|
10 things I want to address after viewing Paul Sam's announcements, KeSPA's responses, TL's comments.
1. KeSPA = A non-profit association recognized by the Ministry of Culture in Korea. Questionable management practices.
2. Non-profit = They re-invest whatever money they make for their cause/goals, they still will make money. It's not like they won't ever see a single dollar (won for this matter). I'm sure a 3rd party organization, most likely the ministry, audits them.
3. Activision-Blizzard = A for-profit company that should & will try to maximize profits to make money for their investors, there is nothing wrong with a company that wants to squeeze every last penny out of consumers' pockets. That is what a for-profit corporation should be doing.
- Case in point: LAN, they figured they would lose a small chunk of consumers for not having LAN, and would do better in profit & sales once they centralize the game via Battlenet2.0 (hindering piracy)
4. Everybody bitched/moaned about no LAN but still most people bought the game, proving Blizzard that they made the smarter business decision from their corporate perspective.
5. Numbers regarding profit/revenue/growth/sales = totally meaningless in press conferences without actual data. It is too ambiguous and anybody with basic knowledge of statistics knows that dropping random %s is irrelevant.
6. Paul Sams stated, "Blizzard does not see e-sports as a source of profits. The reason why we are in negotiations with game TV channels for licensing is to get our IP rights acknowledged, not to get profits." = This one is actually pretty funny. There is always money to made in any untapped markets. I'm sure Blizzard want their IP rights acknowledged but not interested in profits?
+ Show Spoiler +
7. Blizzard getting their IP rights acknowledged = Additional source of profit, which they did not have previously. Selling broadcasting rights yearly? With possibilities of huge potential growth in the near future. (Untapped market - upheld only by a non-profit organization)
8. "In addition, the yearly broadcasting fee that KeSPA wants is still 5 times more than what GomTV is requesting KeSPA to pay." = Random figures once again, but even if it is that much, they are still non-profit, which means that money will be re-invested for expansion of e-sports. When GomTV sells broadcasting rights, GomTV/Blizzard gets paid, in return their investors get paid.
9. Demanding the audit KeSPA is pretty outrageous, bullying for the lack of a better word.
We made the game --> We will sell you broadcasting rights every year for a figure we call --> Oh yeah and we can check your numbers anytime.
10. I believe the issue at hand will either spark a new life for e-sports or be the death of it. I say this because:
- This will set precedent and all game companies will basically be auto-given full control of pro-leagues/broadcasted tournaments due to IP rights of their respective games
- Other game companies besides Blizzard may choose to compete for a competitive "e-sports" game platform and produce higher quality games (knowing there is a lot of money to be made)
- Resulting in numerous dispersed pro-leagues which could lead to growth of e-sports
OR
- No other game company tries to make "e-sport" type games for broadcast because they don't see money to made in pro-leagues/high level tournaments featuring corporate sponsors/etc
- e-sports withers away
But all in all, I think the current issue shows that there is no room for non-profit organizations in e-sports because they simply didn't make the platform.
...
..
.
+ Show Spoiler + Quick! Somebody make an open source game like BW?! 
  
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
|
United States4053 Posts
The reason it looks like "there is no room for non-profit organizations in e-sports" is because Actiblizz's goal is to get KeSPA out of the picture... it's not like e-sports failed miserably with KeSPA at the helm.
On December 05 2010 05:13 Rekrul wrote:
no
what is this in response to?
|
On December 05 2010 05:13 Rekrul wrote:
no
???
|
On December 05 2010 05:13 Rekrul wrote:
no
Wrong thread?
edit: I am stupid. I guess you are talking about the open source Bw'ish game.
|
when did this conflict even start?
|
On December 05 2010 05:14 infinitestory wrote:
The reason it looks like "there is no room for non-profit organizations in e-sports" is because Actiblizz's goal is to get KeSPA out of the picture... it's not like e-sports failed miserably with KeSPA at the helm.
Yeah I agree, once Actiblizz gets rid of KeSPA - it's pretty symbolic actually...
It sets the standard for e-sports, 3rd party organizations can't do shit regardless of their cause/who they are backed by/etc because they didn't make the game ._.
I didn't say the last part you said ._.
|
United States4053 Posts
On December 05 2010 05:22 ThePurist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 05:14 infinitestory wrote:
The reason it looks like "there is no room for non-profit organizations in e-sports" is because Actiblizz's goal is to get KeSPA out of the picture... it's not like e-sports failed miserably with KeSPA at the helm. Yeah I agree, once Actiblizz gets rid of KeSPA - it's pretty symbolic actually... It sets the standard for e-sports, 3rd party organizations can't do shit regardless of their cause/who they are backed by/etc because they didn't make the game ._. I didn't say the last part you said ._.
If, not once.
|
I am still very anti-kespa practices i.e FA etc. But recently I think Blizz shouldn't control broadcasting rights; rather no-one should as it should be free for everyone.
|
I think you might have failed to communicate that clarity to us. Sure, if BW was free software we wouldn't have this debate. That's like saying if we had a free unlimited source of energy we wouldn't have an energy crisis. I fail to see how it helps us with the problems we do face.
|
Moment of Clarity is actually just a song by Jay-Z.
I clarified things a lot of people weren't aware of if you check out the two translated threads.
My key point is that there is no room for non-profit organizations in e-sports.
The last part was a joke hence clown face. Didn't mean to be received so literally.
|
United States4053 Posts
On December 05 2010 05:37 ThePurist wrote:
Moment of Clarity is actually just a song by Jay-Z.
I clarified things a lot of people weren't aware of if you check out the two translated threads.
My key point is that there is no room for non-profit organizations in e-sports.
The last part was a joke hence clown face. Didn't mean to be received so literally.
Like I said, I disagree. It's simply Actiblizz's approach that makes it look like KeSPA has no place in eSports. It's perfectly fine for Actiblizz to take a laissez-faire approach with BW and let KeSPA and the broadcasting situations run their leagues. They did that for years. Why the difference now? Because Actiblizz's stance changed. Not because KeSPA was incompetent (at least not totally incompetent). It depends on the company, and the company's take on whether to let eSports grow or try to harness it.
|
On December 05 2010 05:37 ThePurist wrote:
My key point is that there is no room for non-profit organizations in e-sports.
I guess that's true if Blizzard is actually allowed to assert its rights as they see fit.
|
Why is auditing Kespa outrageous? Doing the due diligence before signing a contract with a business partner is pretty standard.
|
On December 05 2010 05:40 infinitestory wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 05:37 ThePurist wrote:
Moment of Clarity is actually just a song by Jay-Z.
I clarified things a lot of people weren't aware of if you check out the two translated threads.
My key point is that there is no room for non-profit organizations in e-sports.
The last part was a joke hence clown face. Didn't mean to be received so literally.
Like I said, I disagree. It's simply Actiblizz's approach that makes it look like KeSPA has no place in eSports. It's perfectly fine for Actiblizz to take a laissez-faire approach with BW and let KeSPA and the broadcasting situations run their leagues. They did that for years. Why the difference now? Because Actiblizz's stance changed. Not because KeSPA was incompetent (at least not totally incompetent). It depends on the company, and the company's take on whether to let eSports grow or try to harness it.
They didn't "leave KeSPA and broadcasting situations run their leagues". According to sources posted on TL, they have supposedly negotiated for years. Perhaps their stance did change but realistically speaking, what company isn't going to want to get royalties/any source of extra income from their product?
|
5003 Posts
On December 05 2010 05:52 Onisparda wrote:
Why is auditing Kespa outrageous? Doing the due diligence before signing a contract with a business partner is pretty standard.
I'm willing to bet it's more of a matter of pride regarding that
|
You seem very biased when you write Actiblizz everytime you talk about Blizzard btw.
|
United States4053 Posts
On December 05 2010 05:59 Grend wrote:
You seem very biased when you write Actiblizz everytime you talk about Blizzard btw.
The Blizzard that created SC:BW is not the same Blizzard that is fighting the broadcasting companies and KeSPA. That distinction must be made clear 
edit:
@below
Not the same. Gretech is asking for more money than KeSPA earns in revenue, supposedly. There would be no broadcasting from MBC and OGN, Gretech doesn't own a TV channel, and KeSPA would disappear quickly. How is that not the death of BW?
|
Just because broadcasting companies will have to pay Blizzard (ActiBlizz as you term them) doesn't mean E-sports will go down in flames...
Broadcasting companies such as ESPN and TNT have to pay the NBA for broadcasting rights, the NBA didn't flounder.
|
On December 05 2010 05:58 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 05:52 Onisparda wrote:
Why is auditing Kespa outrageous? Doing the due diligence before signing a contract with a business partner is pretty standard. I'm willing to bet it's more of a matter of pride regarding that
Or the fear that Gom would use the numbers to ask for the highest price Kespa can afford to pay.
|
I'm sure most of you will stand firm on one side of the fence no matter what Blizzard or Kespa says. But the truth always lies somewhere in the middle, so all we can do is stay put and wait.
|
The way i see it blizzard wants control over everything so they can make the most money.
|
You think ESPORTS will be more successful if companies start more being bitchy and restrictive about IP rights?
SC:BW exploded in Korea without Blizzard doing a thing. KeSPA may have some occasional retarded policies, but some organization like that is necessary for keeping leagues/players organized and popular.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On December 05 2010 05:14 infinitestory wrote:The reason it looks like "there is no room for non-profit organizations in e-sports" is because Actiblizz's goal is to get KeSPA out of the picture... it's not like e-sports failed miserably with KeSPA at the helm. what is this in response to?
his post gives no clarity
|
United States4053 Posts
On December 05 2010 06:46 Rekrul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 05:14 infinitestory wrote:The reason it looks like "there is no room for non-profit organizations in e-sports" is because Actiblizz's goal is to get KeSPA out of the picture... it's not like e-sports failed miserably with KeSPA at the helm. On December 05 2010 05:13 Rekrul wrote:
no what is this in response to? his post gives no clarity
maybe no clarity to you, but it's probably breaking news for lots of the people who post in the threads about IP rights case (have you seen some of the rumors in there? godawful)
edit: also, if you can do better, please do~
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
clarity:
two companies trying to position themselves to make more money and have more power in the market
neither is right or wrong
who will win or if both will compromise... many variables will decide
hard to figure out
|
How does this deserve its own thread?
As for the points. Yes it is in every company's interest to make a profit, but sometimes businesses makes decisions which do not provide a profit immediately. Protecting their IP rights is a way to ensure that their future products don't get stolen.
|
I find the negotiations kind of interesting, especially regarding the audit rights. I'm no expert but assumed that the line was there as 100% compromise bait, ie sure, we'll take out this line, but you have to give us some ground somewhere. It's pretty interesting that it hasn't even been dangled by Actiblizzard this deep in. Kespa on the other hand are not taking the bait, but instead playing it into some kind of outrageous foreigner demand, which probably scores them the point.
|
The NFL and NHL are both non-profit companies (along with probably other sports organizations) that "reinvest their profits" that they earn. Doesn't mean jack. There's no clarity in here at all, just another biased viewpoint.
|
The raw facts for me are:
- KeSPA charged people for broadcasting BW when they don't own it, so legally they had no right to do so.
- Blizzard is understandably angry about this, so they are fighting to get their IP rights recognized in practice and not just in theory.
- Blizzard is trying to make KeSPA prove they recognize Blizzard's IP rights by making them pay for the license.
- Blizz claiming the fee is there to make sure people run good tournaments and quality broadcasts is bullshit because Blizzard already has 10 years of data that tells them that KeSPA/MBC etc can broadcast quality tournaments.
- In the end it's really just a pissing contest between two companies, and legally Blizz has the advantage.
People need to keep in mind that Blizz is asking for licensing money to broadcast its games from many companies all over the world, and they are at a significant disadvantage in those negotiations when people see that KeSPA can get away with charging for broadcasts without a license. They HAVE to (from a business perspective) fight KeSPA on this. Basically Blizzard's claims that they don't make much profit from SK could be true, but letting KeSPA get away with this might hurt them in places were there is a ton of money to be made.
|
both are trying to profit
i think blizzard winning would only break up the sc1 progaming faster than it is now, therefore im with kespa
|
On December 05 2010 05:11 ThePurist wrote:+ Show Spoiler +10 things I want to address after viewing Paul Sam's announcements, KeSPA's responses, TL's comments. 1. KeSPA = A non-profit association recognized by the Ministry of Culture in Korea. Questionable management practices. 2. Non-profit = They re-invest whatever money they make for their cause/goals, they still will make money. It's not like they won't ever see a single dollar (won for this matter). I'm sure a 3rd party organization, most likely the ministry, audits them. MBC and OGN are for profit and you don't know how much the top dog are being paid at KeSPA.3. Activision-Blizzard = A for-profit company that should & will try to maximize profits to make money for their investors, there is nothing wrong with a company that wants to squeeze every last penny out of consumers' pockets. That is what a for-profit corporation should be doing. - Case in point: LAN, they figured they would lose a small chunk of consumers for not having LAN, and would do better in profit & sales once they centralize the game via Battlenet2.0 (hindering piracy) Bla bla bla. Case in point : BW has lan and is being at the present time commercially exploited in total disrespect of the IP rights holder. If I was Blizzard (I'm not) I wouldn't take the risk with my new game.4. Everybody bitched/moaned about no LAN but still most people bought the game, proving Blizzard that they made the smarter business decision from their corporate perspective. 5. Numbers regarding profit/revenue/growth/sales = totally meaningless in press conferences without actual data. It is too ambiguous and anybody with basic knowledge of statistics knows that dropping random %s is irrelevant. Totally irrelevant. Paul Sam was responding to an article saying Blizzard was making 60% of their profits in S.Korea (although it's was likely about the number of Starcraft 1 sold)6. Paul Sams stated, "Blizzard does not see e-sports as a source of profits. The reason why we are in negotiations with game TV channels for licensing is to get our IP rights acknowledged, not to get profits." = This one is actually pretty funny. There is always money to made in any untapped markets. I'm sure Blizzard want their IP rights acknowledged but not interested in profits? + Show Spoiler +It's very likely Blizzard is paying Kim & Jang many times what they or Gretech (whoever) is asking from the TV channels. So no there is no profit to be made for Blizzard at least for the time being. I'm not saying they don't have plan to make e-sport profitable in the near future though.7. Blizzard getting their IP rights acknowledged = Additional source of profit, which they did not have previously. Selling broadcasting rights yearly? With possibilities of huge potential growth in the near future. (Untapped market - upheld only by a non-profit organization) Blizzard getting their IP rights acknowledged = Not setting a dangerous precedent. Any organization could exploit games as long as they are "non-profits" if they lose. That's why Blizzard will not "leave BW alone"8. "In addition, the yearly broadcasting fee that KeSPA wants is still 5 times more than what GomTV is requesting KeSPA to pay." = Random figures once again, but even if it is that much, they are still non-profit, which means that money will be re-invested for expansion of e-sports. When GomTV sells broadcasting rights, GomTV/Blizzard gets paid, in return their investors get paid. You don't know how much the top dog are being paid at KeSPA. What's the percentage being really reinvested into the pro-scene ? Korea is not one the cleanest country regarding corruption. 9. Demanding the audit KeSPA is pretty outrageous, bullying for the lack of a better word. We made the game --> We will sell you broadcasting rights every year for a figure we call --> Oh yeah and we can check your numbers anytime. Yearly contract are typical and I doubt Blizzard want to audit KeSPA to suck as much money as they can.10. I believe the issue at hand will either spark a new life for e-sports or be the death of it. I say this because: - This will set precedent and all game companies will basically be auto-given full control of pro-leagues/broadcasted tournaments due to IP rights of their respective games - Other game companies besides Blizzard may choose to compete for a competitive "e-sports" game platform and produce higher quality games (knowing there is a lot of money to be made) - Resulting in numerous dispersed pro-leagues which could lead to growth of e-sports OR - No other game company tries to make "e-sport" type games for broadcast because they don't see money to made in pro-leagues/high level tournaments featuring corporate sponsors/etc - e-sports withers away But all in all, I think the current issue shows that there is no room for non-profit organizations in e-sports because they simply didn't make the platform. ... .. . + Show Spoiler + Quick! Somebody make an open source game like BW?!
Anyway your post does not make anything clearer you're just adding your own biased twist to the little facts we've at hand like everyone else (including me).
The Blizzard that created SC:BW is not the same Blizzard that is fighting the broadcasting companies and KeSPA. That distinction must be made clear
Dumbest thing I ever read. Blizzard hasn't changed the majority of the people who worked on BW still work at Blizzard.
|
On December 05 2010 08:35 Zim23 wrote:
[*] KeSPA charged people for broadcasting BW when they don't own it, so legally they had no right to do so.
They didn't charge for BW, they charged for broadcasting KeSPA-run leagues (using KeSPA staff and KeSPA signed players). To my knowledge, KeSPA does not charge OGN and MBC for running their UMS/ladder BW shows (like Shinae's). As for why the fees to OGN and MBC, I covered my opinion on it in the other thread.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 03 2010 18:45 moopie wrote:
One way to look at it is that each of the sponsors has fees. They pay for everything involving the teams (dorms, practice house, salaries, coaches, uniforms, equipment, travel, etc), and membership fees to KeSPA. Only 2 of these sponsors actually draw a revenue at all from this process (OGN and MBC, through selling commercials during events), and as a result have slightly higher fees to even it out. None of the other sponsors (like SKT, KT, Samsung, etc) recieve compensation for their investments as their businesses are not directly linked, but simply invest into e-Sports for the publicity and PR.
Neither side is in the right here, but the additional fees charged from OGN and MBC (on top of the regular sponsorship fees that all the sponsors pay) make sense, to me at least.
|
United States4053 Posts
On December 05 2010 08:47 Clipped wrote:Show nested quote +The Blizzard that created SC:BW is not the same Blizzard that is fighting the broadcasting companies and KeSPA. That distinction must be made clear Dumbest thing I ever read. Blizzard hasn't changed the majority of the people who worked on BW still work at Blizzard.
hahahahahaha
before i even get into activision's business practices, do you have the data to back that up?
Guys, let's not get off topic. The OP's main point was that non-profit organizations cannot survive in the e-sports industry; let's not turn this into another "blizz is right!" "kespa/mbc/ogn are right!" "fuck you, idiot!" thread... we've had enough of those. To see who is "right," we can only wait for the court case to reach a conclusion.
|
On December 05 2010 08:47 moopie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 08:35 Zim23 wrote:
[*] KeSPA charged people for broadcasting BW when they don't own it, so legally they had no right to do so. They didn't charge for BW, they charged for broadcasting KeSPA-run leagues (using KeSPA staff and KeSPA signed players). To my knowledge, KeSPA does not charge OGN and MBC for running their UMS/ladder BW shows (like Shinae's). As for why the fees to OGN and MBC, I covered my opinion on it in the other thread. + Show Spoiler +On December 03 2010 18:45 moopie wrote:
One way to look at it is that each of the sponsors has fees. They pay for everything involving the teams (dorms, practice house, salaries, coaches, uniforms, equipment, travel, etc), and membership fees to KeSPA. Only 2 of these sponsors actually draw a revenue at all from this process (OGN and MBC, through selling commercials during events), and as a result have slightly higher fees to even it out. None of the other sponsors (like SKT, KT, Samsung, etc) recieve compensation for their investments as their businesses are not directly linked, but simply invest into e-Sports for the publicity and PR. Neither side is in the right here, but the additional fees charged from OGN and MBC (on top of the regular sponsorship fees that all the sponsors pay) make sense, to me at least.
I agree, I said they charged for broadcasting BW. I guess I should have said KeSPA run tournaments of BW, but yeah. They did this without a license, and they don't have the right to do so legally. The fees making sense might be true, but they're supposed to get a license from Blizzard to charge those fees.
To the OP's point, I don't think this has an effect on whether or not non-profits are viable in the e-sports world. As long as they come up with the licensing fees they can do much better than for-profit organizations because, in many counties, NPO's get huge tax breaks. The only reason I think Blizz would have to crush NPO's is if they plan on running tournaments themselves, or they want to get a share of profits from large for-profit organizations. I suppose that might be the case, but I think we are far from having an organization with enough profits for Blizz to salivate over.
|
Somehow I don't think Blizzard/Activision can make an e-sports scene worthy of the one we have now.
|
On December 05 2010 06:48 infinitestory wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 06:46 Rekrul wrote:On December 05 2010 05:14 infinitestory wrote:The reason it looks like "there is no room for non-profit organizations in e-sports" is because Actiblizz's goal is to get KeSPA out of the picture... it's not like e-sports failed miserably with KeSPA at the helm. On December 05 2010 05:13 Rekrul wrote:
no what is this in response to? his post gives no clarity maybe no clarity to you, but it's probably breaking news for lots of the people who post in the threads about IP rights case (have you seen some of the rumors in there? godawful) edit: also, if you can do better, please do~
He listed some facts which is okay. But then made up some conclusion that there are only two possible outcomes, and essentially said that Blizzard is doing everything perfectly and only if they win the case will people ever play videogames competitively again ever.
It's fine to make up things you think will happen, but it's exactly what people in the threads about the issue are saying.
+ Show Spoiler +My opinion is that people compete in videogames because they like it. And someone somewhere will find out how to monetize it, because people will keep trying. This case, as far as e-sports as a whole is concerned, means next to nothing. It won't be remembered for decades as having decided the fate of e-sports. Although maybe it will get a Wikipedia article.
|
On December 05 2010 08:54 infinitestory wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 08:47 Clipped wrote:The Blizzard that created SC:BW is not the same Blizzard that is fighting the broadcasting companies and KeSPA. That distinction must be made clear Dumbest thing I ever read. Blizzard hasn't changed the majority of the people who worked on BW still work at Blizzard. hahahahahaha before i even get into activision's business practices, do you have the data to back that up? You're the one who said Blizzard "changed" the burden of proof doesn't lie with me.
Blizzard has always taken a strong stance against anything that could threaten their profits and the bad blood between KeSPA and Blizzard started before the fusion with Activision BTW.
|
United States4053 Posts
On December 05 2010 09:19 Clipped wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 08:54 infinitestory wrote:On December 05 2010 08:47 Clipped wrote:The Blizzard that created SC:BW is not the same Blizzard that is fighting the broadcasting companies and KeSPA. That distinction must be made clear Dumbest thing I ever read. Blizzard hasn't changed the majority of the people who worked on BW still work at Blizzard. hahahahahaha before i even get into activision's business practices, do you have the data to back that up? You're the one who said Blizzard "changed" the burden of proof doesn't lie with me. Blizzard has always taken a strong stance against anything that could threaten their profits and the bad blood between KeSPA and Blizzard started before the fusion with Activision BTW.
i never said anything about the employees of blizzard so i have nothing to prove to that effect
and I take it you've never heard of Bobby Kotick? That man's life revolves around getting more money by any means possible
|
On December 05 2010 07:22 Rekrul wrote:
clarity:
two companies trying to position themselves to make more money and have more power in the market
neither is right or wrong
who will win or if both will compromise... many variables will decide
hard to figure out
Rekrul is the yoda of the starcraft community.
|
On December 05 2010 09:24 infinitestory wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 09:19 Clipped wrote:On December 05 2010 08:54 infinitestory wrote:On December 05 2010 08:47 Clipped wrote:The Blizzard that created SC:BW is not the same Blizzard that is fighting the broadcasting companies and KeSPA. That distinction must be made clear Dumbest thing I ever read. Blizzard hasn't changed the majority of the people who worked on BW still work at Blizzard. hahahahahaha before i even get into activision's business practices, do you have the data to back that up? You're the one who said Blizzard "changed" the burden of proof doesn't lie with me. Blizzard has always taken a strong stance against anything that could threaten their profits and the bad blood between KeSPA and Blizzard started before the fusion with Activision BTW. i never said anything about the employees of blizzard so i have nothing to prove to that effect and I take it you've never heard of Bobby Kotick? That man's life revolves around getting more money by any means possible
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/30305/Kotick_Hints_At_DirectToConsumer_Video_Game_Movies.php
I like his plan of not using real actors to save money, then selling the movie for $20+ then expect people to pay for it again in theaters.
When it comes to money making, this man knows no bounds.
|
On December 05 2010 07:22 Rekrul wrote:
clarity:
two companies trying to position themselves to make more money and have more power in the market
neither is right or wrong
who will win or if both will compromise... many variables will decide
hard to figure out
1. Everybody knows this
2. There are two sides to an argument
3. Everybody knows this
4. Obviously
Many people missed the point only a select few can differentiate the last point from the first 9 points. I point some key facts out and add in my hypothesis that after this lawsuit (if it happens) it will set precedent and I believe pretty much no other NPO can step in e-sports because they simply didn't make the game (unless for whatever reason the game company allows them to). It's not a very complicated hypothesis, it's really simple.
I'm not anti-Blizzard, they made BW, SC2, it's good they are making money (which for some reason people hate them for?), but what I am against is Blizzard stated they don't care about profits (untrue), and the current struggle for IP rights will set precedent for future games if it goes to a legal battle.
I am biased to some degree yes. I'll be real and upfront about it. There is no neutral 3rd party supreme objective view here. Except for Rekrul from this thread because his post was so meaningless that anybody could have already said.
The analogies of NFL and parallelisms with NHL by teamsolid was pretty frustrating to read and I wonder how you can make such irrelevant ties with a budding industry vs. the respective national sports of USA/Canada just on the grounds that they are both NPOs.
On December 05 2010 07:24 darmousseh wrote:
How does this deserve its own thread?
As for the points. Yes it is in every company's interest to make a profit, but sometimes businesses makes decisions which do not provide a profit immediately. Protecting their IP rights is a way to ensure that their future products don't get stolen.
Yes you are correct, there are ranged goals of businesses in which they may suffer losses initially. I believe it is common knowledge. Please read more carefully, points 6-7.
Zim23 thank you for your insightful post.
On December 05 2010 09:02 Loanshark wrote:
Somehow I don't think Blizzard/Activision can make an e-sports scene worthy of the one we have now.
I don't believe so too... sadly enough
... Anyways... Selective reading for the loss.
|
Your OP was completely biased and laced with acid against Blizzard, so no, in terms of clarity, all it clarified is you take KeSPA's side.
I'm glad Rekrul can get away with one-word posts, because "no" pretty much sums it up nicely.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On December 05 2010 19:05 ThePurist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 07:22 Rekrul wrote:
clarity:
two companies trying to position themselves to make more money and have more power in the market
neither is right or wrong
who will win or if both will compromise... many variables will decide
hard to figure out 1. Everybody knows this 2. There are two sides to an argument 3. Everybody knows this 4. Obviously Many people missed the point only a select few can differentiate the last point from the first 9 points. I point some key facts out and add in my hypothesis that after this lawsuit (if it happens) it will set precedent and I believe pretty much no other NPO can step in e-sports because they simply didn't make the game (unless for whatever reason the game company allows them to). It's not a very complicated hypothesis, it's really simple. I'm not anti-Blizzard, they made BW, SC2, it's good they are making money (which for some reason people hate them for?), but what I am against is Blizzard stated they don't care about profits (untrue), and the current struggle for IP rights will set precedent for future games if it goes to a legal battle. I am biased to some degree yes. I'll be real and upfront about it. There is no neutral 3rd party supreme objective view here. Except for Rekrul from this thread because his post was so meaningless that anybody could have already said. The analogies of NFL and parallelisms with NHL by teamsolid was pretty frustrating to read and I wonder how you can make such irrelevant ties with a budding industry vs. the respective national sports of USA/Canada just on the grounds that they are both NPOs. Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 07:24 darmousseh wrote:
How does this deserve its own thread?
As for the points. Yes it is in every company's interest to make a profit, but sometimes businesses makes decisions which do not provide a profit immediately. Protecting their IP rights is a way to ensure that their future products don't get stolen.
Yes you are correct, there are ranged goals of businesses in which they may suffer losses initially. I believe it is common knowledge. Please read more carefully, points 6-7. Zim23 thank you for your insightful post. Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 09:02 Loanshark wrote:
Somehow I don't think Blizzard/Activision can make an e-sports scene worthy of the one we have now. I don't believe so too... sadly enough ... Anyways... Selective reading for the loss.
well the amount of profits blizzard will gain from kespa etc complying to their demands is a very tiny fraction of what the company makes as a whole right now
you think they are risking all this possible bad PR for that money?
it's much bigger, and more complicated than that, and your post gives no clarity
hence 'no'
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
