EPTLet the fun begin. Activision Blizzard suing MBC - Page 7
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
dukethegold
Canada5645 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On October 23 2010 11:16 Grettin wrote: Yeah, not surprised at all, and i wont be if MBC loses. It's sad but yeah, i can understand Blizzard here. Loving Broodwar and i would never want to see it go away. So lets hope for the best, that Broodwar will still go on after this. Lets be realistic here, if Blizz wins, Broodwar pro scene will be no more. | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
On October 23 2010 11:20 Xiphos wrote: Lets be realistic here, if Blizz wins, Broodwar pro scene will be no more. Most likely, but we can always hope, right? | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On October 23 2010 11:20 Xiphos wrote: Lets be realistic here, if Blizz wins, Broodwar pro scene will be no more. As I said before, it all depends on the damages the Korean court will award to Blizzard. If it's an injunction then yeah, no more broadcasts period. If it's some kind of monetary award, with no injunction, plus a compulsory license then maybe MBC/OGN will have enough money left after paying off Blizzard (mafia) to still run proleague. But yeah probably not. | ||
|
SC2Phoenix
Canada2814 Posts
| ||
|
shalafi
394 Posts
| ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
xBillehx
United States1289 Posts
| ||
|
prototype.
Canada4200 Posts
I seriously don't want to see BW die. | ||
|
PalaceAthene
21 Posts
It's like if you bought a movie, and made people pay to watch it. It's illegal, and it's wrong. And if Kespa dies, the GSL is there. And no doubt companies will rise from Kespas ashes to take the reins of SC:BW. | ||
|
deafhobbit
United States828 Posts
On October 23 2010 11:36 PalaceAthene wrote: Legally, blizzard is in the right. They tried to make contracts with Kespa before, but Kespa argued that Starcraft was a public property, and they made money off of it. It's like if you bought a movie, and made people pay to watch it. It's illegal, and it's wrong. And if Kespa dies, the GSL is there. And no doubt companies will rise from Kespas ashes to take the reins of SC:BW. Kespa hasn't made a dime off of BW. Kespa is a committee of companies that sponsor progaming teams, and a non profit organization. | ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
Blizzard made the game, but Korea made Starcraft into what it is today | ||
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
On October 23 2010 11:36 PalaceAthene wrote: Legally, blizzard is in the right. They tried to make contracts with Kespa before, but Kespa argued that Starcraft was a public property, and they made money off of it. It's like if you bought a movie, and made people pay to watch it. It's illegal, and it's wrong. And if Kespa dies, the GSL is there. And no doubt companies will rise from Kespas ashes to take the reins of SC:BW. Except for the part noone actually pays for the movie showing other than the people who show the movie to you aka. KeSPA and the TV-channels. That's called sponsoring. | ||
|
Nayl
Canada413 Posts
If Blizzard shuts down MBC and/or OGN, in my opinion, Koreans will simply stop watching esports because nobody comes close when it comes to production value of esports they create. Gomtv is terrible compared to OGN/MBC in almost every way, including casters. | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On October 23 2010 11:36 PalaceAthene wrote: Legally, blizzard is in the right. They tried to make contracts with Kespa before, but Kespa argued that Starcraft was a public property, and they made money off of it. It's like if you bought a movie, and made people pay to watch it. It's illegal, and it's wrong. And if Kespa dies, the GSL is there. And no doubt companies will rise from Kespas ashes to take the reins of SC:BW. See that's the problem though. It's all in how you characterize video games What do you think a video game is more like, an interactive movie or something like photoshop? Most judges think games are more like movies where the "script" and all possible scenes are contained in the code. I disagree and would characterize a video game as something more like an etch-a-sketch or photoshop, where the software gives you the tools to create something, but what you actually create wasn't fixed in the code itself. Obviously background music and cutscenes are fixed in the code and are more like movies, but I think the software only gives you the tools to create the gameplay, and the gameplay itself wasn't contained in the code (just the ability to play a certain way). | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On October 23 2010 11:51 Slow Motion wrote: See that's the problem though. It's all in how you characterize video games What do you think a video game is more like, an interactive movie or something like photoshop? Most judges think games are more like movies where the "script" and all possible scenes are contained in the code. I disagree and would characterize a video game as something more like an etch-a-sketch or photoshop, where the software gives you the tools to create something, but what you actually create wasn't fixed in the code itself. Obviously background music and cutscenes are fixed in the code and are more like movies, but I think the software only gives you the tools to create the gameplay, and the gameplay itself wasn't contained in the code (just the ability to play a certain way). Agreed with that. Original SC:BW didn't have the AI to do what the players are able to do nowadays so the creativity and work of the strategies are all works of the players instead of the Dev team. | ||
|
PalaceAthene
21 Posts
On October 23 2010 11:41 deafhobbit wrote: Kespa hasn't made a dime off of BW. Kespa is a committee of companies that sponsor progaming teams, and a non profit organization. Blizzard is seeing it from the commercial side of it. Teams have sponsors that pay for them to play in these tournaments, so their is money being made. It is not the complete 'No money involved' situation you're trying to argue. That's what this is all about:Both sides fighting for money. Kespa feels like they own Starcraft because they made it into what it is, even though without Blizzard they wouldn't exist. So now we've got two sides:The passionate side, the ones who argue for Kespa just because they made Starcraft grow. And the legal side, which Blizzard deserves its due desserts. | ||
|
Rinrun
Canada3509 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On October 23 2010 11:57 PalaceAthene wrote: Blizzard is seeing it from the commercial side of it. Teams have sponsors that pay for them to play in these tournaments, so their is money being made. It is not the complete 'No money involved' situation you're trying to argue. That's what this is all about:Both sides fighting for money. Kespa feels like they own Starcraft because they made it into what it is, even though without Blizzard they wouldn't exist. So now we've got two sides:The passionate side, the ones who argue for Kespa just because they made Starcraft grow. And the legal side, which Blizzard deserves its due desserts. Pretty sure that without Blizzard, they would be other games for Kespa to base on. | ||
|
zenMaster
Canada761 Posts
On October 23 2010 11:36 PalaceAthene wrote: Legally, blizzard is in the right. They tried to make contracts with Kespa before, but Kespa argued that Starcraft was a public property, and they made money off of it. It's like if you bought a movie, and made people pay to watch it. It's illegal, and it's wrong. And if Kespa dies, the GSL is there. And no doubt companies will rise from Kespas ashes to take the reins of SC:BW. Horrible analogies makes me wanna rip my eyes out... Not before ripping the eyes of Blizzard fanboys out. | ||
| ||
