EPT[Patch 3.14] PreSeason 4 General Discussion - Page 136
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
| ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14081 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:01 NotYango wrote: The thing that leaves a bad taste is how it's targeted at a laundry list of specific games rather than generally targeting other games--that's what makes it seem douchey. YANGOPLS "No I won't do anything special for my 20k posts" | ||
|
thenexusp
United States3721 Posts
"The following companies and/or products are not to be advertised during or adjacent to League of Legends content during the Term" It is nowhere near a blanket ban on streaming the listed games, but it might apply while they are waiting in queue, which would suck too. On the other hand, you might even be able to argue that "advertise a game" is not the same as "stream a game" and really the only thing that this clause applies to are twitch advertisements that are played during the stream. And I guess you can't use a sc2 overlay while streaming either. | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:00 Swords wrote: Again, the difference here is Razor pays you to use Razor at all times. Riot doesn't pay LCS players for their streams as far as I know. If the contracts say Riot expects you to stream and promote league of legends whenever streaming then maybe this is a reasonable move? It's a matter of how the money comes in. If Riot isn't paying the players to stream, then it doesn't make sense for them to control what appears on stream. Riot pays their salary while Razor just gives sponsorhsip money. I dont see how this gives Razor more leverage than Riot. | ||
|
TheLink
Australia2725 Posts
On December 05 2013 02:58 NotYango wrote: Why the fuck would they need to say that when this is the S4 LCS player guidelines. Nobody other than Riot runs LCS events and I'm pretty sure they don't need a line in their guidelines saying they're not allowed to advertise DotA 2 in their own events. The whole section is called "Sponsorship and Streaming Restricted List". "Advertise during or adjacent to" really sounds like "don't play hearthstone between games" to the rest of the world? guess I'm taking advertise to literally mean a commercial advertisement as opposed to just playing it between games. EDIT: I mean what, they're going to say don't play Dota2 during a LoL game? | ||
|
nojitosunrise
United States6188 Posts
| ||
|
Ghost-z
United States1291 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:01 NotYango wrote: The thing that leaves a bad taste is how it's targeted at a laundry list of specific games rather than generally targeting other games--that's what makes it seem douchey. If you just say "Games" then you have to specify what is a "Game". Like would streaming solitaire fall under a blanket "games" genre. It's very bad to use any general or blanket terms in a legal contract. | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:02 Kupon3ss wrote: Its basically Riot only wanting Riot-approved mobas, since a large part of Riot's marketing has been injecting money into other games (iE huge advertisements in other Esports events/Streamers) and they're understandably afraid of it happening to them. At the end of the day it makes perfect sense business wise and is exactly the same thing they tried to do with other Esports teams/events regarding sharing the stage, which is why neither MLG nor Dreamhack no longer carries LoL. Seems you missed the LoL tournament at Dreamhack. | ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On December 05 2013 02:52 AsmodeusXI wrote: They're paying them to be competitors or else they'd be on the marketing team. I realize that it's a damn fine line but they didn't start streaming to pimp Riot, they did it because they liked playing games. And they should be able to play the games they like because as far as I know they're not on the clock 24 hours a day. It's more like a McDonalds employee can't eat at Burger King in public EVER because it sends the wrong message about the company. Like... what? In the contract it clearly says they cannot run other games while playing LoL (during or adjacent), so his example is more appropriate. From the contract it clearly says that players can play other games and stream, as long as they set up the stream to the right category (for example if they play Heartstone, don't play LoL at the same time, and set the twitch category to Heartstone). | ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21247 Posts
NotYango wrote: ...pls | ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:01 NotYango wrote: The thing that leaves a bad taste is how it's targeted at a laundry list of specific games rather than generally targeting other games--that's what makes it seem douchey. I agree, it reads as a little douchey and Blizzard targeted. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:05 Ghost-z wrote: If you just say "Games" then you have to specify what is a "Game". Like would streaming solitaire fall under a blanket "games" genre. It's very bad to use any general or blanket terms in a legal contract. You could just do it the other way. Instead of stating what they can't stream, just state what they can. It would be the same as having a "blanket ban" but without the general terms. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12084 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:00 Requizen wrote: Is it possible that this is just more Slasher sensationalist bullshit? Guardsman Bob was removed from the Featured Streamers list because he streamed one of those games. Yes, Gman Bob. Nicest fucking streamer out there. I'm leaning towards this being serious. If that's the case, I'm pretty ticked. I stood by rito when LCS first came out and there was that whole kerfuffle of teams allegedly being pressured by Riot to drop DotA 2 squads because there wasn't any concrete evidence save (quite abit) of hearsay. This? While I understand why, it's just currently kinda (really) petty. Perhaps we can look forward to LoL TCG coming out soon to fill the Hearthstone streaming gap or somesuch. Still. | ||
onlywonderboy
United States23745 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:01 NotYango wrote: The thing that leaves a bad taste is how it's targeted at a laundry list of specific games rather than generally targeting other games--that's what makes it seem douchey. I agree with this. Might as well just ban all games, no need to give anyone free advertising. Also my LoL smurf is notonlywonderboy lol | ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:02 Kupon3ss wrote: Its basically Riot only wanting Riot-approved mobas, since a large part of Riot's marketing has been injecting money into other games (iE huge advertisements in other Esports events/Streamers) and they're understandably afraid of it happening to them. At the end of the day it makes perfect sense business wise and is exactly the same thing they tried to do with other Esports teams/events regarding sharing the stage, which is something that was thrown at both MLG and Dreamhack before it was revealed. Dreamhack has always carrying LoL. They just don't accept Riot as sponsor partner anymore so that they have more lee way to run theirs. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
| ||
|
Zess
Adun Toridas!9144 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:06 Ketara wrote: I agree, it reads as a little douchey and Blizzard targeted. I only reads douchey because it was edited by Slasher to sound as douchey as possible in his great anti-LoL crusade | ||
|
Swords
6038 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:04 Redox wrote: Riot pays their salary while Razor just gives sponsorhsip money. I dont see how this gives Razor more leverage than Riot. Razor providing sponsorship money means they expect you to use and promote Razor products whenever you're putting yourself out in the public realm. If the people Razor provides money to don't do that, Razor will stop the cash flow. It's the same reason why players in the NFL get fined $50,000 for wearing the wrong socks. Pissing off the sponsors is something you avoid at all costs, without Razor/Steelseries/etc. there is no gaming team. If Riot is in fact paying it's players to promote the game as part of their salary then there is some basis for this ban on other games, as the players are actually benefitting from following the rules (ie: making money by streaming the way Riot requests). I get what you're saying about salary and all, but it all depends on how these contracts are written and what constitutes free time. With sponsors players have very little "free time" - if Scarra appears in the Dig house under the name dScarra he's most likely contractually obligated to use Dig's sponsor's products. I guess what's happening here is that the league contract says anytime you're playing league as an LCS player you're obligated to only play League (except it focuses on a bunch of Riot's competitors, some of which aren't even mobas). | ||
|
Ghost-z
United States1291 Posts
Sponsored players won't be able to stream LoL with any competing games in the same video/time frame. | ||
|
Parnage
United States7414 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:08 Lord Tolkien wrote: Guardsman Bob was removed from the Featured Streamers list because he streamed one of those games. Yes, Gman Bob. Nicest fucking streamer out there. I'm leaning towards this being serious. If that's the case, I'm pretty ticked. I stood by rito when LCS first came out and there was that whole kerfuffle of teams allegedly being pressured by Riot to drop DotA 2 squads because there wasn't any concrete evidence save (quite abit) of hearsay. This? While I understand why, it's just currently kinda (really) petty. Perhaps we can look forward to LoL TCG coming out soon. Wait wait wait, they dropped bob?! He's like the nicest guy. He's the freakin Mr. Rodger's of League of legends. He should be hired by Riot to do videos to send to people who get banned with tips on how not to be a jerk of a human. I guess the big question is does Riot pay them to stream? If not then to hell with them as Conan the barbarian would say. | ||
| ||
