|
On December 05 2013 04:24 Swords wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 04:22 Takkara wrote:
Update: Slasher changes his article to state that LCS players cannot stream the aforementioned titles EVER, not just adjacent to LoL.
If that's true, that seems to drift into some really nebulous and legally tenuous waters. Well, which is it? Have there been any statements by Riot yet? Or are we just going by Slasher's "totally unbiased" reporting?
We don't know until there is confirmation from Riot or additional sources reveal themselves. I'd imagine the people leaking the information to Rod in the first place are disgruntled LCS players/team managers trying to gain leverage back on Riot to remove this section of the contract. Smart play on their behalf.
|
On December 05 2013 04:25 nojitosunrise wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 04:22 Takkara wrote:
Update: Slasher changes his article to state that LCS players cannot stream the aforementioned titles EVER, not just adjacent to LoL.
If that's true, that seems to drift into some really nebulous and legally tenuous waters. This makes NO sense. Why isn't he posting the contract as a whole so we can see the whole picture? its borderline retarded to post pieces of a contract. They work together as a whole.
Cause he doesn't have the actual copy of the document, his friends at whatever teams (probably EG or something, not unlikely since evoli co-authored the article and has strong ties to EG as he is a former employee) sent him/evoli a message, said, "hey look at what's in the LCS contract" woops nvm
also v
everyone completely forgets how much Riot is doing for their players
|
On December 05 2013 04:24 Swords wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 04:22 Takkara wrote:
Update: Slasher changes his article to state that LCS players cannot stream the aforementioned titles EVER, not just adjacent to LoL.
If that's true, that seems to drift into some really nebulous and legally tenuous waters. Well, which is it? Have there been any statements by Riot yet? Or are we just going by Slasher's "totally unbiased" reporting?
My guess is that Slasher jumped to conclusions after seeing Guardsman Bob's post. Seeing as Guardsman Bob's post suggests that they were going to remove him from featured status for playing non-LoL games even though he was not streaming LoL at the time.
|
On December 05 2013 03:47 TheLink wrote:
Man fuck this new nasus skin. I finally found a top/jungle I can enjoy 1-trick-pony climbing with and now he's permaban in retard tier soloqueue purely because he got a new skin.
I'm pretty sure it's because he's fucking ridiculous and was already stupid as hell even before his nerf.
Also, sheeety plats were shit talking me in my ranked game yesterday when I used tank rango. Hate the low diamond life. At least I finally got out of d5 again lol.
|
On December 05 2013 04:14 NotYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 04:12 Dusty wrote:On December 05 2013 04:07 NotYango wrote:On December 05 2013 04:03 Dan HH wrote:
I'm not even arguing whether it's right or not, I'm just saying they're doing what any company does in that position and I don't consider it newsworthy. It is newsworthy when they are the only company in this industry that does it. On December 05 2013 04:03 nojitosunrise wrote:
Does anyone remember when the curse pros were playing and promoting infinite crisis? I even remember Elementz casting it.
I think Riot wants to prevent that from happening in the future. So long as they don't falsely state that they're playing LoL when they're actually playing IC, that's actually still technically ok. They're also the only company that puts pro players on contracts, and gives them huge amounts of publicity/salary. Come on man, use your head. You're sponsored by Subway? Don't eat shit from McDonalds in public, do it in your own privacy or something. Sponsored by Nike? Don't wear shit from Reebok or whatever. This isn't crazy or some bullshit move by Riot to control eSports and become the Fourth Reich, they're making sure that LCS players have guidelines, and one of those is to not give other companies and games more exposure while drawing in a mostly League of Legends player audience. Yes that's fine. My point is that there's no way anyone can pass this off as not newsworthy or not worth discussing because it's standard practice in other industries. There's very much discussion to be had here PRECISELY because Riot is in such a unique position.
I don't have a problem with it being discussed. You may have not realized this yet if you haven't been browsing around in the last couple of hours but this is the most popular news story about League of Legends in its history. And that's what I find absurd.
|
First of all, the exact meaning of "advertised during or adjacent to League of Legends content during the Term" needs to be clarified, since its not exactly clear what Riot means by this. Its sounds like the sort of words you put there to be able to twist at your leisure later on.
Also, the real question is how much control should Riot have over LCS players by virtue of their salary? Would it be legitimate for Riot to write a contracts which includes minimum streaming hours for LoL? How about insisting that Riot approve all sponsors to the given teams (i.e sponsors need to pay a sponsorship fee to Riot to be approved sponsors)?
I'm not saying that Riot would necessarily do that, but the real question is not whether these games can be played on streams, but more about how much power Riot should have over the players.
|
On December 05 2013 04:27 Dusty wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 04:25 nojitosunrise wrote:On December 05 2013 04:22 Takkara wrote:
Update: Slasher changes his article to state that LCS players cannot stream the aforementioned titles EVER, not just adjacent to LoL.
If that's true, that seems to drift into some really nebulous and legally tenuous waters. This makes NO sense. Why isn't he posting the contract as a whole so we can see the whole picture? its borderline retarded to post pieces of a contract. They work together as a whole. Cause he doesn't have the actual copy of the document, his friends at whatever teams (probably EG or something, not unlikely since evoli co-authored the article and has strong ties to EG as he is a former employee) sent him/evoli a message, said, "hey look at what's in the LCS contract" also v https://twitter.com/idra/status/408315633554558976everyone completely forgets how much Riot is doing for their players
This is hilarious if true.
|
On December 05 2013 04:27 Dusty wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 04:25 nojitosunrise wrote:On December 05 2013 04:22 Takkara wrote:
Update: Slasher changes his article to state that LCS players cannot stream the aforementioned titles EVER, not just adjacent to LoL.
If that's true, that seems to drift into some really nebulous and legally tenuous waters. This makes NO sense. Why isn't he posting the contract as a whole so we can see the whole picture? its borderline retarded to post pieces of a contract. They work together as a whole. Cause he doesn't have the actual copy of the document, his friends at whatever teams (probably EG or something, not unlikely since evoli co-authored the article and has strong ties to EG as he is a former employee) sent him/evoli a message, said, "hey look at what's in the LCS contract" also v https://twitter.com/idra/status/408315633554558976
such a rich kid mentality to sit there and say "they can just say fuck off". how do we know that every LCS player has the situation where they could just quit tomorrow and go back home and be ok? and even if they could thats not the point. resolving your issues with a go fuck yourself is such a childish point to make. especially from idra, captain of sucking his bosses balls to keep his job.
|
On December 05 2013 04:03 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 03:53 wei2coolman wrote:On December 05 2013 03:52 Dan HH wrote:
How the fuck is that "news" the #1 link on all of Reddit right now? It's like people never saw a contract before Cuz, leveraging contracts in such a way that controls employee's free time is a dick move. It's completely standard for entertainment/sports/public people in general. Yeah your average company won't care if you endorse their competition because you have no advertising power, unlike a streamer with thousands of concurrent viewers. I'm not even arguing whether it's right or not, I'm just saying they're doing what any company does in that position and I don't consider it newsworthy.
Its more equivalent to regulating what your employees can say during a stand up routine they do in their spare time.
|
Rod Breslau @Slasher
The previous section of the contract stipulates no outright streaming of the games listed, not just adjacent to a League of Legends stream.
So the most important part of the contract is the one that he didn't post?
|
Busted out my MS Paint skills for some avante-garde team sig generation for Req's team. I was going to post it in SFW pictures but with male genitalia I'm not sure if it is. Here's my best shot at it:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On December 05 2013 04:24 Cheren wrote:
What annoys me is going after Blizzard like that. They didn't ban Magic the Gathering Online, Age of Empires, or RIFT, but Hearthstone, SC2, and WoW are forbidden just due to being made by Blizzard.
I totally understand Riot not wanting their employees to stream other MOBAs.
Probably because Age of Empires, Wizards of the Coast etc aren't creating IPs with their lore that directly compete against LoL
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On December 05 2013 04:30 nojitosunrise wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 04:27 Dusty wrote:On December 05 2013 04:25 nojitosunrise wrote:On December 05 2013 04:22 Takkara wrote:
Update: Slasher changes his article to state that LCS players cannot stream the aforementioned titles EVER, not just adjacent to LoL.
If that's true, that seems to drift into some really nebulous and legally tenuous waters. This makes NO sense. Why isn't he posting the contract as a whole so we can see the whole picture? its borderline retarded to post pieces of a contract. They work together as a whole. Cause he doesn't have the actual copy of the document, his friends at whatever teams (probably EG or something, not unlikely since evoli co-authored the article and has strong ties to EG as he is a former employee) sent him/evoli a message, said, "hey look at what's in the LCS contract" also v https://twitter.com/idra/status/408315633554558976everyone completely forgets how much Riot is doing for their players This is hilarious if true.
He has a copy of the contract.
|
Consider this: there is a chance that Riot is going to implement an in-game (in-client, anyway) stream service. This means that they can potentially feature any LCS player's stream at any time.
What would it look like if an LCS player was playing Hearthstone or DotA2 on their stream, which is playing on LoL's platform?
On December 05 2013 04:21 obesechicken13 wrote:
@[Dicks]Requizen, I know you want to be secretive but can you give us any hints on new strategies you may be bringing into S4?
I can't divulge much, but I've been working on Support Teemo in Mid with Smite. Results are pretty good right now.
|
On December 05 2013 04:30 nojitosunrise wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 04:27 Dusty wrote:On December 05 2013 04:25 nojitosunrise wrote:On December 05 2013 04:22 Takkara wrote:
Update: Slasher changes his article to state that LCS players cannot stream the aforementioned titles EVER, not just adjacent to LoL.
If that's true, that seems to drift into some really nebulous and legally tenuous waters. This makes NO sense. Why isn't he posting the contract as a whole so we can see the whole picture? its borderline retarded to post pieces of a contract. They work together as a whole. Cause he doesn't have the actual copy of the document, his friends at whatever teams (probably EG or something, not unlikely since evoli co-authored the article and has strong ties to EG as he is a former employee) sent him/evoli a message, said, "hey look at what's in the LCS contract" also v https://twitter.com/idra/status/408315633554558976everyone completely forgets how much Riot is doing for their players This is hilarious if true.
Welcome to "news" in the age of Web 2.0 where the goal is to be a) FIRST! and b) controversial, so that you can get eyeballs because eyeballs=money. Its one of the largest drawbacks to not having a subscription model.
|
BW isn't forbidden right?!?!? It's time...
|
On December 05 2013 04:33 Shiznick wrote:no, it's in the post.
He's talking about "the previous section" which was never posted
|
How does SC2's lore compete directly against LoL? How does Diablo's lore compete against LoL in a way PoE's doesn't?
And any resemblance of WoW to LoL is largely because of how LoL borrowed mechanics to emulate WoW, not the reverse.
|
On December 05 2013 04:34 Kennigit wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 04:30 nojitosunrise wrote:On December 05 2013 04:27 Dusty wrote:On December 05 2013 04:25 nojitosunrise wrote:On December 05 2013 04:22 Takkara wrote:
Update: Slasher changes his article to state that LCS players cannot stream the aforementioned titles EVER, not just adjacent to LoL.
If that's true, that seems to drift into some really nebulous and legally tenuous waters. This makes NO sense. Why isn't he posting the contract as a whole so we can see the whole picture? its borderline retarded to post pieces of a contract. They work together as a whole. Cause he doesn't have the actual copy of the document, his friends at whatever teams (probably EG or something, not unlikely since evoli co-authored the article and has strong ties to EG as he is a former employee) sent him/evoli a message, said, "hey look at what's in the LCS contract" also v https://twitter.com/idra/status/408315633554558976everyone completely forgets how much Riot is doing for their players This is hilarious if true. He has a copy of the contract.
Thank goodness for that
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
