EPTIt just so happens that this *particular* change to the contract has very little practical impact, but it's a very bad precedent to set if Riot can get away with contractual changes that for the most part the players affected have been unhappy with.
[Patch 3.14] PreSeason 4 General Discussion - Page 148
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
NotYango
United States719 Posts
It just so happens that this *particular* change to the contract has very little practical impact, but it's a very bad precedent to set if Riot can get away with contractual changes that for the most part the players affected have been unhappy with. | ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:14 AsnSensation wrote: Hmm I see where Riot is coming from but it's a bit weird that Pros won't even be able to stream hearthstone for Q times. General oddone still has his civilization V haha. That's why I don't see why people think it's a huge deal. Negating a slippery slope argument... there are thousands and thousands of games you can still play. Or, conversely, these players can still play it just not display it on the screen as they play or if they really want, choose to play it and not stream. Too many jimmies being rustled over such a small "problem." | ||
|
SagaZ
France3460 Posts
What if a player under contract by Riot, playing a Riot game and is advertised to be playing said game is suddenly found playing and streaming the blizzard moba, and playing comercials while doing so, so he is making money of the blizzard game, without having blizzard approval or having paid the intellectual propriety or w/e bs card blizzard used to fuck with bw in korea? Streaming games and making money doing so is a gray area in intelectual propriety zone, everything can be doing great and suddenly a part may want to fuck shit up using some dumb law loophole (see: kespa vs blizzard fiasco in korea) I think these sorts of contracts are also a way for riot to cover their ass in advance from weird shenanigans | ||
|
nojitosunrise
United States6188 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:14 Haiq343 wrote: Come on with the dota stuff. Of course they care, if you had any awareness of the history of Riot's actions regarding Dota (particularly when LoL began as a thing) you'd understand why there's significant residual bitterness. It was earned and is not a "my dad could beat up your dad" type jealousy. What bothers me the most about the change is that LoL benefited so tremendously from a perfect storm of steaming & community involvement that it is incredibly short-sighted to put this kind of strain on that relationship. Total control is the direction Riot has been taking LoL for some time now so it's not a great shock, but it is unfortunate. And frankly exploitative given the pittance they pay pros & destruction of most alternative tournaments/within LoL revenue sources. why is this type of control unfortunate? Look at it from Riot's point of view, they are shelling out millions to have the LCS and the competitive scene. It's in their best interest to protect it at all costs. The best way of doing so is having 100% control. Honestly, people have been yelling eSports for the better part of a decade and Riot is the only one to make competitive gaming really work. | ||
|
NotYango
United States719 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:17 SagaZ wrote: It is the natural follow up when streaming becomes this big and becomes a business. Contracts, restrictions, working hours, ect... What if a player under contract by Riot, playing a Riot game and is advertised to be playing said game is suddenly found playing and streaming the blizzard moba, and playing comercials while doing so, so he is making money of the blizzard game, without having blizzard approval or having paid the intellectual propriety or w/e bs card blizzard used to fuck with bw in korea? Streaming games and making money doing so is a gray area in intelectual propriety zone, everything can be doing great and suddenly a part may want to fuck shit up using some dumb law loophole (see: kespa vs blizzard fiasco in korea) I think these sorts of contracts are also a way for riot to cover their ass in advance from weird shenanigans The problem is that the players on the other side of the table have little to no ability to negotiate what's actually in the contract thanks to the particulars of the LCS system and the lack of any organization representing them. Contracts are normal business practice. Contracts where one of the involved organizations has virtually total control over the contents and the other has no negotiating power tend to be problematic. | ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:18 nojitosunrise wrote: why is this type of control unfortunate? Look at it from Riot's point of view, they are shelling out millions to have the LCS and the competitive scene. It's in their best interest to protect it at all costs. The best way of doing so is having 100% control. Honestly, people have been yelling eSports for the better part of a decade and Riot is the only one to make competitive gaming really work. Because people always fear the worse. Always. People love to be debbie downers and others love to simply pile on. Why do you think witch hunts happen so easily on places like reddit? People are always ready to get up in arms about something so long as it adds something interesting to their day. This is such a non-issue, yet people will bang on drums for hours... until they get home from work, 2 days passes, and there's something new to bitch about. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:18 nojitosunrise wrote: Riot is the only one to make competitive gaming really work. ... You are not very well informed. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:17 I_Love_Bacon wrote: That's why I don't see why people think it's a huge deal. Negating a slippery slope argument... there are thousands and thousands of games you can still play. Or, conversely, these players can still play it just not display it on the screen as they play or if they really want, choose to play it and not stream. Too many jimmies being rustled over such a small "problem." Well, first they tried to keep teams from getting new teams in other games, that backfired, so they kept tournaments taking their money from playing other games, this resulted in dreamhack being the only outside of LCS tournament for most players, and now they are preventing players themselves from playing other games publicly. The slippery slope is here. The inching toward control has been strongly suggested now if not proven. Riot has shown a desire to takes steps over the past year and a half toward control, and they've acted on it. IN addition to this, the players have shown riot they will just accept contractual changes they disagree with. this means unless the players unionize or have representatives legally, there will be no gains for the players, only "concessions" from riot. There is a big sign of trouble ahead, and ignoring it because "its not a big deal yet" is a bad attitude to have. | ||
|
SagaZ
France3460 Posts
| ||
|
nojitosunrise
United States6188 Posts
What other competitive gaming scene offers the same financial security as Riot + LoL? | ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:18 nojitosunrise wrote: why is this type of control unfortunate? Look at it from Riot's point of view, they are shelling out millions to have the LCS and the competitive scene. It's in their best interest to protect it at all costs. The best way of doing so is having 100% control. Honestly, people have been yelling eSports for the better part of a decade and Riot is the only one to make competitive gaming really work. Um no? They certainly are not the only 'competitive gaming'. I understand why they feel the need for total control, I think it's unfortunate because it diminishes they community's sense of ownership and participation with the game. Which has longterm negative implications. I mentioned LoL's right-place/right-time birth because I think it's important to recognize how important streamers were to LoL's rise, and that ignoring and outright antagonizing that same community is "unfortunate." There are alternatives to the micromanagement theme, and frankly I think there are strong parallels to Blizzard & Kespa and how that quest for total control shook out. Particularly from a fan's perspective. | ||
|
nojitosunrise
United States6188 Posts
| ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:22 PrinceXizor wrote: Well, first they tried to keep teams from getting new teams in other games, that backfired, so they kept tournaments taking their money from playing other games, this resulted in dreamhack being the only outside of LCS tournament for most players, and now they are preventing players themselves from playing other games publicly. The slippery slope is here. The inching toward control has been strongly suggested now if not proven. Riot has shown a desire to takes steps over the past year and a half toward control, and they've acted on it. IN addition to this, the players have shown riot they will just accept contractual changes they disagree with. this means unless the players unionize or have representatives legally, there will be no gains for the players, only "concessions" from riot. There is a big sign of trouble ahead, and ignoring it because "its not a big deal yet" is a bad attitude to have. If memory serves, nothing was ever, ever confirmed about the not allowing other teams thing. Riot is actually paying for the tournaments, the prizes, the league, the teams, etc... They have the most skin in the game. No other company is doing what they do so they have to run things differently. Other companies have the luxury of simply sitting back, Riot no longer has that option. Also, it's worth noting, they're also the only one that seem to be a good job of it at the moment. edit: I'll always keep that attitude as opposed to screaming for pitchforks and overreacting to every piece of garbage news or drama that gets produced daily. How many thousands of posts get garnered when somebody gets banned for Christ's sake. I think some more level-headedness would do everybody a world of good. | ||
|
Amethyst21
Canada7032 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:22 PrinceXizor wrote: Well, first they tried to keep teams from getting new teams in other games, that backfired, so they kept tournaments taking their money from playing other games, this resulted in dreamhack being the only outside of LCS tournament for most players, and now they are preventing players themselves from playing other games publicly. The slippery slope is here. The inching toward control has been strongly suggested now if not proven. Riot has shown a desire to takes steps over the past year and a half toward control, and they've acted on it. IN addition to this, the players have shown riot they will just accept contractual changes they disagree with. this means unless the players unionize or have representatives legally, there will be no gains for the players, only "concessions" from riot. There is a big sign of trouble ahead, and ignoring it because "its not a big deal yet" is a bad attitude to have. This is the funniest post in TL i've ever read. Thank you. Don't worry, RIOT will soon control all e-Sports and than all sports. No tears, only dreams now. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:27 nojitosunrise wrote: https://twitter.com/CrsStvicious/status/408346165785001984 Damage control inc. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
http://i.imgur.com/1qCAPpg.jpg my head can only get so much larger. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:24 nojitosunrise wrote: What other competitive gaming scene offers the same financial security as Riot + LoL? If by financial security you mean hoping to never fall out of the LCS system. BW in the past, to a certain extent SC2 did and still does offer security (albeit to a smaller number of people). DotA. WC3 (for some players). What you seem to not be realising is that RIOT is a closed system. You are very secure when you are in it, but only while you are in it. The other esports titles are much more open you can be secure without being directly in the system via team sponsorships etc. Only a few LCS teams could operate if they fell out of LCS and only due to their strong brand (TSM as an example) much the same way EG can make Fighting Games financially stable for people like Jwonggg. | ||
|
Nos-
Canada12016 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:24 SagaZ wrote: it's not like they can't play other game, use a second monitor and keep your heartstone game off the stream while in queue... Either people are actually up in arms about this or they're just bad at presenting their real problem with this clause as a fear of a slippery slope. Yango put it nicely that it's mainly that Riot has virtually total control over the terms of said contract while the players have almost no leverage/say in the matter. | ||
|
Fusilero
United Kingdom50293 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:27 nojitosunrise wrote: https://twitter.com/CrsStvicious/status/408346165785001984 What about what dlift said, oh god this is getting so confusing. | ||
|
nojitosunrise
United States6188 Posts
| ||
| ||
