|
You call that reasonable?
Some people really ought to do more searching. Getting tired of repeating myself. Ignorance is bliss. Some people, just wow. If there is one thing Blizzard and KeSPA have agreed on it's that their should be a fee for the IP rights, as for the rest of the terms including price. No.
There is a search function for a reason. If you want to post on the matter, it might be advisable to read up on the threads before posting. Seriously.
Or perhaps you should stop blaming people for not searching enough. No one's going to know 100% of everything, so does that mean no one should post?
And how the heck is that not reasonable? Seriously. They OWN THE GAME. How is it NOT reasonable to OWN control of THEIR game??? For those that say, "Kespa made the proscene" well may be Blizzard doesn't want Kespa in charge of the progamer scene. May be they want to do it themselves. Is that not reasonable?
|
5003 Posts
On November 15 2010 07:16 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +You call that reasonable?
Some people really ought to do more searching. Getting tired of repeating myself. Ignorance is bliss. Some people, just wow. If there is one thing Blizzard and KeSPA have agreed on it's that their should be a fee for the IP rights, as for the rest of the terms including price. No.
There is a search function for a reason. If you want to post on the matter, it might be advisable to read up on the threads before posting. Seriously. Or perhaps you should stop blaming people for not searching enough. No one's going to know 100% of everything, so does that mean no one should post? And how the heck is that not reasonable? Seriously. They OWN THE GAME. How is it NOT reasonable to OWN control of THEIR game??? For those that say, "Kespa made the proscene" well may be Blizzard doesn't want Kespa in charge of the progamer scene. May be they want to do it themselves. Is that not reasonable?
hey i have a great idea
despite being completely ignorant of the context and of the entire progaming scene and how it work, i'm gonna make a comment on the subject just because i can, and i'm not going to look up the context or how the progaming scene worked just so i can throw in my 2 cents
It's clear Blizzard doesn't want KeSPA in charge of the progamer scene. No one doubts that. Your last line is clearly and utterly ignorant of the situation and how shit has worked for the past 10 years though
|
Anyone who have any desire to ever see LAN in SC2 should support Blizzard in this conflict. Implementing LAN is not an option until the IP dispute has been settled.
|
On November 15 2010 08:11 Longshank wrote:
Anyone who have any desire to ever see LAN in SC2 should support Blizzard in this conflict. Implementing LAN is not an option until the IP dispute has been settled.
I can see the logical progression you've made here, but it's hardly smart to support the downfall of the only sustainable system of progaming in order to put all your eggs in a game that hasn't even proven itself as a viable eSport.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On November 15 2010 06:57 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +seriously blizzard and gretech, go to hell
obvioulsy gretech is being influenced by b lizzard Yeah, people who made starcraft for us which we love, go to hell. For making this awesome game. Yup. Hmm don't understand all the parts of the profit, I think Blizzard/Gretech should definitely try to let the broadcasting stations make more money than Bliz/Gre does from the broadcasting though. The broadcasting stations will own the sponsorship money though, so I guess they will do fine? Or no?
If you read the thread, you should have found a link where one broadcasting station already stated how it barely breaks even as is. And now their expenses for the broadcasting allowance supposedly quadruple. Unlike the KeSPA system though, they don't get anything reinvested (the Blizzard COO explicitly stated the money is supposed to go to "charities") and if their statement holds true, they might need to either decrease costs ( prize money is already much lower than the competitors) or even worse, as has been rumored, disband their teams (the rumors mentioned MBC). As of now, they already have the sponsorship money, and they don't get to charge for tickets or anything alike.
In short, I'm entirely sure the Broadcasting companies can only lose from any result favoring Blizzard. Why throw statements like these into the air if you state yourself you don't understand anything about the finances?
|
On November 15 2010 08:41 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2010 08:11 Longshank wrote:
Anyone who have any desire to ever see LAN in SC2 should support Blizzard in this conflict. Implementing LAN is not an option until the IP dispute has been settled. I can see the logical progression you've made here, but it's hardly smart to support the downfall of the only sustainable system of progaming in order to put all your eggs in a game that hasn't even proven itself as a viable eSport.
I'd rather put my eggs in a game that has a chance of growing and expanding esports than in one that is dead and buried in every aspect except for a handful of teams in Korea. The BW scene won't grow no matter what, SC2 will - so anything that improves SC2 chances of growing is good in my book. Your 'sustainable system' isn't so sustainable seeing that it is, due to its' actions, stuck in BW while the rest of the world has moved on.
|
Im going out on a limb and propose that the reason that MBC is barely breaking even, while OGN is not it's because their product is inferior to the OGN product.
I am still disgusted by the PowerGate incident. How can I as a fan support such poorly made decisions? On their greatest stage they allow such a mishap to happen, and to add insult to injury, they resolve it on the worst possible way.
Just because they are doing poorly does not gives them a free pass in terms of legality.
|
On November 15 2010 04:53 night terrors wrote:
I am completely amazed at people's logic here.
"All Blizzard wants is to protect their rights"
"They dont want to kill off the korean BW e-sports scene"
Really? Are you really that naive? Lets just suppose that this conflict escalated just as SC2 hit Korean markets as pure coincidence.
I guess the fact that the escalation actually started the moment KeSPA tried to control and sell broadcast rights completely slipped by you. Nope, it all happened purely because SC2 hit the korean market (this doesnt even make sense... this has been going on for years =\)
On November 15 2010 07:42 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2010 07:16 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:You call that reasonable?
Some people really ought to do more searching. Getting tired of repeating myself. Ignorance is bliss. Some people, just wow. If there is one thing Blizzard and KeSPA have agreed on it's that their should be a fee for the IP rights, as for the rest of the terms including price. No.
There is a search function for a reason. If you want to post on the matter, it might be advisable to read up on the threads before posting. Seriously. Or perhaps you should stop blaming people for not searching enough. No one's going to know 100% of everything, so does that mean no one should post? And how the heck is that not reasonable? Seriously. They OWN THE GAME. How is it NOT reasonable to OWN control of THEIR game??? For those that say, "Kespa made the proscene" well may be Blizzard doesn't want Kespa in charge of the progamer scene. May be they want to do it themselves. Is that not reasonable? ...and how shit has worked for the past 10 years though
I am curious, why should we keep on the same path? Was the KeSPA path really that great as of these last few years? Personally, all I have heard about KeSPA lately are bad things, poor treatment of players.... scandals... and just generally ignoring IP rights (strictly speaking, SC is property of blizzard, if they want to play "starcraft" without acknowledging this, why not make their own version of the same game) among other things. Why not have somebody new step in to try and get things going in a good direction again? Why does it have to be KeSPA?
I mean, things started off well. They got the foundation set for everybody, they got sponsors interested, they got the country interested. Maybe its just time to hand things off? By all means, keep BW around... but let somebody else handle it.
|
5003 Posts
I am curious, why should we keep on the same path? Was the KeSPA path really that great as of these last few years? Personally, all I have heard about KeSPA lately are bad things, poor treatment of players.... scandals... and just generally ignoring IP rights (strictly speaking, SC is property of blizzard, if they want to play "starcraft" without acknowledging this, why not make their own version of the same game) among other things. Why not have somebody new step in to try and get things going in a good direction again? Why does it have to be KeSPA?
I mean, things started off well. They got the foundation set for everybody, they got sponsors interested, they got the country interested. Maybe its just time to hand things off? By all means, keep BW around... but let somebody else handle it.
We shouldn't -- you're right. But let's be honest -- Blizzard hasn't shown any serious dedication to the scene, and Gretech does not have the infrastructure to handle this -- considering their "complaints" that they've made public in these forums a while back. The reason why people "support" KeSPA is because Blizzard's interests and the interest of e-Sports don't exactly align, considering Blizzard's moves in the recent years.
My comment is simply saying that you can't ignore the 10 years that has been there -- the context matters a lot, which is exactly why people aren't so fond of Blizzard either, as much as they're not that fond of KeSPA. The reason is in interests -- an organization that started "for e-Sports" will likely have that a lot more in interests than a company like blizzard, who has a rather... bad track record overall.
|
On November 15 2010 04:46 battarro wrote:i just read this gem and i wanted to point out the following Show nested quote +Who in the right mind would pay 300 million won to broadcast something that's only 50% theirs? Honestly, the broadcasted material isn't even all their property. For every major sport in the world, The TV station pays to the teams a broadcast fee, for something that they do not own. They do not own a thing, as in 0% of the broadcasted material. The content itself belongs to the league, this applies to Basketball, football, soccer, the Olympics, etc. Why is suddenly e-sports different? Why now are the TV stations golden cows that must have a stake in ownership? 50% to the stations is a lot more than they would get on a traditional sports settings.
If you're quoting me, quote all that I've wrote or else it distorts the meaning. For those of you wondering, I wrote before the line he quoted that the broadcasting stations are not making money. NOW, if you take that into context, the quote actually means, who would pay 300 million dollars to broadcast something that is only 50% theirs.
|
On November 15 2010 11:08 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +I am curious, why should we keep on the same path? Was the KeSPA path really that great as of these last few years? Personally, all I have heard about KeSPA lately are bad things, poor treatment of players.... scandals... and just generally ignoring IP rights (strictly speaking, SC is property of blizzard, if they want to play "starcraft" without acknowledging this, why not make their own version of the same game) among other things. Why not have somebody new step in to try and get things going in a good direction again? Why does it have to be KeSPA?
I mean, things started off well. They got the foundation set for everybody, they got sponsors interested, they got the country interested. Maybe its just time to hand things off? By all means, keep BW around... but let somebody else handle it. My comment is simply saying that you can't ignore the 10 years that has been there -- the context matters a lot, which is exactly why people aren't so fond of Blizzard either, as much as they're not that fond of KeSPA. The reason is in interests -- an organization that started "for e-Sports" will likely have that a lot more in interests than a company like blizzard, who has a rather... bad track record overall.
I know you cant ignore the last 10 years, but I disagree with you that they were necessarily started for e-sports. I see you put that in quotes, so maybe you yourself agree? I mean, these are large companies, their primary interest is still to drive a profit for their company. KeSPA itself is just something that they created so they can say, "hey, we arent making any profits" even though the companies that make up KeSPA do make money from it. It is kind of a glorified sponsorship system in my mind, one that has gained a bit too much power over things. I would much rather the korean government itself be in control, or some other system at this point in time.
|
On November 15 2010 10:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Maybe its just time to hand things off? By all means, keep BW around... but let somebody else handle it.
Your "someone else" don't have :
1> Media support : BW won't have TV coverage.
2> Government support : No help from the gov to maintain its sport status, not to mention bad press / harass from them.
3> Programing team support : The existing teams of Kespa won't participate in their leagues, they will disband and I don't think more than 1/3 of the actual players will continue to play. The scene will become too small it cannot exist.
The matter is simple, your "someone else" is technically not qualified for the job. Not to mention they treat their business partner like slaves and their customers like shit.
|
On November 15 2010 11:27 kamikami wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2010 10:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Maybe its just time to hand things off? By all means, keep BW around... but let somebody else handle it. Your "someone else" don't have : 1> Media support : BW won't have TV coverage. 2> Government support : No help from the gov to maintain its sport status, not to mention bad press / harass from them. 3> Programing team support : The existing teams of Kespa won't participate in their leagues, they will disband and I don't think more than 1/3 of the actual players will continue to play. The scene will become too small it cannot exist. The matter is simple, your "someone else" is technically not qualified for the job. Not to mention they treat their business partner like slaves and their customers like shit.
1) Why would the next group not have media support? Last I checked the broadcasters that already invested into it would want to continue to keep their investment alive.
2) Why would the government stop supporting it? Just because it isnt kespa doesnt mean it cant have support. Keep in mind, I am not saying that blizzard is this "someone else".
3) Why would only 1/3 of the players continue to play? Many people that try to play BW professionally have given up lots of things in their life to pursue this dream. How many would be able to live a life as good as they have if they dont keep playing under sponsorship?
Honestly, you are making completely nonsensical doomsday conclusions here with nothing to back them up. At all.
|
On November 15 2010 11:12 renzy wrote:
If you're quoting me, quote all that I've wrote or else it distorts the meaning. For those of you wondering, I wrote before the line he quoted that the broadcasting stations are not making money. NOW, if you take that into context, the quote actually means, who would pay 300 million dollars to broadcast something that is only 50% theirs.
how much are the Olympics contract worth on the USA?
Try billions of dollars for content that is not own by them, ill get you quick NBA example.
When NBC Sports' contract with the NBA expired in 2002, the broadcast rights were passed to ABC, which began airing games the next season. NBC had made a four-year, $1.3 billion bid in the spring of 2002 to renew its NBA coverage, but the league instead made six-year deals worth $4.6 billion with ESPN, ABC, and TNT. In the last four years of the final contract, NBC lost $300 million dollars. NBC only offered $325 million a year compared to ESPN's $400 million.
Do you know how much Fox paid for the Superbowl broadcasting fees, and again they d not own the content, nor can they reproduce it ever again. It is a one time broadcasting license.
I can get you numbers for everything from hockey to the Olympics. The point is that TV station routinely pay to broadcast content that is not owned by them.
|
On November 15 2010 11:45 battarro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2010 11:12 renzy wrote:
If you're quoting me, quote all that I've wrote or else it distorts the meaning. For those of you wondering, I wrote before the line he quoted that the broadcasting stations are not making money. NOW, if you take that into context, the quote actually means, who would pay 300 million dollars to broadcast something that is only 50% theirs. how much are the Olympics contract worth on the USA? Try billions of dollars for content that is not own by them, ill get you quick NBA example. Show nested quote +
When NBC Sports' contract with the NBA expired in 2002, the broadcast rights were passed to ABC, which began airing games the next season. NBC had made a four-year, $1.3 billion bid in the spring of 2002 to renew its NBA coverage, but the league instead made six-year deals worth $4.6 billion with ESPN, ABC, and TNT. In the last four years of the final contract, NBC lost $300 million dollars. NBC only offered $325 million a year compared to ESPN's $400 million.
Do you know how much Fox paid for the Superbowl broadcasting fees, and again they d not own the content, nor can they reproduce it ever again. It is a one time broadcasting license. I can get you numbers for everything from hockey to the Olympics. The point is that TV station routinely pay to broadcast content that is not owned by them.
Yes, but TV stations don't routinely pay for a broadcast that does not make any money to begin with. I'm pretty certain TV stations MAKE MONEY from broadcasting superbowl, even though they have to pay money to start with. It is not the case for SCBW
|
Also i want to say that the whole "MBC" is not amking money argument is bullshit. Here is why
The day I see a MBC ran tournament, where they run zero advertisement and have no sponsor, And no product placement takes place, (h2u logos on the shirts of the team), Then that tournament I will agree to "They are not making money".
Every single advertisement, product placement/sponsor paid money to get their name /product broadcasted. What you are referencing to is "They are not making profit", but they are making money. Operating financially at a loss it is not a legal excuse to not respect other peoples rights.
|
On November 15 2010 11:48 renzy wrote:
Yes, but TV stations don't routinely pay for a broadcast that does not make any money to begin with. I'm pretty certain TV stations MAKE MONEY from broadcasting superbowl, even though they have to pay money to start with. It is not the case for SCBW
Have you heard this thing called Public television? I heard it is where the government broadcast programs free of advertisement for the interest / well being / education of the population.
Also let supposed for a second just for the sake of argument that the reason of being broke is an excuse for not honoring someones IP rights. Then what about OGN? Last time i checked, they were doing good financially with their starleague. The JD /flash final for the OSL on China must have been watched by half the young population in Korea.
What is the excuse for OGN not paying Blizzard a cut for using their game as a tool for revenue?
|
On November 15 2010 07:16 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +You call that reasonable?
Some people really ought to do more searching. Getting tired of repeating myself. Ignorance is bliss. Some people, just wow. If there is one thing Blizzard and KeSPA have agreed on it's that their should be a fee for the IP rights, as for the rest of the terms including price. No.
There is a search function for a reason. If you want to post on the matter, it might be advisable to read up on the threads before posting. Seriously. Or perhaps you should stop blaming people for not searching enough. No one's going to know 100% of everything, so does that mean no one should post? And how the heck is that not reasonable? Seriously. They OWN THE GAME. How is it NOT reasonable to OWN control of THEIR game??? For those that say, "Kespa made the proscene" well may be Blizzard doesn't want Kespa in charge of the progamer scene. May be they want to do it themselves. Is that not reasonable?
Blizzard made the game with the intention of charging people to play it, not watch it. There shouldn't be any charge to broadcast it, it's like a soccer ball manufacturer claiming the IP rights to televised soccer games...
Also to people citing the law as ultimate moral arbitrator in this dispute: current copyright and IP laws are seriously fucked up and desperately need reform. They're meant to foster growth in the economy but really in their current state they only stagnate it, as evidenced here by Blizzard basically shutting down an entire industry and thousands of jobs in order to promote their new game better.
|
If you invent a square ball, and I create a game around it that is so popular, much more than your sales of the square ball. Am I entitled to just milk the square ball? Because that is what you are proposing,
|
The proposal, while unfailingly polarizing, is tremendously reasonable. Simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
