|
|
On December 05 2013 03:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 03:26 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:17 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:13 Comeh wrote:On December 05 2013 03:12 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:02 Numy wrote:Generally your employers aren't allowed to tell you what you can or can't do in your free time. Obviously there are situations where they can but that's pretty rare. My firm would firm me if I attempted to sell my clients on using another firm in my free time. The contract only states they can't stream the game, not that they can't play it. It's basically a do not compete clause, which are really common. NFL players don't wear gear promoting the NBA in their free time. Except for there was a NFL player who played for the MLS for a little while a few years ago, just for shits and giggles. Can't remember his name for the life of me. Was it Chad Johnson? (ochocinco?) Yup. He didn't make the team. This is completely out of the ordinary. Riot pays these players to play. Not to stream. That's what their organizations get them to do. It completely oversteps their boundaries. Of course, Riot is really the first organization to completely own all aspects of a sport. No LAN, no modding. It's a really problematic system in my mind, and there's no real precedent for this sort of thing. The players are part of the marketing budget and Riot employees. It isn't unreasonable Thor them to say "here is 50k, please do not promote our competitors games on your stream. Thank you." Not sure where Thor fits in but the problem isn't this single action. It is the whole Riot bullshit they spew: <3 eSports, lol helps eSports grow and in the next second they block dota 2 from MLG / ESL for nearly 2 years (still banned from ESL studio in cologne), try to force teams to drop their dota 2 squads and now stop their players from streaming any other non-lol game. It's just extremly anti-competitve. At least drop the we love eSport bullshit then. Welcome to the big time where real money is involved. I signed a non-compete clause with my firm when I came here and I can't just take their client index and go to another firm. I have had to not work on cases we have taken do to other firms I worked at. It's real life and riot isn't going to pay people to promote other games. That's just stupid to do.
If you think that both cases are identical I can't help you really. But yeah you know how the real world is. Big props man. You sign them big contracts. Good for you.
|
On December 05 2013 03:31 dfs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 03:28 Firebolt145 wrote:
In the real world it definitely isn't completely unusual for them to make these restrictions. It happens with sponsorships all the time. You aren't allowed to be seen drinking Coke at a professional event if you're sponsored by Pepsi. In this situation, their streams are very much a part of their 'professional job', and I can somewhat understand Riot's stance on the whole thing.
The main reason we're getting so much outrage about it is because restrictions of this nature have never been seen in esports before. I admittedly am not surprised that it is Riot who is initiating these things, but in a way it's a further signal to me that 'esports is going legit'. "Riot is going legit". Not eSports.
This is an important distinction. Ignoring the fact that that esports is mostly just a buzzword, one esport doing something has little to no effect on the others in the long run.
|
Fat Princess is some great dumb fun from the early PS3 days. I remember it well.
|
On December 05 2013 03:41 SilverStar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 03:31 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:26 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:17 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:13 Comeh wrote:On December 05 2013 03:12 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:02 Numy wrote:Generally your employers aren't allowed to tell you what you can or can't do in your free time. Obviously there are situations where they can but that's pretty rare. My firm would firm me if I attempted to sell my clients on using another firm in my free time. The contract only states they can't stream the game, not that they can't play it. It's basically a do not compete clause, which are really common. NFL players don't wear gear promoting the NBA in their free time. Except for there was a NFL player who played for the MLS for a little while a few years ago, just for shits and giggles. Can't remember his name for the life of me. Was it Chad Johnson? (ochocinco?) Yup. He didn't make the team. This is completely out of the ordinary. Riot pays these players to play. Not to stream. That's what their organizations get them to do. It completely oversteps their boundaries. Of course, Riot is really the first organization to completely own all aspects of a sport. No LAN, no modding. It's a really problematic system in my mind, and there's no real precedent for this sort of thing. The players are part of the marketing budget and Riot employees. It isn't unreasonable Thor them to say "here is 50k, please do not promote our competitors games on your stream. Thank you." Not sure where Thor fits in but the problem isn't this single action. It is the whole Riot bullshit they spew: <3 eSports, lol helps eSports grow and in the next second they block dota 2 from MLG / ESL for nearly 2 years (still banned from ESL studio in cologne), try to force teams to drop their dota 2 squads and now stop their players from streaming any other non-lol game. It's just extremly anti-competitve. At least drop the we love eSport bullshit then. Welcome to the big time where real money is involved. I signed a non-compete clause with my firm when I came here and I can't just take their client index and go to another firm. I have had to not work on cases we have taken do to other firms I worked at. It's real life and riot isn't going to pay people to promote other games. That's just stupid to do. If you think that both cases are identical I can't help you really. But yeah you know how the real world is. Big props man. You sign them big contracts. Good for you.
its pretty much the same thing imo. It might not be "right" but in the end its just profit motivated institutions protecting their investments.
I also remember fat princess.
it was ok i guess
|
On December 05 2013 03:41 SilverStar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 03:31 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:26 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:17 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:13 Comeh wrote:On December 05 2013 03:12 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:02 Numy wrote:Generally your employers aren't allowed to tell you what you can or can't do in your free time. Obviously there are situations where they can but that's pretty rare. My firm would firm me if I attempted to sell my clients on using another firm in my free time. The contract only states they can't stream the game, not that they can't play it. It's basically a do not compete clause, which are really common. NFL players don't wear gear promoting the NBA in their free time. Except for there was a NFL player who played for the MLS for a little while a few years ago, just for shits and giggles. Can't remember his name for the life of me. Was it Chad Johnson? (ochocinco?) Yup. He didn't make the team. This is completely out of the ordinary. Riot pays these players to play. Not to stream. That's what their organizations get them to do. It completely oversteps their boundaries. Of course, Riot is really the first organization to completely own all aspects of a sport. No LAN, no modding. It's a really problematic system in my mind, and there's no real precedent for this sort of thing. The players are part of the marketing budget and Riot employees. It isn't unreasonable Thor them to say "here is 50k, please do not promote our competitors games on your stream. Thank you." Not sure where Thor fits in but the problem isn't this single action. It is the whole Riot bullshit they spew: <3 eSports, lol helps eSports grow and in the next second they block dota 2 from MLG / ESL for nearly 2 years (still banned from ESL studio in cologne), try to force teams to drop their dota 2 squads and now stop their players from streaming any other non-lol game. It's just extremly anti-competitve. At least drop the we love eSport bullshit then. Welcome to the big time where real money is involved. I signed a non-compete clause with my firm when I came here and I can't just take their client index and go to another firm. I have had to not work on cases we have taken do to other firms I worked at. It's real life and riot isn't going to pay people to promote other games. That's just stupid to do. If you think that both cases are identical I can't help you really. But yeah you know how the real world is. Big props man. You sign them big contracts. Good for you.
I think playing people to promote other peoples games is bad business, end of story. I don't care if they are pro players or not.
|
On December 05 2013 03:43 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 03:41 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:31 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:26 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:17 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:13 Comeh wrote:On December 05 2013 03:12 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:02 Numy wrote:
[quote]
Generally your employers aren't allowed to tell you what you can or can't do in your free time. Obviously there are situations where they can but that's pretty rare. My firm would firm me if I attempted to sell my clients on using another firm in my free time. The contract only states they can't stream the game, not that they can't play it. It's basically a do not compete clause, which are really common. NFL players don't wear gear promoting the NBA in their free time. Except for there was a NFL player who played for the MLS for a little while a few years ago, just for shits and giggles. Can't remember his name for the life of me. Was it Chad Johnson? (ochocinco?) Yup. He didn't make the team. This is completely out of the ordinary. Riot pays these players to play. Not to stream. That's what their organizations get them to do. It completely oversteps their boundaries. Of course, Riot is really the first organization to completely own all aspects of a sport. No LAN, no modding. It's a really problematic system in my mind, and there's no real precedent for this sort of thing. The players are part of the marketing budget and Riot employees. It isn't unreasonable Thor them to say "here is 50k, please do not promote our competitors games on your stream. Thank you." Not sure where Thor fits in but the problem isn't this single action. It is the whole Riot bullshit they spew: <3 eSports, lol helps eSports grow and in the next second they block dota 2 from MLG / ESL for nearly 2 years (still banned from ESL studio in cologne), try to force teams to drop their dota 2 squads and now stop their players from streaming any other non-lol game. It's just extremly anti-competitve. At least drop the we love eSport bullshit then. Welcome to the big time where real money is involved. I signed a non-compete clause with my firm when I came here and I can't just take their client index and go to another firm. I have had to not work on cases we have taken do to other firms I worked at. It's real life and riot isn't going to pay people to promote other games. That's just stupid to do. If you think that both cases are identical I can't help you really. But yeah you know how the real world is. Big props man. You sign them big contracts. Good for you. its pretty much the same thing imo. It might not be "right" but in the end its just profit motivated institutions protecting their investments.
1) Signing a non-competitive clause that limits your ability work for a direct competitior.
2) Signing a non-competitive clasue that limits you in how you use your own free time.
It would be akin to forbidding people working at pepsi to drink a coke in their free time. Streaming is a side income not connected to the players LCS contracts. By doing this Riot expands their control further than just "work". I'm aware that non-compete clauses are a common thing but implying that it is the same in this context is just stupid.
|
On December 05 2013 03:46 SilverStar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 03:43 PassiveAce wrote:On December 05 2013 03:41 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:31 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:26 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:17 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:13 Comeh wrote:On December 05 2013 03:12 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
My firm would firm me if I attempted to sell my clients on using another firm in my free time. The contract only states they can't stream the game, not that they can't play it. It's basically a do not compete clause, which are really common. NFL players don't wear gear promoting the NBA in their free time. Except for there was a NFL player who played for the MLS for a little while a few years ago, just for shits and giggles. Can't remember his name for the life of me. Was it Chad Johnson? (ochocinco?) Yup. He didn't make the team. This is completely out of the ordinary. Riot pays these players to play. Not to stream. That's what their organizations get them to do. It completely oversteps their boundaries. Of course, Riot is really the first organization to completely own all aspects of a sport. No LAN, no modding. It's a really problematic system in my mind, and there's no real precedent for this sort of thing. The players are part of the marketing budget and Riot employees. It isn't unreasonable Thor them to say "here is 50k, please do not promote our competitors games on your stream. Thank you." Not sure where Thor fits in but the problem isn't this single action. It is the whole Riot bullshit they spew: <3 eSports, lol helps eSports grow and in the next second they block dota 2 from MLG / ESL for nearly 2 years (still banned from ESL studio in cologne), try to force teams to drop their dota 2 squads and now stop their players from streaming any other non-lol game. It's just extremly anti-competitve. At least drop the we love eSport bullshit then. Welcome to the big time where real money is involved. I signed a non-compete clause with my firm when I came here and I can't just take their client index and go to another firm. I have had to not work on cases we have taken do to other firms I worked at. It's real life and riot isn't going to pay people to promote other games. That's just stupid to do. If you think that both cases are identical I can't help you really. But yeah you know how the real world is. Big props man. You sign them big contracts. Good for you. its pretty much the same thing imo. It might not be "right" but in the end its just profit motivated institutions protecting their investments. 1) Signing a non-competitive clause that limits your ability work for a direct competitior. 2) Signing a non-competitive clasue that limits you in how you use your own free time. It would be akin to forbidding people working at pepsi to drink a coke in their free time. Streaming is a side income not connected to the players LCS contracts. By doing this Riot expands their control further than just "work". I'm aware that non-compete clauses are a common thing but implying that it is the same in this context is just stupid.
It's a matter of how you view the contracts.
Riot changing from paying players to play in LCS, to making them into promotional employee, akin to PR position.
|
I think the biggest takeaway is that the teams' role in the game is actually very small. It's essentially to create storylines and drama in exchange for money. Riot actually controls the players. Reminds me of CGS.
|
On December 05 2013 03:46 SilverStar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 03:43 PassiveAce wrote:On December 05 2013 03:41 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:31 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:26 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:17 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:13 Comeh wrote:On December 05 2013 03:12 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
My firm would firm me if I attempted to sell my clients on using another firm in my free time. The contract only states they can't stream the game, not that they can't play it. It's basically a do not compete clause, which are really common. NFL players don't wear gear promoting the NBA in their free time. Except for there was a NFL player who played for the MLS for a little while a few years ago, just for shits and giggles. Can't remember his name for the life of me. Was it Chad Johnson? (ochocinco?) Yup. He didn't make the team. This is completely out of the ordinary. Riot pays these players to play. Not to stream. That's what their organizations get them to do. It completely oversteps their boundaries. Of course, Riot is really the first organization to completely own all aspects of a sport. No LAN, no modding. It's a really problematic system in my mind, and there's no real precedent for this sort of thing. The players are part of the marketing budget and Riot employees. It isn't unreasonable Thor them to say "here is 50k, please do not promote our competitors games on your stream. Thank you." Not sure where Thor fits in but the problem isn't this single action. It is the whole Riot bullshit they spew: <3 eSports, lol helps eSports grow and in the next second they block dota 2 from MLG / ESL for nearly 2 years (still banned from ESL studio in cologne), try to force teams to drop their dota 2 squads and now stop their players from streaming any other non-lol game. It's just extremly anti-competitve. At least drop the we love eSport bullshit then. Welcome to the big time where real money is involved. I signed a non-compete clause with my firm when I came here and I can't just take their client index and go to another firm. I have had to not work on cases we have taken do to other firms I worked at. It's real life and riot isn't going to pay people to promote other games. That's just stupid to do. If you think that both cases are identical I can't help you really. But yeah you know how the real world is. Big props man. You sign them big contracts. Good for you. its pretty much the same thing imo. It might not be "right" but in the end its just profit motivated institutions protecting their investments. 1) Signing a non-competitive clause that limits your ability work for a direct competitior. 2) Signing a non-competitive clasue that limits you in how you use your own free time. It would be akin to forbidding people working at pepsi to drink a coke in their free time. Streaming is a side income not connected to the players LCS contracts. By doing this Riot expands their control further than just "work". I'm aware that non-compete clauses are a common thing but implying that it is the same in this context is just stupid.
You have no idea if the bolded portion is true or not. I would actually make the opposite assumption that LCS player streams are regulated by Riot in some fashion, especially as some of them get 10-30k viewers. I don't think LCS player streams are simply secondary income, or casual community interaction like it is in sc2 or dota2. I would actually be shocked if player streams weren't mentioned quite heavily in LCS player contracts.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:38 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 03:31 dfs wrote:On December 05 2013 03:28 Firebolt145 wrote:
In the real world it definitely isn't completely unusual for them to make these restrictions. It happens with sponsorships all the time. You aren't allowed to be seen drinking Coke at a professional event if you're sponsored by Pepsi. In this situation, their streams are very much a part of their 'professional job', and I can somewhat understand Riot's stance on the whole thing.
The main reason we're getting so much outrage about it is because restrictions of this nature have never been seen in esports before. I admittedly am not surprised that it is Riot who is initiating these things, but in a way it's a further signal to me that 'esports is going legit'. "Riot is going legit". Not eSports. This is actually very true. This is quite the opposite of 'esports' going legit, because esports would be all encompassing competitive gaming growth. Esports has always been a myth though. The term worked when the sc2 community was deluded enough to think that it, and it alone was Esports, however, as we see with multiple titles and game developers being involved, we're hardly a kosher community. The term 'esports' should really RIP.
truer words are rarely spoken
|
On December 05 2013 03:46 SilverStar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 03:43 PassiveAce wrote:On December 05 2013 03:41 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:31 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:26 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:17 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:13 Comeh wrote:On December 05 2013 03:12 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
My firm would firm me if I attempted to sell my clients on using another firm in my free time. The contract only states they can't stream the game, not that they can't play it. It's basically a do not compete clause, which are really common. NFL players don't wear gear promoting the NBA in their free time. Except for there was a NFL player who played for the MLS for a little while a few years ago, just for shits and giggles. Can't remember his name for the life of me. Was it Chad Johnson? (ochocinco?) Yup. He didn't make the team. This is completely out of the ordinary. Riot pays these players to play. Not to stream. That's what their organizations get them to do. It completely oversteps their boundaries. Of course, Riot is really the first organization to completely own all aspects of a sport. No LAN, no modding. It's a really problematic system in my mind, and there's no real precedent for this sort of thing. The players are part of the marketing budget and Riot employees. It isn't unreasonable Thor them to say "here is 50k, please do not promote our competitors games on your stream. Thank you." Not sure where Thor fits in but the problem isn't this single action. It is the whole Riot bullshit they spew: <3 eSports, lol helps eSports grow and in the next second they block dota 2 from MLG / ESL for nearly 2 years (still banned from ESL studio in cologne), try to force teams to drop their dota 2 squads and now stop their players from streaming any other non-lol game. It's just extremly anti-competitve. At least drop the we love eSport bullshit then. Welcome to the big time where real money is involved. I signed a non-compete clause with my firm when I came here and I can't just take their client index and go to another firm. I have had to not work on cases we have taken do to other firms I worked at. It's real life and riot isn't going to pay people to promote other games. That's just stupid to do. If you think that both cases are identical I can't help you really. But yeah you know how the real world is. Big props man. You sign them big contracts. Good for you. its pretty much the same thing imo. It might not be "right" but in the end its just profit motivated institutions protecting their investments. 1) Signing a non-competitive clause that limits your ability work for a direct competitior. 2) Signing a non-competitive clasue that limits you in how you use your own free time. It would be akin to forbidding people working at pepsi to drink a coke in their free time. Streaming is a side income not connected to the players LCS contracts. By doing this Riot expands their control further than just "work". I'm aware that non-compete clauses are a common thing but implying that it is the same in this context is just stupid. Except they can play any game they want, just not on stream. Guess what, EG players can't drink coke on stream, which is why they all have Monster water bottles. This is nothing new. They can do whatever they want off camera, but on camera they are on the job.
|
streaming isnt even secondary income for alot of sc2 players (like all EG players for example)
|
On December 05 2013 03:48 LuckoftheIrish wrote:
I think the biggest takeaway is that the teams' role in the game is actually very small. It's essentially to create storylines and drama in exchange for money. Riot actually controls the players. Reminds me of CGS.
That's how Riot is trying to do it, but in actuality majority of player income still coming from the Team's/streaming not Riot.
|
On December 05 2013 03:46 SilverStar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 03:43 PassiveAce wrote:On December 05 2013 03:41 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:31 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:26 SilverStar wrote:On December 05 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2013 03:17 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:13 Comeh wrote:On December 05 2013 03:12 Nocticate wrote:On December 05 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
My firm would firm me if I attempted to sell my clients on using another firm in my free time. The contract only states they can't stream the game, not that they can't play it. It's basically a do not compete clause, which are really common. NFL players don't wear gear promoting the NBA in their free time. Except for there was a NFL player who played for the MLS for a little while a few years ago, just for shits and giggles. Can't remember his name for the life of me. Was it Chad Johnson? (ochocinco?) Yup. He didn't make the team. This is completely out of the ordinary. Riot pays these players to play. Not to stream. That's what their organizations get them to do. It completely oversteps their boundaries. Of course, Riot is really the first organization to completely own all aspects of a sport. No LAN, no modding. It's a really problematic system in my mind, and there's no real precedent for this sort of thing. The players are part of the marketing budget and Riot employees. It isn't unreasonable Thor them to say "here is 50k, please do not promote our competitors games on your stream. Thank you." Not sure where Thor fits in but the problem isn't this single action. It is the whole Riot bullshit they spew: <3 eSports, lol helps eSports grow and in the next second they block dota 2 from MLG / ESL for nearly 2 years (still banned from ESL studio in cologne), try to force teams to drop their dota 2 squads and now stop their players from streaming any other non-lol game. It's just extremly anti-competitve. At least drop the we love eSport bullshit then. Welcome to the big time where real money is involved. I signed a non-compete clause with my firm when I came here and I can't just take their client index and go to another firm. I have had to not work on cases we have taken do to other firms I worked at. It's real life and riot isn't going to pay people to promote other games. That's just stupid to do. If you think that both cases are identical I can't help you really. But yeah you know how the real world is. Big props man. You sign them big contracts. Good for you. its pretty much the same thing imo. It might not be "right" but in the end its just profit motivated institutions protecting their investments. 1) Signing a non-competitive clause that limits your ability work for a direct competitior. 2) Signing a non-competitive clasue that limits you in how you use your own free time. It would be akin to forbidding people working at pepsi to drink a coke in their free time. Streaming is a side income not connected to the players LCS contracts. By doing this Riot expands their control further than just "work". I'm aware that non-compete clauses are a common thing but implying that it is the same in this context is just stupid.
no it would be akin to them showing up at an event and drinking coke. Streaming is advertising space. if these guys want to rock out to some awesomenauts thats fine they just cant stream it.
I can see what you mean by riot kind of imposing on something that seems personal and seperate from the workplace though, an individuals stream, but I think they are just protecting their investment.
|
On December 05 2013 03:48 LuckoftheIrish wrote:
I think the biggest takeaway is that the teams' role in the game is actually very small. It's essentially to create storylines and drama in exchange for money. Riot actually controls the players. Reminds me of CGS.
Aren't CGS employees now working at Riot?
|
The weirdest thing is how it targets specific games/companies. It's like saying that streamer in the EG example isn't allowed to drink Coke, but can drink Pepsi.
Saying "You are not allowed to stream any game besides LoL" would at least make sense.
|
Looks like they are targeting any game that aspires to maintain some sort of "competitive" aspect.
|
On December 05 2013 03:55 PassiveAce wrote:
Looks like they are targeting any game that aspires to maintain some sort of "competitive" aspect.
They would have gone for FPSs or fighting games if that was the case. It seems to be just the games they feel threatened by for any reason.
|
good point. Maybe they have done market research that is guiding them. Perhaps that list is a list of games that people who play LoL are most likely to also play.
Im really puzzling how they came to those specific games.
|
On December 05 2013 03:55 PassiveAce wrote:
Looks like they are targeting any game that aspires to maintain some sort of "competitive" aspect.
In which case why is Diablo 3 prohibited but CSGO is ok?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
