| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
On April 26 2010 13:55 tomatriedes wrote: Kespa needs to develop their own RTS game. The chances of a Korean made RTS making it big in the West is not that high, imo. People are too attached to the Blizzard name. Pro-gaming is not just about the game's competitive quality, it's also about its popularity, which draws in viewers and sponsors. It's these latter two that make or break a game in terms of competitive eSports. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On April 27 2010 01:59 Pezsmapatkany wrote: i wonder, what would ppl say who want blizzard to win, if microsoft say that all games that run in their product (windows) and uses their product (directx) must pay money for them. will they say: oh yeah, ms made those stuff, he should get his money from that, or they would react other way? ms dont need blizzard to be succesfull, blizzard need ms, gogo microsoft... wtf is this? hhahaha | ||
|
Irrelevant
United States2364 Posts
| ||
|
MaYuu
Sweden516 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + What will happen when blizzard has sold all their copies? It's not like after a year or two people will start buying them again. Unlike wow you pay for sc once and then you can use it freely (If they don't include some battle.net fee that is) If we look on other games that were supposed to take over a previous game (Modern Warfare 2 is a good example) the e-sports community decided to stick with cod4 just cause of the no LAN option. Do blizzard really want that to happend to SC2 also? I can't seem to figure out why they would disable LAN if they "care" about e-sports. | ||
|
Djin)ftw(
Germany3357 Posts
| ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
That started the stalemate, however the game rigging of late gave kespa a huge black eye and especially since they tried to stay hush hush and make it go away quietly it gave blizzard and upper hand politically, when they applied that pressure kespa potentially tried to use the game rating system to black mail blizzard with the adult rating. In turn blizzard just pulled a trump card and gave them the business version of the middle finger. Yes korea is one of the most game oriented countries but in the end is still a country smaller than 50 million. When you consider how strong esports has been growing in europe and the ever so large gaming population of north america, korea is still a small piece of the pie and its exclusion of foreigners prevents larger expansion. That being said despite the huge numbers of gamers esports is a long ways off from being televised here in the states, largely in part by the nature of game players. They arent nearly as interested in watching live tv as they are from just internet viewing what they want to see, add that to a robust national identity to established traditional sports and its a huge uphill battle for ratings. It was much easier for korea to launch esports since their cultural did not identify with traditional sports at all. In summary while sc is important to korea korea alone does not have the market share nor revenue mine for to hold over blizzard to force their way. | ||
|
s.a.y
Croatia3840 Posts
On April 27 2010 03:00 MaYuu wrote: All the new games not featuring LAN is a major step back in the evolution of E-sports. It's really sad to see this happen to SC2 also. + Show Spoiler + What will happen when blizzard has sold all their copies? It's not like after a year or two people will start buying them again. Unlike wow you pay for sc once and then you can use it freely (If they don't include some battle.net fee that is) If we look on other games that were supposed to take over a previous game (Modern Warfare 2 is a good example) the e-sports community decided to stick with cod4 just cause of the no LAN option. Do blizzard really want that to happend to SC2 also? I can't seem to figure out why they would disable LAN if they "care" about e-sports. once you buy sc2, you are gonna buy it twice more (addons). After that, there will be a huge amount of UMS games that will blizzard will sell (or get provisions from selling user made maps/custom games). There's a lot of options for blizzard to earn money, selling the game is just a single part. Don't forget about ingame advertisements and things like that. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On April 27 2010 01:59 Pezsmapatkany wrote: i wonder, what would ppl say who want blizzard to win, if microsoft say that all games that run in their product (windows) and uses their product (directx) must pay money for them. will they say: oh yeah, ms made those stuff, he should get his money from that, or they would react other way? ms dont need blizzard to be succesfull, blizzard need ms, gogo microsoft... I'm pretty sure game developers already have have to pay Microsoft to get that silly "Games For Windows" label on the box. So yeah, no big change. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On April 26 2010 20:43 nonduc wrote: Are you kidding?! In 2001–2003 KeSPA started on MBC both individual and team leagues! 2001 KPGA August—2001 KPGA November + KPGA Winners Championship 2002 KPGA 1st Tour 2002 Reebok KPGA 2nd Tour 2002 Pepsi Twist KPGA 3rd Tour 2002–2003 Baskin Robbins KPGA 4th Tour 2003 KeMongSa KPGA Tour Team League 2003 LifeZone KPGA Team League It was a huge support in forming the second largest StarCraft broadcasting channel. You seem to be willingly ignoring this post: On April 26 2010 10:47 Waxangel wrote: No, in theory they would KPGA and KeSPA are the same organization since the founding. In effect, early KPGA was a small organization that lent its name to gembc/mbcgame who was looking for a name to lend itself legitimacy, although it did perform the function of handing out progaming licenses from that early date. KeSPA after the chair passed to SKTelecom is the organization that started pro-league and represented the team owner's interests almost exclusively, while trying to sell OGN and MBCGame the rights to broadcast their own product. Whatever, the semantics don't interest me as long as you seem to get my point. KPGA was simply a name to lend legitimacy to MBC's broadcast tournament. As far as the the actual administration of the tournament, KeSPA/KPGA was in no way a critical organization. | ||
|
nonduc
Russian Federation405 Posts
On April 27 2010 03:56 TheYango wrote: KPGA was simply a name to lend legitimacy to MBC's broadcast tournament. As far as the the actual administration of the tournament, KeSPA/KPGA was in no way a critical organization. “A critical organization”? What it this?! 8-() KeSPA was a sponsor of these leagues. | ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
If Esports fails for blizzard, no big deal. It will go on to make WoW2, which will generate way more revenue for them than any measly Esports fees they charge.If Esports fails for Kespa, no more Kespa. | ||
|
gumbum8
United States721 Posts
This means (as I understand it) we're looking at a potential end to the "Professional" Starcraft gamer, when no one can televise or broadcast these events. Truly, getting a sponsor for a game that's played professionally on national T.V. is a hell of a lot easier than a game that some cool guys on the internet play for fun, and sponsors make games profitable, and when games are profitable then people can play them professionally... I don't think any of this needs explaining. I'm not really well informed about what each side is demanding, but I think even if blizzard can get a better or potentially international replacement, it would be nearly as costly if not more costly than it would be to accept KeSPA, not to mention all the pro-gaming houses and careers at steak, heavily invested in KeSPA. I hate SC2, but E-Sports deserves a spot in the future, even if it is this game which brings it to bear. I hope Blizzard isn't greedy enough to force Starcraft off the air and into the shadows. | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On April 27 2010 05:46 hacpee wrote: I would rather have Kespa in control rather Blizzard in control. Why is that? Once SC2 dies off a bit, Blizzard will move on. It will go to the next game. Blizzard's main revenue stream isn't Esports, its in selling games. Kespa however gets all its revenue from Esports. It will try to make sure Esports survives and prospers. If Esports fails for blizzard, no big deal. It will go on to make WoW2, which will generate way more revenue for them than any measly Esports fees they charge.If Esports fails for Kespa, no more Kespa. Exactly, and this is what happened with SC in the first place. Blizzard didn't see profit potential in it any longer, and moved onto selling D2, and it's expansion. Then WC3 and it's expansion. Then WoW and it's expansions. Blizzard only keeps involved in games long enough to say they've done it. They do nothing past provide a mostly irrelevant bug fix patch 5 years later, or a faux balance patch that does little to address real problems. WoW is mostly an exception from this, and unsurprisingly so, because their performance in dealing with that game greatly impacts their profit margins at the end of the day. =P If you want a good example of what Blizzard + Esports is all about, take a look at WC3. Map stagnation, never ending balance issues (related to the map issues, in the end), stonewalling over a proposed balance patch for ages... Given the popularity WC3 has had in Germany, China, and other locations, it should have been a much stronger Esport. If an entity outside of Blizzard - one that has a stake in Esports and not game design - doesn't step up and take control, it's likely that SC2 will one day end up the same way. | ||
|
wfoperational
United States143 Posts
| ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On April 27 2010 04:15 nonduc wrote: “A critical organization”? What it this?! 8-() KeSPA was a sponsor of these leagues. On April 26 2010 20:43 nonduc wrote: Are you kidding?! In 2001–2003 KeSPA started on MBC both individual and team leagues! 2001 KPGA August—2001 KPGA November + KPGA Winners Championship 2002 KPGA 1st Tour 2002 Reebok KPGA 2nd Tour 2002 Pepsi Twist KPGA 3rd Tour 2002–2003 Baskin Robbins KPGA 4th Tour 2003 KeMongSa KPGA Tour Team League 2003 LifeZone KPGA Team League It was a huge support in forming the second largest StarCraft broadcasting channel. You're confusing the difference between one organization lending its namesake for an air of legitimacy and another company buying the rights to use its name in association with the tournament for advertising purposes. KPGA in those early days wasn't backed by the big corporations/money that KeSPA is today. They didn't have the money to sponsor these leagues and give them the money they needed to really grow, they lent their name to make the tournament sound more official and to get their foot in the door of an expanding market. The KPGA name gave the tournaments a sense of legitimacy which brought increased viewership, and in turn garnered the interest of the real sponsors, which are in bold above. | ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
| ||
|
Pezsmapatkany
Hungary25 Posts
On April 27 2010 03:52 TheYango wrote: I'm pretty sure game developers already have have to pay Microsoft to get that silly "Games For Windows" label on the box. So yeah, no big change. maybe true, but if this the case, it means u need to pay for organising a tour with blizzard certificated tour, or whatever. i tell other thing, u remember when google chrome first came out? google forgot to update eula, just copy paste from other product, and it said google has all rights to everything used with his product (just like blizzard says now), u upload a pic, and its googles pic from then. it was little better, u could broadcast how u use chrome, but u cant broadcast how u use sc2. it was a little scandal, how google dare to do this, and they said sorry it was mistake, now blizz do it worst, and many ppl like it... nonsense the best thing can happen to esport is blizzard fail totally with sc2. if this new model working then bad days will come, blizzard will tell what game u must play competitive. they make new expansion, and make prices for making tour for old sc2 very high, so u must play new game, no matter if its good or not, balanced or not | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On April 27 2010 06:10 QibingZero wrote: Exactly, and this is what happened with SC in the first place. Blizzard didn't see profit potential in it any longer, and moved onto selling D2, and it's expansion. Then WC3 and it's expansion. Then WoW and it's expansions. Blizzard only keeps involved in games long enough to say they've done it. They do nothing past provide a mostly irrelevant bug fix patch 5 years later, or a faux balance patch that does little to address real problems. WoW is mostly an exception from this, and unsurprisingly so, because their performance in dealing with that game greatly impacts their profit margins at the end of the day. =P Chat in replays, CPU throttling, and removing the CD key requirement are hardly "irrelevant bug fixes". These were all implemented in SC in the last 2 years and the response on TL.net to these changes was overwhelmingly positive. As far as game developers go, Blizzard has gone well beyond what's delivered by any other game developer. Similarly significant content changes have been delivered in patches of other Blizzard games, and the cycle between releases from Blizzard is far longer than from any other developer. Put simply, you've been spoiled. Plenty of other developers have put out 2-3 sequels between when SC2 was announced and now, while SC2 itself isn't even out of beta. To say that Blizzard is insensitive to the needs of Esports is one thing. To say that they're insensitive to their fanbase as a whole is just plain wrong. On April 27 2010 06:10 QibingZero wrote: If you want a good example of what Blizzard + Esports is all about, take a look at WC3. Map stagnation, never ending balance issues (related to the map issues, in the end), stonewalling over a proposed balance patch for ages... Given the popularity WC3 has had in Germany, China, and other locations, it should been a much stronger Esport. It's funny that people say that Warcraft 3 was not patched for balance enough, when it received vastly more balance-patching than Starcraft ever did. One wonders what would have happened if Blizzard took an approach more like that in Starcraft, where after a couple balance changes for serious issues, they let it be. On April 27 2010 06:17 Pezsmapatkany wrote: i tell other thing, u remember when google chrome first came out? google forgot to update eula, just copy paste from other product, and it said google has all rights to everything used with his product (just like blizzard says now), u upload a pic, and its googles pic from then. it was little better, u could broadcast how u use chrome, but u cant broadcast how u use sc2. it was a little scandal, how google dare to do this, and they said sorry it was mistake, now blizz do it worst, and many ppl like it... nonsense Ugh, stop confusing the issues. Blizzard doesn't just claim rights to any content you create using SC2. Most use of games/replays falls under fair use (e.g. it's perfectly fine to livestream your own games). What the Blizzard ToS states is that you can't use Battle.net 2.0 commercially for profit. This doesn't mean that every tournament organizer has to give Blizzard a cut. Plenty of community events can run without the need for people making money--in fact, TL has been adamantly opposed to groups trying to take a cut out of what could be perfectly fine as a community-run tournament (CSL fiasco anyone?). TSL was run non-profit, and events like it presumably would be acceptable under B.net 2.0 ToS. | ||
|
Ronald_McD
Canada807 Posts
On April 27 2010 02:27 Romanian from wrote: no ur wrong. Starcraft is not made from microsoft, its made from blizzard. Really? Holy shit  | ||
|
xBillehx
United States1289 Posts
KeSPA is a thing of the past. The consumers will easily get over their death and go watch the other companies who broadcast. You think all those fans go because of KeSPA? They go to watch awesome games. The only thing that wont carry on perhaps is the SC1 Pro teams, and that's alright. It's an entirely new game but the scene is already developed, WITHOUT KeSPA and entirely because of Blizzard. They even began to develop the Starcraft 2 scene in Korea by giving them an Open Beta. You think all those people playing give two shits about KeSPA and Starcraft 1? KeSPA has no right to even deny Blizzard any royalties for the new game they had nothing to do with. The only thing KeSPA has over Blizzard is the sense of nationality in it's own country. Korean pride is strong and I dont doubt they'd stick together but the market wont stand behind pride alone. If there's a possibility of making as much money as KeSPA makes and still be able to just give away huge prize pools, the companies will invest. The Starcraft 2 scene has already kicked off without KeSPA and the game is still in beta. The future of Starcraft 2 definitely doesn't need KeSPA and will more likely than not develop in Korea regardless. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Shameless vs MaNa
Nicoract vs Percival
Krystianer vs TBD
Cure vs SHIN
PiGosaur Monday
The PondCast
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Serral vs TBD
BSL 21
BSL 21
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
|
|
|
EPT
