|
On October 27 2010 19:48 dybydx wrote:
s3raph obviously don't know what hes talking about.
Your evidence, coupled with your compelling argument, has swayed the hearts and minds of many.
|
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.
Sorry this has already been gone over and over in the last few pages but some people dont even understand the real world at all apparently and how things work. What you are saying doesn't even make sense. KeSPA has the players because they had a draft, chose the players and gave them contracts. Many many players never even make it. There's no shortage of willing gamers out there. But you can't expect to take other teams contracted players to come and play for you can you?
Run your OWN draft, make your own teams, get your own sponsors. The reason there is no other KeSPA is because its a niche market already and there really is zero need for it in the first place. If i went to Korea, started my own Super Starcraft Power League, drafted gamers got teams and did everything needed to run eSports then KeSPA could not stop me. There might be disagreements about broadcasting because the main 2 channels are OGN and MBC but that is how business works, its competitive. If i gave the broadcasters a great offer i could get my SSPL on TV and be the main BW league. Of course none of this will happen because its completely financially not viable. But don't call it a monopoly as if KeSPA is somehow forcing this imaginary competition out of the business.
Btw i'm not some blind supporter in this argument, KeSPA and in particular sometimes its rule decisions and player drafting is harsh on the players. But that's how things are, no organization is perfect. It's like FIFA refusing goal-line technology even though we clearly need it. But when it comes to the business side of things and how they have created such a sustainable and well run scene, there's no way anyone should want to disrupt that. The only reason Blizzard do is for control/profit, simple as that.
|
On October 27 2010 18:33 s3raph wrote:Show nested quote +
Were you living under a rock past the last three years?
"1. Set the contract term for using its games to 1 year
2. Prior approvals about all league operations such as contracting sponsorship, marketing materials, broadcasting plan
3. License fee for running of league and all license fee of sponsorship inducement
4. Ownership of all broadcasted programs, program videos
5. Right to audit KeSPA
6. Additional contracts between blizzard and KeSPA progamers that override the contracts between the latter and KeSPA teams"
Those were blizzard's demands... If that is not demanding total control, then I don't know what is. T______T
And, of course, blizzard never said they want to run the BW scene, as in host the tournaments, etc. They simply want to profit from something others invest hundreds of millions of dollars without investing any money whatsoever themselves, and be able to do whatever they want (like deliberately damage BW to support their other product - sc2, which is what gretech attempted).
I kind of have to respond to this, mainly because the way these demands are being interpreted seems grossly misplaced. In order: 1) I honestly do not see how 1 year is unreasonable. Blizzard and KeSPA are two very different entities, and Blizzard would simply be unsure as to KeSPA operations and how KeSPA has been utilizing the Starcraft IP (the 'platform,' if you will). Transparency as to how KeSPA selects sponsors, how KeSPA attains funding for its activities, and how KeSPA as a whole operates is very limited, particularly because Blizzard is not a native Korean firm and has a limited grasp on the business culture and environment. Add to this the fact that the main short-term impetus for negotiations beginning in 2007 was the KeSPA broadcasting rights event. How is 1 year unreasonable from Blizzard's point of view? I can see how it's unreasonable to KeSPA (hell, we've been doing this solely ourselves FOR YEARS), but overall, I don't see how it is unreasonable at all. Blizzard doesn't know KeSPA. Blizzard has some valuable IP (Starcraft franchise and the game itself) which is being used in a way it probably has neither predicted nor really fully understands. However, Blizzard recognizes that some sort of licensing time frame is appropriate. From my standpoint, a year (maybe 2) is perfectly legitimate going from the position that I simply do not know how they are operating.Before I get jumped on for this, not even KeSPA supporters on this forum really know how KeSPA operates. We don't know their decision making process. We don't know how sponsors are decided. We don't even know why they decided to pull players out of GomTV a while back. We can make posits on motives, but fundamentally, the majority of both SC2 supports and Brood War diehards simply do not know how the company operates. Neither does Blizzard. From this standpoint, a year seems very legitimate to me; it'll give Blizzard time to really understand what and how KeSPA does with the Starcraft IP. It's short enough to be flexible, in case there is some sort of abuse or some sort of bad development, etc, but long enough to keep the BW tournament structure (one full year) stable without breaking it up. Moving on. 2) This is a little extreme, but again, we are dealing with a 'non-profit' foreign company. For the sake of transparency, I'd say this 'demand' is not a demand, but a simple request. Sure, it is worded to set a precedent that Blizzard ultimately has the ability to decide what people do with its game (which, though debatable, seems to have reached a grudging consensus) but the spirit of the 'demand' (heavy sarcastic quotation marks) is for transparency. Let's approach this from another angle. What CAN Blizzard REALLY DO with this 'demand' (heavy sarcastic quotation marks) in place, if the deal goes through? Is Blizzard going to veto a sponsor for pumping in tons of money? Are they going to say 'hey, we don't want to pay players anymore; too expensive?' Are they going to say 'we're closing the leagues, omg?' As far as I can tell, this 'control' issue just boils down to a mistrust that Blizzard wants to actively shut down the BW progaming scene. If we take it from the assumption that Blizzard doesn't wish to shut down BW, I don't see how this 'demand' (sarcastic quotation marks) will really change the status quo at all. Of course, we can't really 'know' whether Blizzard wants to or does not want to shut down the BW scene. However, that being said, this 'demand' is 50/50 in regards to BW's longevity. Qualitatively, there is no reason to transmit bias and somehow warp it into 'womg Blizz wants to control IT ALL.' That is simply under the assumption that Blizzard would want to exercise the power to make a drastic change to the BW scene, and thus, demonstrates an emotional response from many forumers rather than rational thinking. 3). So Blizz wants a licensing fee. Wow. That's so out there, and such an outrageous demand. I can't imagine this occurring ANYWHERE else; it's not like companies ever have to buy licenses for the use of specific products. Oh wait ... Pointedly, without hard numbers, there is no way to judge. Additionally, eSports despite sharing commonalities with existing industries, is a new industry. There are no precendents set for this sort of thing. To an objective observer, a licensing fee is neither outrageous nor a 'demand;' even with seemingly 'outrageous' figures, there are no proceeding comparative situations. Who's to say? My point is that 'demand' 3 is not supportive of 'Blizzard womg kill BW now cry.' 4) Don't see what's so wrong with this either. 100% ownership is a little meh, but even WoW players don't own any percentage of their character (It's in the EULA). I'm almost certain that this could have been negotiated somehow, or dealt with in a more constructive manner. Yes, it is a bit extreme, but it in no way shape or form somehow details a 'power hungry corporate entity.' Take for example, a remix of the original song that is released to make a profit. Does the remixer have to obtain a license from the original artist? Most likely, yes. Even if we treat KeSPA's broadcasted games as derivative works, it's much the same situation. KeSPA and KeSPA supporters might disagree, but this sort of 'demand' (heavy sarcastic quotation marks) is in no way out of line or even unreasonable. Heavy handed? Sure. Unreasonable? Not really. (In my opinion, KeSPA really messed this point up. They should have agreed to 100% ownership of all material and consolidated IP (I dunno, file patents, whatever) on the actual infrastructure and technology involved in that infrastructure to broadcast the games. That would allow them to maintain essentially 'buyer power' over Blizzard, as well as expand potentially in the future. Big wasted opportunity, but I'm not surprised either. ) 5) Right to audit is justified by seeking transparency. I do not see how this is unreasonable. It happens in M&As all the time, and also for licensing deals for R&D involving milestone payments. It probably occurs a lot more than just in those situations too. 6) This is really the only claim that seems a bit iffy; however, the intent doesn't seem to be very insidious. I don't have much to say on it, only that it would allow Blizzard to direct the actions of BW pros (such as play in this, go here, etc), but without really understanding what sort of contracts Blizzard would be offering the players, I can't comment further. On the surface, this does seem a bit suspect; however, given how deeply in depends on the nature of a Blizzard-progamer contract (which I bet no one really knows anything about), it is definitely short-sighted to just claim this as a power grab. I think BW supporters are simply acting irrational over this entire issue. Granted, it is understandable; however, when logic comes into play, irrationality needs to go away. A lot of quibbles from both sides (the whole 'BW will detract from SC2' thing makes NO sense to me whatsoever; what indication can you have that BW will detract from sales? I bet you can't even find a solid quantitative comparable example in D2 vs Diablo!) display more emotional responses than actual rational logic. I had to respond to this point because, as far as 'demands' go, these seemed fairly reasonable just by inspection, given Blizzard's severe lack of knowledge as to KeSPA's activities. It is only insidious if you read these terms with a preconceived ideal that Blizzard seeks to take over; otherwise, it doesn't seem like a real, sustainable power grab (haha, sure, cause Blizz will develop KeSPA capabilities and forward integrate IN ONE YEAR, ok). This suggests that emotional bias runs rampant, and it creates an uncomfortable environment for everyone. As for me, I think KeSPA was a bit short sighted, and Blizzard is playing hard ball a bit too much. However, I do not think Blizzard's actions are unreasonable. KeSPA, on the other hand, had a great opportunity during negotiations to really assure Blizzard of their intentions and blew it because of their ego. Now, we have a big mess on our hands. I can't venture to guess the outcome, but looking back, I see no indication of Blizzard's behavior being representative of a take over of the industry at all.
Wow, very long post. Too bad it's based on errors.
Is that what you're building your statement upon?
|
On October 28 2010 03:22 Woosung wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 18:33 s3raph wrote:
Were you living under a rock past the last three years?
"1. Set the contract term for using its games to 1 year
2. Prior approvals about all league operations such as contracting sponsorship, marketing materials, broadcasting plan
3. License fee for running of league and all license fee of sponsorship inducement
4. Ownership of all broadcasted programs, program videos
5. Right to audit KeSPA
6. Additional contracts between blizzard and KeSPA progamers that override the contracts between the latter and KeSPA teams"
Those were blizzard's demands... If that is not demanding total control, then I don't know what is. T______T
And, of course, blizzard never said they want to run the BW scene, as in host the tournaments, etc. They simply want to profit from something others invest hundreds of millions of dollars without investing any money whatsoever themselves, and be able to do whatever they want (like deliberately damage BW to support their other product - sc2, which is what gretech attempted).
I kind of have to respond to this, mainly because the way these demands are being interpreted seems grossly misplaced. In order: 1) I honestly do not see how 1 year is unreasonable. Blizzard and KeSPA are two very different entities, and Blizzard would simply be unsure as to KeSPA operations and how KeSPA has been utilizing the Starcraft IP (the 'platform,' if you will). Transparency as to how KeSPA selects sponsors, how KeSPA attains funding for its activities, and how KeSPA as a whole operates is very limited, particularly because Blizzard is not a native Korean firm and has a limited grasp on the business culture and environment. Add to this the fact that the main short-term impetus for negotiations beginning in 2007 was the KeSPA broadcasting rights event. How is 1 year unreasonable from Blizzard's point of view? I can see how it's unreasonable to KeSPA (hell, we've been doing this solely ourselves FOR YEARS), but overall, I don't see how it is unreasonable at all. Blizzard doesn't know KeSPA. Blizzard has some valuable IP (Starcraft franchise and the game itself) which is being used in a way it probably has neither predicted nor really fully understands. However, Blizzard recognizes that some sort of licensing time frame is appropriate. From my standpoint, a year (maybe 2) is perfectly legitimate going from the position that I simply do not know how they are operating.Before I get jumped on for this, not even KeSPA supporters on this forum really know how KeSPA operates. We don't know their decision making process. We don't know how sponsors are decided. We don't even know why they decided to pull players out of GomTV a while back. We can make posits on motives, but fundamentally, the majority of both SC2 supports and Brood War diehards simply do not know how the company operates. Neither does Blizzard. From this standpoint, a year seems very legitimate to me; it'll give Blizzard time to really understand what and how KeSPA does with the Starcraft IP. It's short enough to be flexible, in case there is some sort of abuse or some sort of bad development, etc, but long enough to keep the BW tournament structure (one full year) stable without breaking it up. Moving on. 2) This is a little extreme, but again, we are dealing with a 'non-profit' foreign company. For the sake of transparency, I'd say this 'demand' is not a demand, but a simple request. Sure, it is worded to set a precedent that Blizzard ultimately has the ability to decide what people do with its game (which, though debatable, seems to have reached a grudging consensus) but the spirit of the 'demand' (heavy sarcastic quotation marks) is for transparency. Let's approach this from another angle. What CAN Blizzard REALLY DO with this 'demand' (heavy sarcastic quotation marks) in place, if the deal goes through? Is Blizzard going to veto a sponsor for pumping in tons of money? Are they going to say 'hey, we don't want to pay players anymore; too expensive?' Are they going to say 'we're closing the leagues, omg?' As far as I can tell, this 'control' issue just boils down to a mistrust that Blizzard wants to actively shut down the BW progaming scene. If we take it from the assumption that Blizzard doesn't wish to shut down BW, I don't see how this 'demand' (sarcastic quotation marks) will really change the status quo at all. Of course, we can't really 'know' whether Blizzard wants to or does not want to shut down the BW scene. However, that being said, this 'demand' is 50/50 in regards to BW's longevity. Qualitatively, there is no reason to transmit bias and somehow warp it into 'womg Blizz wants to control IT ALL.' That is simply under the assumption that Blizzard would want to exercise the power to make a drastic change to the BW scene, and thus, demonstrates an emotional response from many forumers rather than rational thinking. 3). So Blizz wants a licensing fee. Wow. That's so out there, and such an outrageous demand. I can't imagine this occurring ANYWHERE else; it's not like companies ever have to buy licenses for the use of specific products. Oh wait ... Pointedly, without hard numbers, there is no way to judge. Additionally, eSports despite sharing commonalities with existing industries, is a new industry. There are no precendents set for this sort of thing. To an objective observer, a licensing fee is neither outrageous nor a 'demand;' even with seemingly 'outrageous' figures, there are no proceeding comparative situations. Who's to say? My point is that 'demand' 3 is not supportive of 'Blizzard womg kill BW now cry.' 4) Don't see what's so wrong with this either. 100% ownership is a little meh, but even WoW players don't own any percentage of their character (It's in the EULA). I'm almost certain that this could have been negotiated somehow, or dealt with in a more constructive manner. Yes, it is a bit extreme, but it in no way shape or form somehow details a 'power hungry corporate entity.' Take for example, a remix of the original song that is released to make a profit. Does the remixer have to obtain a license from the original artist? Most likely, yes. Even if we treat KeSPA's broadcasted games as derivative works, it's much the same situation. KeSPA and KeSPA supporters might disagree, but this sort of 'demand' (heavy sarcastic quotation marks) is in no way out of line or even unreasonable. Heavy handed? Sure. Unreasonable? Not really. (In my opinion, KeSPA really messed this point up. They should have agreed to 100% ownership of all material and consolidated IP (I dunno, file patents, whatever) on the actual infrastructure and technology involved in that infrastructure to broadcast the games. That would allow them to maintain essentially 'buyer power' over Blizzard, as well as expand potentially in the future. Big wasted opportunity, but I'm not surprised either. ) 5) Right to audit is justified by seeking transparency. I do not see how this is unreasonable. It happens in M&As all the time, and also for licensing deals for R&D involving milestone payments. It probably occurs a lot more than just in those situations too. 6) This is really the only claim that seems a bit iffy; however, the intent doesn't seem to be very insidious. I don't have much to say on it, only that it would allow Blizzard to direct the actions of BW pros (such as play in this, go here, etc), but without really understanding what sort of contracts Blizzard would be offering the players, I can't comment further. On the surface, this does seem a bit suspect; however, given how deeply in depends on the nature of a Blizzard-progamer contract (which I bet no one really knows anything about), it is definitely short-sighted to just claim this as a power grab. I think BW supporters are simply acting irrational over this entire issue. Granted, it is understandable; however, when logic comes into play, irrationality needs to go away. A lot of quibbles from both sides (the whole 'BW will detract from SC2' thing makes NO sense to me whatsoever; what indication can you have that BW will detract from sales? I bet you can't even find a solid quantitative comparable example in D2 vs Diablo!) display more emotional responses than actual rational logic. I had to respond to this point because, as far as 'demands' go, these seemed fairly reasonable just by inspection, given Blizzard's severe lack of knowledge as to KeSPA's activities. It is only insidious if you read these terms with a preconceived ideal that Blizzard seeks to take over; otherwise, it doesn't seem like a real, sustainable power grab (haha, sure, cause Blizz will develop KeSPA capabilities and forward integrate IN ONE YEAR, ok). This suggests that emotional bias runs rampant, and it creates an uncomfortable environment for everyone. As for me, I think KeSPA was a bit short sighted, and Blizzard is playing hard ball a bit too much. However, I do not think Blizzard's actions are unreasonable. KeSPA, on the other hand, had a great opportunity during negotiations to really assure Blizzard of their intentions and blew it because of their ego. Now, we have a big mess on our hands. I can't venture to guess the outcome, but looking back, I see no indication of Blizzard's behavior being representative of a take over of the industry at all. Wow, very long post. Too bad it's based on errors. Is that what you're building your statement upon?
Wow, very short post. Too bad it's based on nothing.
Is that what you're building your statement upon?
|
This is what happens when you have IP laws, there is no reason to expect Blizzard will just ignore them, they will use every advantage they can.
|
On October 28 2010 03:48 Whiladan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 03:22 Woosung wrote:On October 27 2010 18:33 s3raph wrote:
Were you living under a rock past the last three years?
"1. Set the contract term for using its games to 1 year
2. Prior approvals about all league operations such as contracting sponsorship, marketing materials, broadcasting plan
3. License fee for running of league and all license fee of sponsorship inducement
4. Ownership of all broadcasted programs, program videos
5. Right to audit KeSPA
6. Additional contracts between blizzard and KeSPA progamers that override the contracts between the latter and KeSPA teams"
Those were blizzard's demands... If that is not demanding total control, then I don't know what is. T______T
And, of course, blizzard never said they want to run the BW scene, as in host the tournaments, etc. They simply want to profit from something others invest hundreds of millions of dollars without investing any money whatsoever themselves, and be able to do whatever they want (like deliberately damage BW to support their other product - sc2, which is what gretech attempted).
I kind of have to respond to this, mainly because the way these demands are being interpreted seems grossly misplaced. In order: 1) I honestly do not see how 1 year is unreasonable. Blizzard and KeSPA are two very different entities, and Blizzard would simply be unsure as to KeSPA operations and how KeSPA has been utilizing the Starcraft IP (the 'platform,' if you will). Transparency as to how KeSPA selects sponsors, how KeSPA attains funding for its activities, and how KeSPA as a whole operates is very limited, particularly because Blizzard is not a native Korean firm and has a limited grasp on the business culture and environment. Add to this the fact that the main short-term impetus for negotiations beginning in 2007 was the KeSPA broadcasting rights event. How is 1 year unreasonable from Blizzard's point of view? I can see how it's unreasonable to KeSPA (hell, we've been doing this solely ourselves FOR YEARS), but overall, I don't see how it is unreasonable at all. Blizzard doesn't know KeSPA. Blizzard has some valuable IP (Starcraft franchise and the game itself) which is being used in a way it probably has neither predicted nor really fully understands. However, Blizzard recognizes that some sort of licensing time frame is appropriate. From my standpoint, a year (maybe 2) is perfectly legitimate going from the position that I simply do not know how they are operating.Before I get jumped on for this, not even KeSPA supporters on this forum really know how KeSPA operates. We don't know their decision making process. We don't know how sponsors are decided. We don't even know why they decided to pull players out of GomTV a while back. We can make posits on motives, but fundamentally, the majority of both SC2 supports and Brood War diehards simply do not know how the company operates. Neither does Blizzard. From this standpoint, a year seems very legitimate to me; it'll give Blizzard time to really understand what and how KeSPA does with the Starcraft IP. It's short enough to be flexible, in case there is some sort of abuse or some sort of bad development, etc, but long enough to keep the BW tournament structure (one full year) stable without breaking it up. Moving on. 2) This is a little extreme, but again, we are dealing with a 'non-profit' foreign company. For the sake of transparency, I'd say this 'demand' is not a demand, but a simple request. Sure, it is worded to set a precedent that Blizzard ultimately has the ability to decide what people do with its game (which, though debatable, seems to have reached a grudging consensus) but the spirit of the 'demand' (heavy sarcastic quotation marks) is for transparency. Let's approach this from another angle. What CAN Blizzard REALLY DO with this 'demand' (heavy sarcastic quotation marks) in place, if the deal goes through? Is Blizzard going to veto a sponsor for pumping in tons of money? Are they going to say 'hey, we don't want to pay players anymore; too expensive?' Are they going to say 'we're closing the leagues, omg?' As far as I can tell, this 'control' issue just boils down to a mistrust that Blizzard wants to actively shut down the BW progaming scene. If we take it from the assumption that Blizzard doesn't wish to shut down BW, I don't see how this 'demand' (sarcastic quotation marks) will really change the status quo at all. Of course, we can't really 'know' whether Blizzard wants to or does not want to shut down the BW scene. However, that being said, this 'demand' is 50/50 in regards to BW's longevity. Qualitatively, there is no reason to transmit bias and somehow warp it into 'womg Blizz wants to control IT ALL.' That is simply under the assumption that Blizzard would want to exercise the power to make a drastic change to the BW scene, and thus, demonstrates an emotional response from many forumers rather than rational thinking. 3). So Blizz wants a licensing fee. Wow. That's so out there, and such an outrageous demand. I can't imagine this occurring ANYWHERE else; it's not like companies ever have to buy licenses for the use of specific products. Oh wait ... Pointedly, without hard numbers, there is no way to judge. Additionally, eSports despite sharing commonalities with existing industries, is a new industry. There are no precendents set for this sort of thing. To an objective observer, a licensing fee is neither outrageous nor a 'demand;' even with seemingly 'outrageous' figures, there are no proceeding comparative situations. Who's to say? My point is that 'demand' 3 is not supportive of 'Blizzard womg kill BW now cry.' 4) Don't see what's so wrong with this either. 100% ownership is a little meh, but even WoW players don't own any percentage of their character (It's in the EULA). I'm almost certain that this could have been negotiated somehow, or dealt with in a more constructive manner. Yes, it is a bit extreme, but it in no way shape or form somehow details a 'power hungry corporate entity.' Take for example, a remix of the original song that is released to make a profit. Does the remixer have to obtain a license from the original artist? Most likely, yes. Even if we treat KeSPA's broadcasted games as derivative works, it's much the same situation. KeSPA and KeSPA supporters might disagree, but this sort of 'demand' (heavy sarcastic quotation marks) is in no way out of line or even unreasonable. Heavy handed? Sure. Unreasonable? Not really. (In my opinion, KeSPA really messed this point up. They should have agreed to 100% ownership of all material and consolidated IP (I dunno, file patents, whatever) on the actual infrastructure and technology involved in that infrastructure to broadcast the games. That would allow them to maintain essentially 'buyer power' over Blizzard, as well as expand potentially in the future. Big wasted opportunity, but I'm not surprised either. ) 5) Right to audit is justified by seeking transparency. I do not see how this is unreasonable. It happens in M&As all the time, and also for licensing deals for R&D involving milestone payments. It probably occurs a lot more than just in those situations too. 6) This is really the only claim that seems a bit iffy; however, the intent doesn't seem to be very insidious. I don't have much to say on it, only that it would allow Blizzard to direct the actions of BW pros (such as play in this, go here, etc), but without really understanding what sort of contracts Blizzard would be offering the players, I can't comment further. On the surface, this does seem a bit suspect; however, given how deeply in depends on the nature of a Blizzard-progamer contract (which I bet no one really knows anything about), it is definitely short-sighted to just claim this as a power grab. I think BW supporters are simply acting irrational over this entire issue. Granted, it is understandable; however, when logic comes into play, irrationality needs to go away. A lot of quibbles from both sides (the whole 'BW will detract from SC2' thing makes NO sense to me whatsoever; what indication can you have that BW will detract from sales? I bet you can't even find a solid quantitative comparable example in D2 vs Diablo!) display more emotional responses than actual rational logic. I had to respond to this point because, as far as 'demands' go, these seemed fairly reasonable just by inspection, given Blizzard's severe lack of knowledge as to KeSPA's activities. It is only insidious if you read these terms with a preconceived ideal that Blizzard seeks to take over; otherwise, it doesn't seem like a real, sustainable power grab (haha, sure, cause Blizz will develop KeSPA capabilities and forward integrate IN ONE YEAR, ok). This suggests that emotional bias runs rampant, and it creates an uncomfortable environment for everyone. As for me, I think KeSPA was a bit short sighted, and Blizzard is playing hard ball a bit too much. However, I do not think Blizzard's actions are unreasonable. KeSPA, on the other hand, had a great opportunity during negotiations to really assure Blizzard of their intentions and blew it because of their ego. Now, we have a big mess on our hands. I can't venture to guess the outcome, but looking back, I see no indication of Blizzard's behavior being representative of a take over of the industry at all. Wow, very long post. Too bad it's based on errors. Is that what you're building your statement upon? Wow, very short post. Too bad it's based on nothing. Is that what you're building your statement upon?
Yeah, sure. Arguments like "nah, its not as bad", "nah, little extreme but i think its not demand but request", "nah, I think that could be negociated somehow" are so much better. Man, except point 3 he didnt write anything that wasnt kind of argument "whats wrong with you, this is not as bad as it seems".
|
This will only end badly for Blizzard.
|
[QUOTE]On October 27 2010 23:05 infinity2k9 wrote:
[QUOTE]On October 26 2010 22:07 Chriamon wrote:
[QUOTE]On October 26 2010 09:56 infinity2k9 wrote:
[QUOTE]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
[/QUOTE]
[...]
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.
[...][/QUOTE]
...
. But don't call it a monopoly as if KeSPA is somehow forcing this imaginary competition out of the business.
....
[/QUOTE]
KeSPA did forbid bw teams and players to participate in gomtv bw tournaments. Thats hindering competion in my opinion.
|
On October 28 2010 06:22 parkin wrote:
KeSPA did forbid bw teams and players to participate in gomtv bw tournaments. Thats hindering competion in my opinion.
Uhh... those are KeSPA's teams and players. GOM could have set up tournaments with their own players/teams (if they had any) or just an open tournament a la GSL where they have prelims open to the public. They wanted to use KeSPA teams and players, and some of the teams later pulled out in Season 3, there's nothing wrong with that.
|
On October 28 2010 06:26 moopie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 06:22 parkin wrote:
KeSPA did forbid bw teams and players to participate in gomtv bw tournaments. Thats hindering competion in my opinion. Uhh... those are KeSPA's teams and players. GOM could have set up tournaments with their own players/teams (if they had any) or just an open tournament a la GSL where they have prelims open to the public. They wanted to use KeSPA teams and players, and some of the teams later pulled out in Season 3, there's nothing wrong with that.
And no KeSPA never did that. KeSPA only stated that they wouldn't get any KeSPA rank gains from participating in GOM since it wasn't a tournament ruled by KeSPA, which is pretty logical when you think about it.
Hence the players placed GOM at the bottom of their prio list and as a result, the teams started telling their players not to waste time on that tournament since they had better stuff to practice for (PL/OSL/MSL).
Edit: GOM = individual STX Masters for the KeSPA teams. The main difference being it's played during OSL/MSL seasons.
|
On October 28 2010 03:48 Whiladan wrote:
Wow, very short post. Too bad it's based on nothing.
Is that what you're building your statement upon?
The errors he's mentioning as facts has already been stated as errors countless times before, I can't understand why I should have to repeat them AGAIN just because he's ignorant. Waste of time to point out every single error.
|
On October 27 2010 23:05 infinity2k9 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. Sorry this has already been gone over and over in the last few pages but some people dont even understand the real world at all apparently and how things work. What you are saying doesn't even make sense. KeSPA has the players because they had a draft, chose the players and gave them contracts. Many many players never even make it. There's no shortage of willing gamers out there. But you can't expect to take other teams contracted players to come and play for you can you? Run your OWN draft, make your own teams, get your own sponsors. The reason there is no other KeSPA is because its a niche market already and there really is zero need for it in the first place. If i went to Korea, started my own Super Starcraft Power League, drafted gamers got teams and did everything needed to run eSports then KeSPA could not stop me. There might be disagreements about broadcasting because the main 2 channels are OGN and MBC but that is how business works, its competitive. If i gave the broadcasters a great offer i could get my SSPL on TV and be the main BW league. Of course none of this will happen because its completely financially not viable. But don't call it a monopoly as if KeSPA is somehow forcing this imaginary competition out of the business. Btw i'm not some blind supporter in this argument, KeSPA and in particular sometimes its rule decisions and player drafting is harsh on the players. But that's how things are, no organization is perfect. It's like FIFA refusing goal-line technology even though we clearly need it. But when it comes to the business side of things and how they have created such a sustainable and well run scene, there's no way anyone should want to disrupt that. The only reason Blizzard do is for control/profit, simple as that.
Mate, I think you should check your definitions or take some economics classes.
I don't know why you stubbornly refuse to call KESPA a monopoly (I mean, who cares) when it obviously is one. I mean, if you take KESPA out of the BW market, you'll have:
??? (some Chinese tournaments)
WCG (16 players)
|
|
|
Oh boy....after numerous articles and threads, it 's on now.
Too bad it had to come to this.
|
On October 28 2010 07:22 dazer wrote:
This is so much fun!
Going through your post history regarding the BW scene (more specifically BW vs SC2) I see a lot of 1-2 line flamebait posts that add no real content to any discussion... whats your endgame here?
|
On October 28 2010 07:41 moopie wrote:Going through your post history regarding the BW scene (more specifically BW vs SC2) I see a lot of 1-2 line flamebait posts that add no real content to any discussion... whats your endgame here?
People are too overdramatic about this.
I played broodwar but was never truly a fan of BW scene so I wouldn't be able to understand what you guys are fighting for.
But nonetheless, you guys are really swarming Kespa's balls too much; since it's just like any other organization, it all comes down to money.
I enjoy SC2 a lot more than SCBW so I don't really mind no longer having BW in the esport scene.
Ciao
|
not cool, timing is VERY QUESTIONABLE
|
Croatia9476 Posts
On October 28 2010 07:47 dazer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 07:41 moopie wrote:On October 28 2010 07:22 dazer wrote:
This is so much fun! Going through your post history regarding the BW scene (more specifically BW vs SC2) I see a lot of 1-2 line flamebait posts that add no real content to any discussion... whats your endgame here? People are too overdramatic about this. I played broodwar but was never truly a fan of BW scene so I wouldn't be able to understand what you guys are fighting for. But nonetheless, you guys are really swarming Kespa's balls too much; since it's just like any other organization, it all comes down to money. I enjoy SC2 a lot more than SCBW so I don't really mind no longer having BW in the esport scene. Ciao
Ciao
|
I wish people would stop bringing the GOM Season 3 thing up. As if we needed another individual league that nobody practiced for. Yes it had English commentators, great. Tasteless going on about the pandabear guy was funny the first few times.
|
On October 28 2010 08:39 infinity2k9 wrote:
I wish people would stop bringing the GOM Season 3 thing up. As if we needed another individual league that nobody practiced for. Yes it had English commentators, great. Tasteless going on about the pandabear guy was funny the first few times.
Why are you bringing up English commentary as if it's a bad thing. It sure as hell beats Korean commentary, and I'm sure if Tasteless was paid to cover the proleague you'd be all over his nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
