|
I think there is much room for improvement with KeSPA, but you can't just accuse them of being a simple monopoly.
ATP functions in some of the same ways in Tennis. There has been antitrust claims brought against them for controlling the schedule of players or downgrading tournaments, but they've always ruled in favor of ATP. There has even been multiple tours in the past in Tennis that bans players from participation in other tours. In the end the multiple organizations could not all survive and you ended up with one.
I think there has to be a more transparent method of how KeSPA approves events outside of PL/OSL/MSL, but the precedence exists where organizing bodies takes some freedom away in the interest of players and existing sponsors. I really wish KeSPA was better, but in the end you need an organization like them.
|
On October 26 2010 22:07 Chriamon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 09:56 infinity2k9 wrote:On October 26 2010 05:51 Shockk wrote:
regarding Kespa/Korean Esports scene:
- pretty much built up everything from scratch
- Kespa doesn't treat players well and has a monopoly on everything that happens
- dismissed Blizzard at almost every opportunity in the current conflict
- started leagues regardless of the current issues
[...] Also there's no monopoly. Start your own KeSPA, start everything up if you like. But do not like GOM did, expect KeSPA paid and sponsored players to play in your events. Why should they? They are under contract, i'm surprised they were allowed for any GOM leagues and in the end it was the teams and not KeSPA who repeatedly pulled players out until it was nothing. [...] You say theres no monopoly, and then you go on to describe a monopoly... KeSPA obviously has a monopoly, you cannot start your own "KeSPA," there are no players to contract.
Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? There's a new draft every couple months or so. Nothing stops other companies from recruiting them or even bringing some of the best Chinese players or something.
Theoretically, some other sponsors could create their own teams and new broadcaster a new league. It's just that it's more beneficial for new investors to join KeSPA instead of creating the whole new infrastructure from ground up.
KeSPA is not a monopoly. They're just good competition because they have the know-how and they have an established infrastructure.
|
On October 27 2010 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 22:07 Chriamon wrote:On October 26 2010 09:56 infinity2k9 wrote:On October 26 2010 05:51 Shockk wrote:
regarding Kespa/Korean Esports scene:
- pretty much built up everything from scratch
- Kespa doesn't treat players well and has a monopoly on everything that happens
- dismissed Blizzard at almost every opportunity in the current conflict
- started leagues regardless of the current issues
[...] Also there's no monopoly. Start your own KeSPA, start everything up if you like. But do not like GOM did, expect KeSPA paid and sponsored players to play in your events. Why should they? They are under contract, i'm surprised they were allowed for any GOM leagues and in the end it was the teams and not KeSPA who repeatedly pulled players out until it was nothing. [...] You say theres no monopoly, and then you go on to describe a monopoly... KeSPA obviously has a monopoly, you cannot start your own "KeSPA," there are no players to contract. Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? There's a new draft every couple months or so. Nothing stops other companies from recruiting them or even bringing some of the best Chinese players or something. Theoretically, some other sponsors could create their own teams and new broadcaster a new league. It's just that it's more beneficial for new investors to join KeSPA instead of creating the whole new infrastructure from ground up. KeSPA is not a monopoly. They're just good competition because they have the know-how and they have an established infrastructure.
KeSPA is monopoly. They will pull their players out of the tournament if that tournament doesn't support KeSPA or has players who aren't KeSPA players hence there are no competitions with this company.
|
On October 27 2010 04:15 AyJay wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:On October 26 2010 22:07 Chriamon wrote:On October 26 2010 09:56 infinity2k9 wrote:On October 26 2010 05:51 Shockk wrote:
regarding Kespa/Korean Esports scene:
- pretty much built up everything from scratch
- Kespa doesn't treat players well and has a monopoly on everything that happens
- dismissed Blizzard at almost every opportunity in the current conflict
- started leagues regardless of the current issues
[...] Also there's no monopoly. Start your own KeSPA, start everything up if you like. But do not like GOM did, expect KeSPA paid and sponsored players to play in your events. Why should they? They are under contract, i'm surprised they were allowed for any GOM leagues and in the end it was the teams and not KeSPA who repeatedly pulled players out until it was nothing. [...] You say theres no monopoly, and then you go on to describe a monopoly... KeSPA obviously has a monopoly, you cannot start your own "KeSPA," there are no players to contract. Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? There's a new draft every couple months or so. Nothing stops other companies from recruiting them or even bringing some of the best Chinese players or something. Theoretically, some other sponsors could create their own teams and new broadcaster a new league. It's just that it's more beneficial for new investors to join KeSPA instead of creating the whole new infrastructure from ground up. KeSPA is not a monopoly. They're just good competition because they have the know-how and they have an established infrastructure. KeSPA is monopoly. They will pull their players out of the tournament if that tournament doesn't support KeSPA or has players who aren't KeSPA players hence there are no competitions with this company.
Which is why E-Sports has survived in Korea and nowhere else in the world.
Governing body = live E-Sports
No governing body = dead E-Sports
Got it? Now STFU.
|
On October 27 2010 04:36 zenMaster wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 04:15 AyJay wrote:On October 27 2010 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:On October 26 2010 22:07 Chriamon wrote:On October 26 2010 09:56 infinity2k9 wrote:On October 26 2010 05:51 Shockk wrote:
regarding Kespa/Korean Esports scene:
- pretty much built up everything from scratch
- Kespa doesn't treat players well and has a monopoly on everything that happens
- dismissed Blizzard at almost every opportunity in the current conflict
- started leagues regardless of the current issues
[...] Also there's no monopoly. Start your own KeSPA, start everything up if you like. But do not like GOM did, expect KeSPA paid and sponsored players to play in your events. Why should they? They are under contract, i'm surprised they were allowed for any GOM leagues and in the end it was the teams and not KeSPA who repeatedly pulled players out until it was nothing. [...] You say theres no monopoly, and then you go on to describe a monopoly... KeSPA obviously has a monopoly, you cannot start your own "KeSPA," there are no players to contract. Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? There's a new draft every couple months or so. Nothing stops other companies from recruiting them or even bringing some of the best Chinese players or something. Theoretically, some other sponsors could create their own teams and new broadcaster a new league. It's just that it's more beneficial for new investors to join KeSPA instead of creating the whole new infrastructure from ground up. KeSPA is not a monopoly. They're just good competition because they have the know-how and they have an established infrastructure. KeSPA is monopoly. They will pull their players out of the tournament if that tournament doesn't support KeSPA or has players who aren't KeSPA players hence there are no competitions with this company. Which is why E-Sports has survived in Korea and nowhere else in the world. Governing body = live E-Sports No governing body = dead E-Sports Got it? Now STFU.
Please elaborate why you think so. Having monopoly anywhere is bad. E-sports didn't survived in Korea because of KeSPA, so I don't quite understand you.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On October 27 2010 06:13 AyJay wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 04:36 zenMaster wrote:On October 27 2010 04:15 AyJay wrote:On October 27 2010 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:On October 26 2010 22:07 Chriamon wrote:On October 26 2010 09:56 infinity2k9 wrote:On October 26 2010 05:51 Shockk wrote:
regarding Kespa/Korean Esports scene:
- pretty much built up everything from scratch
- Kespa doesn't treat players well and has a monopoly on everything that happens
- dismissed Blizzard at almost every opportunity in the current conflict
- started leagues regardless of the current issues
[...] Also there's no monopoly. Start your own KeSPA, start everything up if you like. But do not like GOM did, expect KeSPA paid and sponsored players to play in your events. Why should they? They are under contract, i'm surprised they were allowed for any GOM leagues and in the end it was the teams and not KeSPA who repeatedly pulled players out until it was nothing. [...] You say theres no monopoly, and then you go on to describe a monopoly... KeSPA obviously has a monopoly, you cannot start your own "KeSPA," there are no players to contract. Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? There's a new draft every couple months or so. Nothing stops other companies from recruiting them or even bringing some of the best Chinese players or something. Theoretically, some other sponsors could create their own teams and new broadcaster a new league. It's just that it's more beneficial for new investors to join KeSPA instead of creating the whole new infrastructure from ground up. KeSPA is not a monopoly. They're just good competition because they have the know-how and they have an established infrastructure. KeSPA is monopoly. They will pull their players out of the tournament if that tournament doesn't support KeSPA or has players who aren't KeSPA players hence there are no competitions with this company. Which is why E-Sports has survived in Korea and nowhere else in the world. Governing body = live E-Sports No governing body = dead E-Sports Got it? Now STFU. Please elaborate why you think so. Having monopoly anywhere is bad. E-sports didn't survived in Korea because of KeSPA, so I don't quite understand you.
Quoting gillyruless from a similar thread:
FIFA might not tell every football club what they have to do but all football leagues have governing bodies like KESPA. You are from Germany so I assume you have heard of DFL's Der Vorstand des Ligaverbandes and Der Aufsichtsrat der DFL. What do you think that they do? All of Bundesliga teams and players are bound by the rules set by the DFL. They cannot go and play any team they want to play whenever they feel like it. If you know differently, tell me how that's different from what KESPA has been doing.
KESPA (and in turn the teams that make up KESPA) and the players have entered into a contract that requires a certain degree of financial consideration and required pefformances. Any player who wish not to be goverened by the requirements in the contract is free to not enter into it just like NAda and Boxer have done. They just won't get paid a regular salary any more. If anyone feel this is not fair, I have to ask whether they evr had a regular job. When you are paid to work for someone else, you are always required to follow the directions of the entity that pays you within, of course, the bouds of the labor laws. I personally do not see anything sinister or irregular about what KESPA has done. Do you think if somebody sets up a new football league in Germany in direct competition of Bundesliga, Bundesliga will allow the teams and the players to play in the new league while they are getting paid by the teams that belong to Bundesliga?
Did that help?
|
On October 27 2010 06:13 AyJay wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 04:36 zenMaster wrote:On October 27 2010 04:15 AyJay wrote:On October 27 2010 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:On October 26 2010 22:07 Chriamon wrote:On October 26 2010 09:56 infinity2k9 wrote:On October 26 2010 05:51 Shockk wrote:
regarding Kespa/Korean Esports scene:
- pretty much built up everything from scratch
- Kespa doesn't treat players well and has a monopoly on everything that happens
- dismissed Blizzard at almost every opportunity in the current conflict
- started leagues regardless of the current issues
[...] Also there's no monopoly. Start your own KeSPA, start everything up if you like. But do not like GOM did, expect KeSPA paid and sponsored players to play in your events. Why should they? They are under contract, i'm surprised they were allowed for any GOM leagues and in the end it was the teams and not KeSPA who repeatedly pulled players out until it was nothing. [...] You say theres no monopoly, and then you go on to describe a monopoly... KeSPA obviously has a monopoly, you cannot start your own "KeSPA," there are no players to contract. Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? There's a new draft every couple months or so. Nothing stops other companies from recruiting them or even bringing some of the best Chinese players or something. Theoretically, some other sponsors could create their own teams and new broadcaster a new league. It's just that it's more beneficial for new investors to join KeSPA instead of creating the whole new infrastructure from ground up. KeSPA is not a monopoly. They're just good competition because they have the know-how and they have an established infrastructure. KeSPA is monopoly. They will pull their players out of the tournament if that tournament doesn't support KeSPA or has players who aren't KeSPA players hence there are no competitions with this company. Which is why E-Sports has survived in Korea and nowhere else in the world. Governing body = live E-Sports No governing body = dead E-Sports Got it? Now STFU. Please elaborate why you think so. Having monopoly anywhere is bad. E-sports didn't survived in Korea because of KeSPA, so I don't quite understand you.
A monopoly usually happens when you have a dominant scenario in your market that affects the final consumer, but not like you think, if a company has proven to be the best you cant claim that is a monopoly, you could call that in this case if Kespa in anyway restrict the entrance to the market to another similar organization ( I havent heard ever of any group of sponsors interested in competing vs Kespa) or if they force their consumers by any kind of commercial threat or trick, or if they go after any possible competition in order to absorb it and take it away from market and as a competition,etc, so no, Kespa is not a monopoly, it is just unique in its kind and it must be because the e-sports niche is not profitable enough for having more than one like Kespa organizations.
|
No one should make profits over e-sports, no matter if its Blizzard, Kespa or MBC.
Having said that MBC, Ongamenet and even Kespa have profited from SC1, obviously Kespa by having broadcasting stations pay them and the broadcast stations by using the popularity of SC1 to play ADS on their program. When that is the case its normal of Blizzard to require a fee for using their game to profit.
|
Russian Federation32 Posts
On October 26 2010 05:51 Shockk wrote:
To what extent Blizzard chooses to use their property rights is another topic, but that they have a RIGHT to do so seems clear (even without majoring in law).
Not clear at all for me. When someone is broadcasting music/movie the problem is clear - no need to people to go and buy album/film since they are already "using" them for free, so IP holders are losing money. But I've been watching SC2 streams since beta, and a copy of SC2 didn't magically appear on my PC. If I decide to play it, I still need to purchase the game, so Blizz as IP holder will get their deserved money.
Its not clear if you can apply IP rights for games broadcasting the same way as audio/video products,
where watching and/or listening is equal to using, but watching games and playing(using) them is not equal at all.
On the other hand, if KESPA made some sort of BW clone with similar sound and graphics and starts to sell it, then its a IP rights problem, since people won't buy the original BW -> no money for Blizz.
Just a common sense, perhaps I'm wrong...
|
On October 27 2010 06:24 thehitman wrote:
No one should make profits over e-sports, no matter if its Blizzard, Kespa or MBC.
Having said that MBC, Ongamenet and even Kespa have profited from SC1, obviously Kespa by having broadcasting stations pay them and the broadcast stations by using the popularity of SC1 to play ADS on their program. When that is the case its normal of Blizzard to require a fee for using their game to profit.
So you want that broadcasters dont make any kind of profit from e-sports???, seriously i cant understand your point?, are you serious?, and Blizzard has taken millions in profits from the good will of being the only Developer in having a RTS as an e-sport. Actually everybody should make profits from e-sports, that is the base of good business including this one.
|
On October 27 2010 06:18 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 06:13 AyJay wrote:On October 27 2010 04:36 zenMaster wrote:On October 27 2010 04:15 AyJay wrote:On October 27 2010 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:On October 26 2010 22:07 Chriamon wrote:On October 26 2010 09:56 infinity2k9 wrote:On October 26 2010 05:51 Shockk wrote:
regarding Kespa/Korean Esports scene:
- pretty much built up everything from scratch
- Kespa doesn't treat players well and has a monopoly on everything that happens
- dismissed Blizzard at almost every opportunity in the current conflict
- started leagues regardless of the current issues
[...] Also there's no monopoly. Start your own KeSPA, start everything up if you like. But do not like GOM did, expect KeSPA paid and sponsored players to play in your events. Why should they? They are under contract, i'm surprised they were allowed for any GOM leagues and in the end it was the teams and not KeSPA who repeatedly pulled players out until it was nothing. [...] You say theres no monopoly, and then you go on to describe a monopoly... KeSPA obviously has a monopoly, you cannot start your own "KeSPA," there are no players to contract. Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? There's a new draft every couple months or so. Nothing stops other companies from recruiting them or even bringing some of the best Chinese players or something. Theoretically, some other sponsors could create their own teams and new broadcaster a new league. It's just that it's more beneficial for new investors to join KeSPA instead of creating the whole new infrastructure from ground up. KeSPA is not a monopoly. They're just good competition because they have the know-how and they have an established infrastructure. KeSPA is monopoly. They will pull their players out of the tournament if that tournament doesn't support KeSPA or has players who aren't KeSPA players hence there are no competitions with this company. Which is why E-Sports has survived in Korea and nowhere else in the world. Governing body = live E-Sports No governing body = dead E-Sports Got it? Now STFU. Please elaborate why you think so. Having monopoly anywhere is bad. E-sports didn't survived in Korea because of KeSPA, so I don't quite understand you. Quoting gillyruless from a similar thread: Show nested quote +FIFA might not tell every football club what they have to do but all football leagues have governing bodies like KESPA. You are from Germany so I assume you have heard of DFL's Der Vorstand des Ligaverbandes and Der Aufsichtsrat der DFL. What do you think that they do? All of Bundesliga teams and players are bound by the rules set by the DFL. They cannot go and play any team they want to play whenever they feel like it. If you know differently, tell me how that's different from what KESPA has been doing.
KESPA (and in turn the teams that make up KESPA) and the players have entered into a contract that requires a certain degree of financial consideration and required pefformances. Any player who wish not to be goverened by the requirements in the contract is free to not enter into it just like NAda and Boxer have done. They just won't get paid a regular salary any more. If anyone feel this is not fair, I have to ask whether they evr had a regular job. When you are paid to work for someone else, you are always required to follow the directions of the entity that pays you within, of course, the bouds of the labor laws. I personally do not see anything sinister or irregular about what KESPA has done. Do you think if somebody sets up a new football league in Germany in direct competition of Bundesliga, Bundesliga will allow the teams and the players to play in the new league while they are getting paid by the teams that belong to Bundesliga? Did that help?
Yeah it did and it would had helped if you would have posted it on your previous post.
Here's my view:
1) I don't see any problems with KeSPA as an organization
2) I DO NOT like what some actions KeSPA had been doing (trying to control e-sports, establish monopoly, questionable rules for players, whole broadcasting rights issue and so on).
3) Salaries for players are paid by sponsors so organizations EG, teamliquid, oGs, TSL can pay their players therefore there is no need for organization like KeSPA for them.
4) BW didn't caught on outside of Korea for different reasons than in Korea. Also remember the guy who helped BW get big - Boxer, not KeSPA.
|
On October 27 2010 04:15 AyJay wrote:KeSPA is monopoly. They will pull their players out of the tournament if that tournament doesn't support KeSPA or has players who aren't KeSPA players hence there are no competitions with this company.
It's funny how you wrote literally two sentences, yet you're wrong on so many levels in your post.
First of all, KeSPA is not a monopoly. KeSPA does not restrict any organization(s) from creating their own teams and competing against one another in other leagues.
Second of all, your second statement is an outright lie. Most teams did not pull their players from GSL, and gretech did not support KeSPA. Only the teams the sponsors of which were in a direct conflict of interests did (eSTRO, OGN, MBC, later on SKT). That was until gretech decided to team up with blizzard.
There have been dozens of tournaments not associated with KeSPA or tournaments where non-KeSPA players played - blizzcon, WCG, e-Stars Seoul, several major events in China (like IeSF or IEF, etc.) to name a few. Not to mention the WC3 progamers (I mean those with KeSPA licenses) - they can compete in pretty much any event. Also there's Special Force ProLeague, where afaik two teams are not even part of KeSPA (archer and some other team).
Your two-liner was a load of bull, tbh. ;;
|
Anyone else feel that the Joker (Batman) doing one of his manic laughs perfectly embodies the situation, crazy to the point it would be funny, if not for the seriousness of the situation?
I think that sentence is grammatically correct.
|
On October 27 2010 06:38 AyJay wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 06:18 mustaju wrote:On October 27 2010 06:13 AyJay wrote:On October 27 2010 04:36 zenMaster wrote:On October 27 2010 04:15 AyJay wrote:On October 27 2010 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:On October 26 2010 22:07 Chriamon wrote:On October 26 2010 09:56 infinity2k9 wrote:On October 26 2010 05:51 Shockk wrote:
regarding Kespa/Korean Esports scene:
- pretty much built up everything from scratch
- Kespa doesn't treat players well and has a monopoly on everything that happens
- dismissed Blizzard at almost every opportunity in the current conflict
- started leagues regardless of the current issues
[...] Also there's no monopoly. Start your own KeSPA, start everything up if you like. But do not like GOM did, expect KeSPA paid and sponsored players to play in your events. Why should they? They are under contract, i'm surprised they were allowed for any GOM leagues and in the end it was the teams and not KeSPA who repeatedly pulled players out until it was nothing. [...] You say theres no monopoly, and then you go on to describe a monopoly... KeSPA obviously has a monopoly, you cannot start your own "KeSPA," there are no players to contract. Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? There's a new draft every couple months or so. Nothing stops other companies from recruiting them or even bringing some of the best Chinese players or something. Theoretically, some other sponsors could create their own teams and new broadcaster a new league. It's just that it's more beneficial for new investors to join KeSPA instead of creating the whole new infrastructure from ground up. KeSPA is not a monopoly. They're just good competition because they have the know-how and they have an established infrastructure. KeSPA is monopoly. They will pull their players out of the tournament if that tournament doesn't support KeSPA or has players who aren't KeSPA players hence there are no competitions with this company. Which is why E-Sports has survived in Korea and nowhere else in the world. Governing body = live E-Sports No governing body = dead E-Sports Got it? Now STFU. Please elaborate why you think so. Having monopoly anywhere is bad. E-sports didn't survived in Korea because of KeSPA, so I don't quite understand you. Quoting gillyruless from a similar thread: FIFA might not tell every football club what they have to do but all football leagues have governing bodies like KESPA. You are from Germany so I assume you have heard of DFL's Der Vorstand des Ligaverbandes and Der Aufsichtsrat der DFL. What do you think that they do? All of Bundesliga teams and players are bound by the rules set by the DFL. They cannot go and play any team they want to play whenever they feel like it. If you know differently, tell me how that's different from what KESPA has been doing.
KESPA (and in turn the teams that make up KESPA) and the players have entered into a contract that requires a certain degree of financial consideration and required pefformances. Any player who wish not to be goverened by the requirements in the contract is free to not enter into it just like NAda and Boxer have done. They just won't get paid a regular salary any more. If anyone feel this is not fair, I have to ask whether they evr had a regular job. When you are paid to work for someone else, you are always required to follow the directions of the entity that pays you within, of course, the bouds of the labor laws. I personally do not see anything sinister or irregular about what KESPA has done. Do you think if somebody sets up a new football league in Germany in direct competition of Bundesliga, Bundesliga will allow the teams and the players to play in the new league while they are getting paid by the teams that belong to Bundesliga? Did that help? Yeah it did and it would had helped if you would have posted it on your previous post. Here's my view: 1) I don't see any problems with KeSPA as an organization 2) I DO NOT like what some actions KeSPA had been doing (trying to control e-sports, establish monopoly, questionable rules for players, whole broadcasting rights issue and so on). 3) Salaries for players are paid by sponsors so organizations EG, teamliquid, oGs, TSL can pay their players therefore there is no need for organization like KeSPA for them. 4) BW didn't caught on outside of Korea for different reasons than in Korea. Also remember the guy who helped BW get big - Boxer, not KeSPA.
Your third point just stated that salaries are paid by sponsors and in BW, Sponsors+ another infrastructure =Kespa so how come you dont need Kespa?, what is the logic of that statement?, and if I am paying a guy US200k a year and giving him a house to live, food and other commodities for me it is a MUST BE that this guy has a contract and follows it. Btw are you comparing EG,TL, oGs to the pro teams in BW??? they are not even close.
|
Man screw Blizzard. BW would've eventually died on it's own with SC2 getting the expansions and such, it could've just done so peacfully and coexisting transition. But apprently BW is too dangerous to alow to live, it's like some bad spy novel where the father dictator wants his eldest son murdered for fearing his youngest won't be succesfull.
|
On October 27 2010 06:13 AyJay wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 04:36 zenMaster wrote:On October 27 2010 04:15 AyJay wrote:On October 27 2010 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:On October 26 2010 22:07 Chriamon wrote:On October 26 2010 09:56 infinity2k9 wrote:On October 26 2010 05:51 Shockk wrote:
regarding Kespa/Korean Esports scene:
- pretty much built up everything from scratch
- Kespa doesn't treat players well and has a monopoly on everything that happens
- dismissed Blizzard at almost every opportunity in the current conflict
- started leagues regardless of the current issues
[...] Also there's no monopoly. Start your own KeSPA, start everything up if you like. But do not like GOM did, expect KeSPA paid and sponsored players to play in your events. Why should they? They are under contract, i'm surprised they were allowed for any GOM leagues and in the end it was the teams and not KeSPA who repeatedly pulled players out until it was nothing. [...] You say theres no monopoly, and then you go on to describe a monopoly... KeSPA obviously has a monopoly, you cannot start your own "KeSPA," there are no players to contract. Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? There's a new draft every couple months or so. Nothing stops other companies from recruiting them or even bringing some of the best Chinese players or something. Theoretically, some other sponsors could create their own teams and new broadcaster a new league. It's just that it's more beneficial for new investors to join KeSPA instead of creating the whole new infrastructure from ground up. KeSPA is not a monopoly. They're just good competition because they have the know-how and they have an established infrastructure. KeSPA is monopoly. They will pull their players out of the tournament if that tournament doesn't support KeSPA or has players who aren't KeSPA players hence there are no competitions with this company. Which is why E-Sports has survived in Korea and nowhere else in the world. Governing body = live E-Sports No governing body = dead E-Sports Got it? Now STFU. Having monopoly anywhere is bad.
This is a huge generalization and a lie. There are quite a few scenarios in micro-economics where monopolies can be better than other ways of organizing a market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Monopoly_and_efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_monopoly
|
On October 27 2010 06:29 zilav wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 05:51 Shockk wrote:
To what extent Blizzard chooses to use their property rights is another topic, but that they have a RIGHT to do so seems clear (even without majoring in law).
Not clear at all for me. When someone is broadcasting music/movie the problem is clear - no need to people to go and buy album/film since they are already "using" them for free, so IP holders are losing money. But I've been watching SC2 streams since beta, and a copy of SC2 didn't magically appear on my PC. If I decide to play it, I still need to purchase the game, so Blizz as IP holder will get their deserved money. Its not clear if you can apply IP rights for games broadcasting the same way as audio/video products, where watching and/or listening is equal to using, but watching games and playing(using) them is not equal at all. On the other hand, if KESPA made some sort of BW clone with similar sound and graphics and starts to sell it, then its a IP rights problem, since people won't buy the original BW -> no money for Blizz. Just a common sense, perhaps I'm wrong...
And exactly how much music/graphics/videos/sound effects (etc?) are you broadcasting when you broadcast a match of StarCraft? Legally this issue is not even about money. Blizzard could even forbid if you broadcast it for free. But they chose only to 'use' (or at least claim) their right when KeSPA went (kind of audaciously) one step too far and wanted to charge for the right to broadcast which only the IP holder should be able to do...
On this whole monopoly issue... I don't think you can apply this so easily on a non-profit organisation o.o although KeSPA seems to aggressively abuse that the SK BW scene is kind of dependant on them.
|
On October 27 2010 06:49 palexhur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 06:38 AyJay wrote:On October 27 2010 06:18 mustaju wrote:On October 27 2010 06:13 AyJay wrote:On October 27 2010 04:36 zenMaster wrote:On October 27 2010 04:15 AyJay wrote:On October 27 2010 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:On October 26 2010 22:07 Chriamon wrote:On October 26 2010 09:56 infinity2k9 wrote:On October 26 2010 05:51 Shockk wrote:
regarding Kespa/Korean Esports scene:
- pretty much built up everything from scratch
- Kespa doesn't treat players well and has a monopoly on everything that happens
- dismissed Blizzard at almost every opportunity in the current conflict
- started leagues regardless of the current issues
[...] Also there's no monopoly. Start your own KeSPA, start everything up if you like. But do not like GOM did, expect KeSPA paid and sponsored players to play in your events. Why should they? They are under contract, i'm surprised they were allowed for any GOM leagues and in the end it was the teams and not KeSPA who repeatedly pulled players out until it was nothing. [...] You say theres no monopoly, and then you go on to describe a monopoly... KeSPA obviously has a monopoly, you cannot start your own "KeSPA," there are no players to contract. Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? There's a new draft every couple months or so. Nothing stops other companies from recruiting them or even bringing some of the best Chinese players or something. Theoretically, some other sponsors could create their own teams and new broadcaster a new league. It's just that it's more beneficial for new investors to join KeSPA instead of creating the whole new infrastructure from ground up. KeSPA is not a monopoly. They're just good competition because they have the know-how and they have an established infrastructure. KeSPA is monopoly. They will pull their players out of the tournament if that tournament doesn't support KeSPA or has players who aren't KeSPA players hence there are no competitions with this company. Which is why E-Sports has survived in Korea and nowhere else in the world. Governing body = live E-Sports No governing body = dead E-Sports Got it? Now STFU. Please elaborate why you think so. Having monopoly anywhere is bad. E-sports didn't survived in Korea because of KeSPA, so I don't quite understand you. Quoting gillyruless from a similar thread: FIFA might not tell every football club what they have to do but all football leagues have governing bodies like KESPA. You are from Germany so I assume you have heard of DFL's Der Vorstand des Ligaverbandes and Der Aufsichtsrat der DFL. What do you think that they do? All of Bundesliga teams and players are bound by the rules set by the DFL. They cannot go and play any team they want to play whenever they feel like it. If you know differently, tell me how that's different from what KESPA has been doing.
KESPA (and in turn the teams that make up KESPA) and the players have entered into a contract that requires a certain degree of financial consideration and required pefformances. Any player who wish not to be goverened by the requirements in the contract is free to not enter into it just like NAda and Boxer have done. They just won't get paid a regular salary any more. If anyone feel this is not fair, I have to ask whether they evr had a regular job. When you are paid to work for someone else, you are always required to follow the directions of the entity that pays you within, of course, the bouds of the labor laws. I personally do not see anything sinister or irregular about what KESPA has done. Do you think if somebody sets up a new football league in Germany in direct competition of Bundesliga, Bundesliga will allow the teams and the players to play in the new league while they are getting paid by the teams that belong to Bundesliga? Did that help? Yeah it did and it would had helped if you would have posted it on your previous post. Here's my view: 1) I don't see any problems with KeSPA as an organization 2) I DO NOT like what some actions KeSPA had been doing (trying to control e-sports, establish monopoly, questionable rules for players, whole broadcasting rights issue and so on). 3) Salaries for players are paid by sponsors so organizations EG, teamliquid, oGs, TSL can pay their players therefore there is no need for organization like KeSPA for them. 4) BW didn't caught on outside of Korea for different reasons than in Korea. Also remember the guy who helped BW get big - Boxer, not KeSPA. Your third point just stated that salaries are paid by sponsors and in BW, Sponsors+ another infrastructure =Kespa so how come you dont need Kespa?, what is the logic of that statement?, and if I am paying a guy US200k a year and giving him a house to live, food and other commodities for me it is a MUST BE that this guy has a contract and follows it. Btw are you comparing EG,TL, oGs to the pro teams in BW??? they are not even close.
You're assuming that the sponsors don't exist outside of KeSPA, but they do. The sponors have a little group they get together for mutual things called KeSPA, yes, but the players salaries come from the sponsors, not the KeSPA organization itself. They aren't a single entity so theoretically, sponsor's like MBC, CJ, Hwaseung, SK Telecom, etc etc.... can still sponsor teams without the entity currently known as KeSPA. They'd get the same recognition, just no control over the leagues outside their own team and that's sorta the entire reason KeSPA is anti-Blizzard.
|
ATP has a monopoly on pro tennis worldwide, MLB has a monopoly on pro baseball in USA, MBA has monopoly on pro basketball in the USA, NHL has a monopoly on pro hockey in USA/Canada, NFL has a monopoly on football in the USA, FIFA has a monopoly on soccer worldwide. Do I need to continue?
Every sport needs its governing body. Also every succesfull sport has a government body. You dont want 2 competing organizations for a sport, as it raises question about which one is the most legitimate and prestigious, as one will always be favored, unless they work together.
Kespa rose up and built itself up to become the governing body of SC1 in Korea. They put in the work to make SC1 what it is in Korea today. No matter their behaviours in the past and the future that fact must be respected. Sure if there wasnt Kespa there is a possibility it could of been someone else, but nevertheless Kespa is there.
Does Blizzard have a right to their IP? Yes. But, how long has PL gone on unhindered by Blizz? Now things are blowing up. Sure Blizz reserves the rights to Starcraft. But Kespa reserves the right to PL, as PL is Kespas property.
Then again, are the copies of SC that Kespa uses legitimately purchased from blizzard? If so, Blizzard has been paid for their intelectual property, and Gretech has no right to enroach on PL.
I am a Starcraft 2 player, who would like to see the SC2 scene grow to the level SC1 is now. But the way things are going now, it is absurd. I dont really feel bad for either organization, who I feel bad for is the players. Even though I dont play BW, I watch proleague because I find it fun to root for the teams and players. They put in hard work to do what they do, and to provide people like me with entertainment.
I have not been following this closely, so correct me if I made wrong assumptions, but this is how I feel.
|
On October 27 2010 06:47 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 04:15 AyJay wrote:KeSPA is monopoly. They will pull their players out of the tournament if that tournament doesn't support KeSPA or has players who aren't KeSPA players hence there are no competitions with this company. It's funny how you wrote literally two sentences, yet you're wrong on so many levels in your post. First of all, KeSPA is not a monopoly. KeSPA does not restrict any organization(s) from creating their own teams and competing against one another in other leagues. Second of all, your second statement is an outright lie. Most teams did not pull their players from GSL, and gretech did not support KeSPA. Only the teams the sponsors of which were in a direct conflict of interests did (eSTRO, OGN, MBC, later on SKT). That was until gretech decided to team up with blizzard. There have been dozens of tournaments not associated with KeSPA or tournaments where non-KeSPA players played - blizzcon, WCG, e-Stars Seoul, several major events in China (like IeSF or IEF, etc.) to name a few. Not to mention the WC3 progamers (I mean those with KeSPA licenses) - they can compete in pretty much any event. Also there's Special Force ProLeague, where afaik two teams are not even part of KeSPA (archer and some other team). Your two-liner was a load of bull, tbh. ;;
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
KESPA is a monopoly, it has no competitors in the Starcraft market in Korea. Tell me which other company runs 2 channels of Starcraft.
KESPA has an extraordinarily large pull in terms of Starcraft viewership, especially since all three MAJOR tournaments are run by them.
To say that it's not a monopoly is simply bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
