esports leagues. Looks like Blizzard's gotten what they wanted finally by talking to GOM, but I'm just not a fan of the attitude Blizzard's taken throughout. They may be legally right, but they're not right.
Edit: Or even better, Blizzard should have settled with forcing royalties out of KeSPA, and set themselves up somewhere else. Yes, nowhere else really has the player base to draw from, but a league based, in, say, Brussels would have avoided the KeSPA issue until Blizzard had the reputation and experience-clout to challenge in Korea. I know KeSPA's hardly a model organization overall, but so far it's the best there is.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On May 28 2010 02:02 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 01:53 Milkis wrote:On May 28 2010 01:43 Chill wrote:On May 28 2010 01:38 Milkis wrote: but it seems to me if someone is profiting from something you created, not only do they owe you money, but you need to be in agreement with them doing it. And what is your rationale behind that? You seem to make no exceptions to this rule, so I'm wondering how you back up the rationale and what you believe to be the purpose of that rule. Because what they're doing may not agree with how you brand your creation. You should be in control of what you created. Maybe Blizzard doesn't want Starcraft to be Korea-dominated and have the connotation of slaves training for 16 hours a day? I don't know what they want, I just know it's logical that they protect their brand. I see that logic, but I think the biggest difference is that people don't like the restrictions that may come with it. The reason why proleagues developed was because of the lack of restrictions, and people are afraid that this will happen at this point. I also believe that logic is too suffocating. I'm not too sure if you're willing to let me stretch your logic, but there's often many cases your creation being branded like that (see: ideas). it's like saying "If you read this book, you can only interpret it this way, the authorial intent" rather than allowing people to derive their own meanings from it because of control. But that's how books, doctrines, ideas, and I believe, Starcraft as a game, can grow. There is a lot of benefits that we have been reaping from Blizzard not being able to control Starcraft for so long and that's why I believe sticking to that rock solid logic may not be the best plan of action if we're looking forward to e-Sports improving. That's probably why there's a lot of disagreement with what you're saying right now -- you're looking at what you believe to be fundamental, and a lot of other people (including me) are looking at the benefits that can come from it. That's fair, I'm looking at it like it's not Blizzard and Starcraft. I feel a lot of people start at "This will change things for the worse" and then work backwards to justify it. I think it's perfectly just and I'm just along for the ride to see how it changes things.
Exactly. If there's no change in the situation until August, then this'll be a huge loss. Hopefully this move forces a deal that will keep Blizzard in the money and out of esports, which is easily the best-case scenario right now.
But as a fan of esports, Chill, I can't see how you're content to just watch this happen and not feel strongly one way or another.
***
I've been struggling to come up with an appropriate analogy. I don't think the artist analogy works because what's being shown on Korean TV is so far from the original intent Blizzard had with the game, and the game has been changed so dramatically than what Blizzard ever foresaw. Not to mention the maps are a separate content. It's almost as if Blizzard provided the tools with which this final product has been made.
I feel like a more apt comparison is a game like Ultimate Frisbee, which cut out the "frisbee" part of it's name to avoid copyright issues with Wham-o. And then there's games like pool, which aren't run by the companies that make the pool tables. Poker isn't controlled by the card makers.
I don't think any existing analogy works well though, which means that BW is somewhat uncharted territory. If there was a way to bring this to court without grievously injuring BW, then that might be the most interesting tack.
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
What has Kespa ever done to make you put faith in its ability to run things?
Start the leagues? No - OGN started that.
Broadcast the leagues? No - the OGN/MBCgame started that.
Get the original sponsorships? No - teams and players did it on their own.
Extinguish the match fixing scandal? No - was the cops that did this.
Kespa gets zero credit from me. In every step of the way Kespa has come in a step after things have been already established. The one positive element that comes from Kespa is the creation of ACE. Other than that, all they've done is create an environment where players are slaves and "free agency" is not free.
On the other hand, Blizzard created Starcraft. SC is their intellectual property. Blizzard is the rightful owner of how SC is used or represented. This is indisputable.
EVERY single one of Blizzard's demands are a) within its rights and b) reasonable.
1. Set the contract term for using its games to 1 year
- The idea is to re-negotiate new terms every year. Blizzard is not saying "After a year, no more esports!" What they are saying is "after each year we will establish a new esports agreement with the party of our choosing." It is not different from the CBAs that major sports leagues all over the world use.
2. Prior approvals about all league operations such as contracting sponsorship, marketing materials, broadcasting plan
- This is entirely reasonable. SC is a brand associated with Blizzard - especially with SC2 coming out. Blizzard has the right to claim that their brand is used in the way they wish. For example, the YOU ARE THE GOLF KING MSL. Blizzard is going to let the SC brand be associated with another game company? No sir.
Furthermore, Blizzard as the owner of SC has the right to negotiate its own sponsorships. If Blizz wants to enter a sponsorship deal with JP Morgan Chase, but one of its starleagues is being sponsored by Shinhan Bank, then we have a problem.
3. License fee for running of league and all license fee of sponsorship inducement
- Considering that without Blizz' implicit approval none of the leagues are possible to exist, this is fair. Like it or not, there is money to be made through esports. Blizz has a rightful claim to a piece of the pie.
4. Ownership of all broadcasted programs, program videos
- This is the hardest to stomach, but hey, EULA. Though I do believe that Blizzard will probably be willing to share these rights with any of its broadcast partners.
5. Right to audit KeSPA.
- Oh god someone please audit that incompetent organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
