EPTGretech's Final Offer to the Broadcasting Stations - Page 3
| Forum Index > Community News and Headlines |
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES51068 Posts
| ||
|
kamikami
France1057 Posts
On November 14 2010 01:57 exeprime wrote: The anti-blizzard bias here is palpable. The terms are quite normal and reasonable, I fail to see why everyone is so outraged. The terms are extremely unreasonable. Wake up !!!! - 1 year duration contract means that Blizz can end the entire industry whenever they want, it is a freaking industry with many jobs involved, not just some small business. - 50:50 split of broastcasting ownership means that the players/teams/mapmakers don't even have one bit of ownership on what they created. - Everything must be approved by Blizz means that everyone in the industry is Blizz's slaves and Blizz maintains absolute control over the scene - which is shit considering this game has become a sport under the government's approval, there is no way it can be controlled by one foreign company. - And many other smaller things... Actually SC2 players and mapmakers are victims of Blizz's greed too : The EULA states that every game they play belong to Blizz, every maps they make belongs to Blizz, and every broastcasts/vods they make belong to Blizz. Blizz can terminate a player's account for no reason and steal the 60$ whenever they want. They change some terms in Korea because only in that country that the government takes gaming seriously but basically SC2 is not even a fair trade for the player despite its high potential to grow into a mature sport (it won't if Blizz continue to maintain absolute control like that). Battle.Net 2.0 are created with the ultimate purpose to control every people who play the game, every mapmakers who create map for the game, and every tournaments of the game. ALL BELONGS TO THEM. SC2 players are too obsessed with the game that they don't take those issues seriously at all, if SC2 is not "liberated" from Blizz in the future I failed to see how it will evolve into a mature spectator sport. (even now Blizz is suing the 2 only esport television channels, so in the future they can only broadcasts SC2 through internet streams lol, not to mention they go against the government for that). We BW fans have no problem with SC2, but we have problems with Blizz and their greed (omg they make "greed is good" a cheat code for their game, how can people argue against that). | ||
|
whoseline
Canada29 Posts
does ogn/mbc currently give broadcasting fees to kespa? if so, how much? | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
| ||
|
kamikami
France1057 Posts
On November 14 2010 02:41 whoseline wrote: i have a question: does ogn/mbc currently give broadcasting fees to kespa? if so, how much? They do, but recently Kespa revealed that one part of the money (dunno how much) was given back to MBC/OGN to maintain their star-leagues, Kespa takes the rest to maintain Proleague. That's why they accepted Kespa's offer in the first place. | ||
|
youngminii
Australia7514 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=161549 In any case, I'm fairly sure the broadcasting fees are on par to the fees ogn/mbc currently pay kespa. The only thing I see wrong about these conditions is the 1 year contract, 3-5 years sounds more reasonable. Even then, I'd rather just accept the conditions than going to court. | ||
|
QuixoticO
Netherlands810 Posts
| ||
|
Woony
Germany6657 Posts
On November 14 2010 02:32 kamikami wrote: The terms are extremely unreasonable. Wake up !!!! - 1 year duration contract means that Blizz can end the entire industry whenever they want, it is a freaking industry with many jobs involved, not just some small business. - 50:50 split of broastcasting ownership means that the players/teams/mapmakers don't even have one bit of ownership on what they created. - Everything must be approved by Blizz means that everyone in the industry is Blizz's slaves and Blizz maintains absolute control over the scene - which is shit considering this game has become a sport under the government's approval, there is no way it can be controlled by one foreign company. - And many other smaller things... Actually SC2 players and mapmakers are victims of Blizz's greed too : The EULA states that every game they play belong to Blizz, every maps they make belongs to Blizz, and every broastcasts/vods they make belong to Blizz. Blizz can terminate a player's account for no reason and steal the 60$ whenever they want. They change some terms in Korea because only in that country that the government takes gaming seriously but basically SC2 is not even a fair trade for the player despite its high potential to grow into a mature sport (it won't if Blizz continue to maintain absolute control like that). Battle.Net 2.0 are created with the ultimate purpose to control every people who play the game, every mapmakers who create map for the game, and every tournaments of the game. ALL BELONGS TO THEM. SC2 players are too obsessed with the game that they don't take those issues seriously at all, if SC2 is not "liberated" from Blizz in the future I failed to see how it will evolve into a mature spectator sport. (even now Blizz is suing the 2 only esport television channels, so in the future they can only broadcasts SC2 through internet streams lol, not to mention they go against the government for that). We BW fans have no problem with SC2, but we have problems with Blizz and their greed (omg they make "greed is good" a cheat code for their game, how can people argue against that). The only thing unreasonable is the 1year length of the contract. And I really don't think Blizzard would just not give a next contract after 1year. That would be far too bad publicity considering they gave them a contract before in that case. The rest is just standard IP rights things. That's how every contract in the western world concerning IP rights work. I don't think people here complain about IP right contracts when they buy a game or go to the cinema or whatever. And you act like Blizzard invented the whole "you don't own they game you buy". They didn't. Yes many of those IP right terms are bullshit, but that's not Blizzard's fault. They just do what everyone does and they have to since they are a multi billionen dollar company. | ||
|
aru
183 Posts
@youngminii, MBC has said that the fees would be more than what they paid to Kespa. They also said that Kespa subsidized part of the production costs, so the costs end up being significantly more than what they paid with Kespa. | ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3134 Posts
Blizzard wants control; it's as simple as that. All they have ever wanted is control over the scene. The reason for this is because Blizzard is one of the most image-based and logo-based companies in the world, which makes a great deal of money merely off the Blizzard image and reputation in the gaming world. Thus, they don't want anyone using their logo or their image or their games in any way that could possibly tarnish them by association, and they don't want anyone else making money off of it. Kespa's profitisation of their game in the selling of broadcast rights and other such things, their mistreatment of players, and their numerous embarrassing scandals and mismanagements seem to have convinced Blizzard (for better or for worse) that they can't simply allow people to do whatever they want with their games, especially now that the Starcraft name and logo is once more big in the gaming world. Thus, Blizzard wants a situation where they can control exactly who uses their name and logo and their game, and exactly how they use it; where they're in a position to control the scene and prevent embarrassing scandals, mishaps, and profitisations. Along with that, Blizzard views e-sports as a powerful marketing tool, and wants to encourage it wherever possible; as long as they control how their name and image is marketed, and by whom. They don't want 'BW dead'; they want control over it, just like they've always wanted. Now, that doesn't mean they're in the right, or that you should support them or anything; but it does mean you should stop making up stupid conspiracy theories that don't make sense of the facts as we know them or Blizzard's public statements on the matter. Personally, while I think that a Blizzard-and-Gretech-run e-sports scene would be much healthier and happier than a Kespa-led one, I think these terms are excessive, though not grossly so. If either side cared more for the fans than they did for their turf and the bottom-line, though, then we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with; both sides have behaved in a deplorable manner befitting small children fighting over candy bars. Also, could someone translate some netizen comments on this story? I'd be interested to see what they Koreans think... | ||
|
Woony
Germany6657 Posts
On November 14 2010 03:04 Captain Peabody wrote: Also, could someone translate some netizen comments on this story? I'd be interested to see what they Koreans think... Depending on which site (SC2 or BW site) you are it's going to be pro-Gretech/Blizzard or pro Kespa just like here. | ||
Selith
United States238 Posts
| ||
|
nokz88
Brazil1253 Posts
BTW, the terms look very reasonable to me. | ||
Antoine
United States7481 Posts
On November 14 2010 03:19 Selith wrote: The supposed leak of this offer document originally surfaced from e-daily few weeks ago, afaik. Take it as what you will. is e-daily the same as DES? | ||
|
Selith
United States238 Posts
On November 14 2010 03:23 Antoine wrote: is e-daily the same as DES? Yea, that's what I mean. Here is the source article: http://esports.dailygame.co.kr/news/view.daily?idx=34715 Dated Nov 8th. | ||
Milkis
5003 Posts
On November 14 2010 03:19 Selith wrote: The supposed leak of this offer document originally surfaced from e-daily few weeks ago, afaik. Take it as what you will. And notice it's written by Yi Sora, who is, actually, credible. Note that Fomos won't publish things like this *because* they're pro Blizzard. DES will talk about stuff like this, but as long as you take the quotes and not their interpretation it's okay -_- | ||
|
AyJay
1515 Posts
On November 14 2010 02:53 Nyxs wrote: Let the lawsuit begin. it did few weeks ago | ||
|
Selith
United States238 Posts
On November 14 2010 03:29 Milkis wrote: And notice it's written by Yi Sora, who is, actually, credible. Note that Fomos won't publish things like this *because* they're pro Blizzard. DES will talk about stuff like this, but as long as you take the quotes and not their interpretation it's okay -_- That is true. The document itself doesn't look forged since it only includes what we already know. Seems there are more pages, but for whatever reason, they weren't included. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1438 Posts
On November 14 2010 01:57 exeprime wrote: The anti-blizzard bias here is palpable. The terms are quite normal and reasonable, I fail to see why everyone is so outraged. They should see a normal broadcasting contract and compare it to this. These terms are actually rather good... | ||
|
Frankon
3054 Posts
On November 14 2010 02:32 kamikami wrote: The terms are extremely unreasonable. Wake up !!!! - 1 year duration contract means that Blizz can end the entire industry whenever they want, it is a freaking industry with many jobs involved, not just some small business. - 50:50 split of broastcasting ownership means that the players/teams/mapmakers don't even have one bit of ownership on what they created. Imagine next year. Big SC:BW tournament. We see Blizzard logo everywhere on stage. Really flashy ones. We see map selection with maps like: BIG PLATFORM - a max map with no ramps, single level (yeah i used the wrong word propably), no obstructions to movement... The match begins we see two CC/Hatcheries/Nexuse with their workers... For few minutes nothing moves. People begin to wonder what the hell is going on... Then the camera show plater cabins... No players in them... The program runs for 2h and the producers are switching the cameras between 2 not working mains.... Then they show a man in the audience with a sign "We got robbed of our work. Signed players, mapmakers" Beware it could happen | ||
| ||
