EPTRiot S4 LCS contract discussion - Page 10
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
geokilla
Canada8252 Posts
| ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On December 06 2013 12:26 perfidiusrex wrote: dota2 just officially launched this summer and is already at 7 million unique monthly players something that lol hasn't actually shown.also valve through the pennant,courier and other customization systems is the first company to create a semi-sustainable esports scene in which the fans directly support the scene by buying customizable and 100% of the money goes to tournament prize pools etc.dota2 actually has something resembling a sustainable scene.if riot pulls out of the lcs the lol scene becomes dead.dota2 players have added something like 1 mil $ to ti3 prizepool,and about 100k thousand to smaller tournaments including mlg.that is what is called sustainable and revolutionary and what actually resembles how a real sport should look like:it depends solely on the fans contributions.if people stop watching nba tommorow there is no mystical basketball corporation giving players money just to have a basketball scene.for bad or for worse dota2 fans show they can sustain a scene 100% form their donations.even without valve money there will still be a dota2 scene.i can not say the same for riot who basicly makes huge profits from selling items completly unrelated to the pro scene(the skins),gives proteams money and then complains it loses money with the lcs in interviews. Actually, if you take a look at the steamgraph, the daily user peak of Dota2 has been stagnant for 4 months, ever since Dota2 was official launched. Even when Chinese and Korean servers were open, the graph is still the same. The only instance they reached 700k user peak was when DireTide patch comes out, which Valve was not supposed to even release it this year. Dota2 is sustainable, but not for the players. Only the tournament organizers get the best of it. And no, not 100% money goes to the tournament prize pool, only 25% that goes in there, Valve keeps 75%. A lot of people don't really know how dota2 tournament organizing works. For generic tournaments, Valve usually takes 75% of the ticket sales, the organizers get 25%. Now, you can negotiate with Valve to have a better deal. MLG for instance, got a deal with Valve that Valve only takes 30% of the ticket sales. That was the reason why MLG started to get into dota2 and really went aggressive with it. It took them a while to get the deal, what was why Adam kept hinting about dota2 for like half a year or so. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
| ||
|
NotYango
United States719 Posts
On December 06 2013 14:30 Ryuu314 wrote: does the steamgraph include Korea/China users? As far as I'm aware, no, and even if they did, it would be almost irrelevant because the metric used is concurrent peak and Korean/Chinese peak hours obviously don't line up with NA/EU peak hours. | ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On December 06 2013 14:33 NotYango wrote: As far as I'm aware, no, and even if they did, it would be almost irrelevant because the metric used is concurrent peak and Korean/Chinese peak hours obviously don't line up with NA/EU peak hours. I think it includes, since it's stated that Korean/Chinese will use the same client and pool. Even if they don't line up with peak hour, you should still see a change in the chart. There's no change. | ||
|
-Kaiser-
Canada932 Posts
If you sign a professional contract with an organization, it's not fucked up for part of the contract to be "Don't publicly promote our immediate competition." | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
I don't even understand why people are saying this is good for the company. I'm sure that banks being complete dicks about overdraft fees and timing payments/deposits to collect fees is great for the bank but as a consumer it's awful. And I don't understand why people keep saying non-compete clause and telling us to Google it to find examples. I did Google it and non-compete clauses are for working at competitors after termination and exchanging trade secrets, etc. Nothing to do with advertising and promotion. Even more curious is that non-compete clauses are illegal in California. Not like it matters, because it has nothing to do with anything. | ||
|
Shaella
United States14828 Posts
| ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
and to be honest the riot contract isn't a non-compete. a non-compete would be more along the lines of ex- and current League pro-gamers can't play Dota professionally. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
On December 06 2013 15:18 kainzero wrote: I don't deny Riot's track record with their management of the scene but I don't see how not being allowed to stream other games is integral to becoming "a real sport." It sounds like Riot brainwashing. I don't even understand why people are saying this is good for the company. I'm sure that banks being complete dicks about overdraft fees and timing payments/deposits to collect fees is great for the bank but as a consumer it's awful. And I don't understand why people keep saying non-compete clause and telling us to Google it to find examples. I did Google it and non-compete clauses are for working at competitors after termination and exchanging trade secrets, etc. Nothing to do with advertising and promotion. Even more curious is that non-compete clauses are illegal in California. Not like it matters, because it has nothing to do with anything. http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-georgia-sports/2012/07/11/ronaldinho-loses-coke-deal-for-drinking-pepsi/ Losing sponsor due to being found with a competitor product. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/tiger-work-restore-image-article-1.1303433 Tiger Woods losing sponsors after harming his image. Riot is a sponsor of LoL, LCS etc. As are the team sponsors, and however it all works. The players (LCS players) are paid a salary by Riot. That means Riot gets a say in what they do. If they don't like it, they can refuse to sign the contract, in which case Riot simply won't pay them money or allow them to compete in the competition. If you want freedom to do whatever you want, play whatever you want, stream whatever you want etc, play a different game. If you want money from Riot and their partners, then you also have to take note of the conditions of the contract which gets you that money. Pretty damned standard in the world, both in industry and sports. If you do things your employer doesn't like, you will no longer be employed by them. Unless they stop you doing things they aren't allowed to stop you doing (I would assume that things like saying your religion, sexual orientation etc) then it's not illegal. They can make their own rules, to a degree, and that's what Riot are doing. Doesn't mean it's good for the players necessarily, but they get a benefit called being paid, not necessarily good for fans of an individual specific player, because they don't get to see him do other stuff, but they get to see him be paid for playing LoL, and it's to help preserve the image of Riot/Riot's sponsors/LoL. Which is what most people try and preserve, their image. | ||
|
UglyBastard
Germany53 Posts
| ||
ZodaSoda
Australia1191 Posts
On December 06 2013 19:21 Lonyo wrote: http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-georgia-sports/2012/07/11/ronaldinho-loses-coke-deal-for-drinking-pepsi/ Losing sponsor due to being found with a competitor product. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/tiger-work-restore-image-article-1.1303433 Tiger Woods losing sponsors after harming his image. Riot is a sponsor of LoL, LCS etc. As are the team sponsors, and however it all works. The players (LCS players) are paid a salary by Riot. That means Riot gets a say in what they do. If they don't like it, they can refuse to sign the contract, in which case Riot simply won't pay them money or allow them to compete in the competition. If you want freedom to do whatever you want, play whatever you want, stream whatever you want etc, play a different game. If you want money from Riot and their partners, then you also have to take note of the conditions of the contract which gets you that money. Pretty damned standard in the world, both in industry and sports. If you do things your employer doesn't like, you will no longer be employed by them. Unless they stop you doing things they aren't allowed to stop you doing (I would assume that things like saying your religion, sexual orientation etc) then it's not illegal. They can make their own rules, to a degree, and that's what Riot are doing. Doesn't mean it's good for the players necessarily, but they get a benefit called being paid, not necessarily good for fans of an individual specific player, because they don't get to see him do other stuff, but they get to see him be paid for playing LoL, and it's to help preserve the image of Riot/Riot's sponsors/LoL. Which is what most people try and preserve, their image. Riot and Riot's Contract should not reach into your ability to stream and earn money on a third party streaming service, the Viewers watching on say Twitch are twitch viewers, they just happen to be watching LoL, if you switch to Hearthstone and the viewer doesn't like it, the viewer leaves, it is your channel, not Riots, becoming a LoL player does not mean handing over your Twitch account to Riot, regardless of what a contract says, The Nike/Reebok comment is an utter farce, Nike will provide their athlete with enough Nike's so that he doesn't NEED to buy some Reeboks, if Riot cant provide enough entertainment with LoL, why dont they make some more games that people could stream when waiting for LoL ques or when they're sick of LoL, they are Riot GameSSSSS afterall and they have one game... Riots contract violates almost all streaming services ToU and basic human rights... this is the reason in all the real sports they like to compare themselves too, no body owns Basketball, no body owns Baseball, when you have the Owner a game, also calling themselves a Sponsor of the players of their game, they become abusive of the people who draw attention to their product, they look for whats to trap and contain their income, Riot has NO RIGHT to what you stream on your channel the same way your boss has no right to tell you what to post on your facebook. | ||
|
MotherOfRunes
Germany2862 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
jpak
United States5045 Posts
On December 06 2013 20:07 ZodaSoda wrote: Riot and Riot's Contract should not reach into your ability to stream and earn money on a third party streaming service, the Viewers watching on say Twitch are twitch viewers, they just happen to be watching LoL, if you switch to Hearthstone and the viewer doesn't like it, the viewer leaves, it is your channel, not Riots, becoming a LoL player does not mean handing over your Twitch account to Riot, regardless of what a contract says, The Nike/Reebok comment is an utter farce, Nike will provide their athlete with enough Nike's so that he doesn't NEED to buy some Reeboks, if Riot cant provide enough entertainment with LoL, why dont they make some more games that people could stream when waiting for LoL ques or when they're sick of LoL, they are Riot GameSSSSS afterall and they have one game... Riots contract violates almost all streaming services ToU and basic human rights... this is the reason in all the real sports they like to compare themselves too, no body owns Basketball, no body owns Baseball, when you have the Owner a game, also calling themselves a Sponsor of the players of their game, they become abusive of the people who draw attention to their product, they look for whats to trap and contain their income, Riot has NO RIGHT to what you stream on your channel the same way your boss has no right to tell you what to post on your facebook. Your boss can fire you for what you post on your facebook, though. They can tell you not to stream LoL on your stream as well, since it's their game. | ||
|
nojitosunrise
United States6188 Posts
On December 06 2013 20:07 ZodaSoda wrote: Riot and Riot's Contract should not reach into your ability to stream and earn money on a third party streaming service, the Viewers watching on say Twitch are twitch viewers, they just happen to be watching LoL, if you switch to Hearthstone and the viewer doesn't like it, the viewer leaves, it is your channel, not Riots, becoming a LoL player does not mean handing over your Twitch account to Riot, regardless of what a contract says, The Nike/Reebok comment is an utter farce, Nike will provide their athlete with enough Nike's so that he doesn't NEED to buy some Reeboks, if Riot cant provide enough entertainment with LoL, why dont they make some more games that people could stream when waiting for LoL ques or when they're sick of LoL, they are Riot GameSSSSS afterall and they have one game... Riots contract violates almost all streaming services ToU and basic human rights... this is the reason in all the real sports they like to compare themselves too, no body owns Basketball, no body owns Baseball, when you have the Owner a game, also calling themselves a Sponsor of the players of their game, they become abusive of the people who draw attention to their product, they look for whats to trap and contain their income, Riot has NO RIGHT to what you stream on your channel the same way your boss has no right to tell you what to post on your facebook. Of course they do, the exact same stipulation arises in the nba and nfl. When you are in the public eye, you are restricted in what you can and can not do. These restrictions are based on what could be detrimental to the league that you are apart of. This is why all public events have to approved by the NBA before players can participate. In unrelated news, I'm surprised it took us 8 pages before the dota2 vs lol comments came out. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
On December 06 2013 20:07 ZodaSoda wrote: Riot and Riot's Contract should not reach into your ability to stream and earn money on a third party streaming service, the Viewers watching on say Twitch are twitch viewers, they just happen to be watching LoL, if you switch to Hearthstone and the viewer doesn't like it, the viewer leaves, it is your channel, not Riots, becoming a LoL player does not mean handing over your Twitch account to Riot, regardless of what a contract says, The Nike/Reebok comment is an utter farce, Nike will provide their athlete with enough Nike's so that he doesn't NEED to buy some Reeboks, if Riot cant provide enough entertainment with LoL, why dont they make some more games that people could stream when waiting for LoL ques or when they're sick of LoL, they are Riot GameSSSSS afterall and they have one game... Riots contract violates almost all streaming services ToU and basic human rights... this is the reason in all the real sports they like to compare themselves too, no body owns Basketball, no body owns Baseball, when you have the Owner a game, also calling themselves a Sponsor of the players of their game, they become abusive of the people who draw attention to their product, they look for whats to trap and contain their income, Riot has NO RIGHT to what you stream on your channel the same way your boss has no right to tell you what to post on your facebook. So if you are sponsored by Coke, then Coke should also let you be sponsored by Pepsi or even promote Pepsi without getting paid money? Hell no, if you do so, Coke will say "we aren't paying you money because you are promoting a competitor". Basic human rights? They don't force anyone to do anything, it's a contract that the players CHOOSE to sign. You're just going off on one with your rant that ignores the reality of the entire world and lacks any kind of business sense or sense of reality at all. If you want to stream whatever games you choose, you can do that. Riot aren't stopping you. If you want Riot to pay money, THEN you can't stream whatever you like. Riot gives you money. In exchange you play by their rules. Don't like their rules? Then don't take their money. It's called a business transaction, and yes, they can tell you what to do. You don't have to obey them, but if you don't obey their reasonable terms, then you won't get your money, and these are in fact reasonable commercial and common terms of business. And Riot aren't stopping people playing other games, they are stopping people effectively promoting other games. All of these players can play whatever the fuck they want all day long if they want, as long as they don't publicly show that they are doing so. No restriction on the players having all the fun they want in other games. And I'm pretty sure that no streaming TOU are being broken by Riot. Can you point to something on Twitch, for example, that says players who get paid by a sponsor must be allowed to stream anything they want? Unless you mean this little gem: You agree that you will abide by these Terms of Service and will not: intentionally interfere with or damage operation of the Twitch Service or any user’s enjoyment of them, by any means, including uploading or otherwise disseminating viruses, adware, spyware, worms, or other malicious code; And all of your comments about employers having no right to tell you A, B, C or what to do or what you can say. That's all true. Equally they have no obligation to continue paying you if you do something that harms them and they have a contract stating that such actions are liable to get you terminated. Riot aren't stopping anyone doing anything they want in the entire world, as long as they don't expect to still get paid when they do things. If you work for a company, and then post publicly on your Facebook that the company is terrible etc, then you almost certainly will get FIRED. Does that mean your employer has prevented you from talking shit about them? Pretty much yes, because when you do, you lose your job. Which most people would agree is fair. http://www.complex.com/tech/2012/05/25-facebook-posts-that-have-gotten-people-fired/ https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=fired for facebook post&oq=fired for facebo&gs_l=hp.3.0.0l8.465.3927.0.4527.24.18.4.2.2.0.126.1595.13j5.18.0....0...1c.1.32.hp..0.24.1618.bI2l-oD4mpA | ||
|
Atokad
United States204 Posts
With regards to everyone else's statements yeah it's unfortunate that Riot is doing it, but also they have the right and it should be looked at as a company not wanting to give other games free advertising. I'm waiting for bloons TD or geometry wars during queues now. | ||
onlywonderboy
United States23745 Posts
On December 07 2013 00:45 Atokad wrote: I feel like this will turn into these streamers just playing their intermittent games on their second monitor so you will hear the sounds of the game but not be able to see it. Considering these guys' queues are near the 20-40 min marks at times, who can blame them. With regards to everyone else's statements yeah it's unfortunate that Riot is doing it, but also they have the right and it should be looked at as a company not wanting to give other games free advertising. I'm waiting for bloons TD or geometry wars during queues now. I mean there are plenty of other games for them to play. I feel as though they will find an alternative to Hearthstone. A lot of Steam games I suspect. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On December 07 2013 00:45 Atokad wrote: I feel like this will turn into these streamers just playing their intermittent games on their second monitor so you will hear the sounds of the game but not be able to see it. Considering these guys' queues are near the 20-40 min marks at times, who can blame them. With regards to everyone else's statements yeah it's unfortunate that Riot is doing it, but also they have the right and it should be looked at as a company not wanting to give other games free advertising. I'm waiting for bloons TD or geometry wars during queues now. Having the right to do it doesn't make it beneficial to the consumer (also known as me), and that's what I'm getting at. I'm sure that AT&T is well within their right to possess exclusive high-speed internet in a neighborhood in the city but refuse to upgrade to fiber and provide shitty customer service, but that doesn't mean it's good for me. I don't know about the legitimacy or legality of the contract. Leave that up to Riot's lawyers and the player's lawyers if they want it so badly. And it's not really standard practice either when you think about the uniqueness of the situation. Has any other gaming company, whether openly or behind closed doors, restricted streaming of other games? We've already noted that Riot is the only company to salary professional gaming players, how is this NOT unique? All I see is Riot shoving out other competitive games when historically competitive gaming communities were all trying to group together and expand together. Remember the flak that Blizzard received for scheduling WCS at the same time as TI3? When questioned about the contract, the only thing Riot has said was that it's necessary to provide legitimacy to LoL as a professional sport, which honestly doesn't have any bearing on it. Sure, if they said "We need to maximize our investment in our players by having them promote LoL as much as possible," that works better than "Coke spokespersons can't drink Pepsi" and "*insert 41519884th sports analogy*" | ||
| ||
