|
On December 07 2013 05:58 Figgy wrote:
Everyone in the LCS is on Salary.
They get it waaaaaaaaaay better than anyone in the business of pro-gaming by a longshot.
It's a small price to pay for League to hold onto it's stranglehold of the MOBA market.
Obviously, they don't want their Employees advertising for the competition.
This is the thing, everyone keeps calling the players Riot employees, when in reality I consider them more like contractors.
|
Wei, you're using some sort of logical fallacy. NFL players get paid a lot and are the best in their field, so LCS players should get paid a lot because they are the best in their field. There's a disconnect in there.
Basic economics tells us that if these players have something better to do with their time than get $12,000 to compete in LCS, they will leave LCS and go do it.
|
On December 07 2013 06:02 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 05:58 Figgy wrote:
Everyone in the LCS is on Salary.
They get it waaaaaaaaaay better than anyone in the business of pro-gaming by a longshot.
It's a small price to pay for League to hold onto it's stranglehold of the MOBA market.
Obviously, they don't want their Employees advertising for the competition. This is the thing, everyone keeps calling the players Riot employees, when in reality I consider them more like contractors.
1.3 No Riot Employees
Players may not be employees of Riot Games Inc. (“RGI”) or League of Legends eSports Federation LLC or any of their respective affiliates at the start of or at any point during the LCS regular season or playoffs. “Affiliate” is defined as any person or other entity which own or controls, is under the ownership or control of, or is under common ownership or control with, an Owner. “Control” shall mean the power, through any means, to determine the policies or management of an entity, whether through the power to elect, appoint or approve, directly or indirectly, the directors, officers, managers or trustees of such entity or otherwise.
|
On December 07 2013 05:50 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 05:47 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On December 07 2013 05:28 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:23 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On December 07 2013 04:38 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 04:33 Ketara wrote:On December 07 2013 04:32 Requizen wrote:On December 07 2013 04:31 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 04:28 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On December 07 2013 02:55 Brad` wrote:
[quote]
They're used to their salaried athletes having rules placed upon what they can do in the public eye like every other contracted athlete in the world.
Very wow. well fucking said if you want to legitimize "esports" (cringe), start acting like professionals and not fucking teenagers playing a video game Maybe riot should pay them like professionals instead of like fast food employees first. That's dumb. Professional athletes shouldn't get payed nearly as much as they do anyway. Not to mention they're making more than fast food employees do. Not off riot. From teams they do. It wouldn't be much of an issue if teams tell their players what they can or can't do in regards to public image because the teams are paying majority of salary. I rather Riot treat their relationship with the teams in regards to LCS as a tournament organizer than as opposed to employer. If riot wants control of player streams they should be paying players for their stream imo, which is clearly not the case. @shallowbay You don't think highly specialized skill that requires 40+ hours a week, that requires a lot of travel, group housing, and promotional gigs doesn't deserve 6figure paycheck? you're the one thats delusional. i'll ignore the 40+ hours a week part, since that's a normal workweek for almost anyone it must really suck to have a mansion paid for by your team travel and promo suck, yes, but any job has its downsides. could be worse from a job with 0 marketable skills outside of the specific industry You could say that about a lot of jobs, and a lot of those jobs pay 6 figures. Saying that Dyrus making 6 figures for playing LoL is insane, is absurd, that's quite reasonable pay considering his fanbase, specialized skillsets, lack of possible replacements, and workload for the job. funny how you're arguing for the professionalism of LoL, but then mock how much the players should get paid for playing a "video game". from the other thread. are we on the same page when i say 6 figures? as in, at least $100,000? i dont think that LOTS of jobs pay that much i'm arguing that if the players want to get respect for playing a "video game" and rise above that stigma, they need to accept professional responsibilities. professional responsibilities should come with actual professional paycheck. Name jobs that have the selectivity of Dyrus's position, and I guarantee you most of those jobs are all 6 figures. Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 05:47 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2013 05:38 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:36 JimmiC wrote:
The facts are its great that they are getting paid at all. Out side of korea it rarely happens. And the reason it's low is it's just starting. Not like NFL players made millions when it first started (not even if you take inflation) they made terrible money.
Right now there is a ton of people willing to do it for little to no money so they don't have to pay more. And riot makes way more money off micro transactions then the ad revenue brought in from the pro scene. If that changes and the pro scene advertizers start paying 5.4 billion, which is what a canadian TV network paid the NHL to broadcast the games in Canada, not to mention all the revenue at stadiums and so on. Then they will pay the pros more. For now they just want enough of a scene to keep it popular. And I think they legitimatly want a pro scene which is cool. Not sure why everyone puts negative spins on shit. Yes is could always be better and you could have more, but it could also be worse and you could have less.
People are pretty spoiled to complain about making a living playing a game, if they want a shitty job that pays more, no one is stopping these guys. Whether or not they're getting paid isn't the point, the question is whether or not they're getting paid enough to justify Riot's interference with their streams. It's a pointless discussion, they have the power of choice, they can choose to not accept the contract. And then one of the 1000's of other people that would die for the opportunity will take it. And lets not forget they can still make money in other ways then riot. Some are paid by teams, streaming league, coaching, winning prize money, so on. Yes, they make money other way from Riot. that means Riot should not be interfering with them. Such as streaming. Riot is not involved with the money they make from streaming, so why should Riot be involving themselves in such a way?
Sorry to interrupt your discussion guys.
but someone questioned that 100k is insane.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/league-of-legends-player-makes-close-to-1m-per-year/1100-6415722/
|
On December 07 2013 06:02 remedium wrote:
Wei, you're using some sort of logical fallacy. NFL players get paid a lot and are the best in their field, so LCS players should get paid a lot because they are the best in their field. There's a disconnect in there.
Basic economics tells us that if these players have something better to do with their time than get $12,000 to compete in LCS, they will leave LCS and go do it.
The problem is the LCS is that it is the only league that legitimizes the teams to sponsors, as far as Western LoL is concerned. So they are strong arming teams to follow their contracts or risk losing sponsors by being DQ'd out of LCS. That's called doing business out of bad faith, sure they can do it. But it's a huge dick move. Especially considering the problem was initially created by Riot (long queue times.)
On December 07 2013 06:06 illusiongamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 05:50 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:47 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On December 07 2013 05:28 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:23 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On December 07 2013 04:38 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 04:33 Ketara wrote:On December 07 2013 04:32 Requizen wrote:On December 07 2013 04:31 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 04:28 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:
[quote]
well fucking said
if you want to legitimize "esports" (cringe), start acting like professionals and not fucking teenagers playing a video game Maybe riot should pay them like professionals instead of like fast food employees first. That's dumb. Professional athletes shouldn't get payed nearly as much as they do anyway. Not to mention they're making more than fast food employees do. Not off riot. From teams they do. It wouldn't be much of an issue if teams tell their players what they can or can't do in regards to public image because the teams are paying majority of salary. I rather Riot treat their relationship with the teams in regards to LCS as a tournament organizer than as opposed to employer. If riot wants control of player streams they should be paying players for their stream imo, which is clearly not the case. @shallowbay You don't think highly specialized skill that requires 40+ hours a week, that requires a lot of travel, group housing, and promotional gigs doesn't deserve 6figure paycheck? you're the one thats delusional. i'll ignore the 40+ hours a week part, since that's a normal workweek for almost anyone it must really suck to have a mansion paid for by your team travel and promo suck, yes, but any job has its downsides. could be worse from a job with 0 marketable skills outside of the specific industry You could say that about a lot of jobs, and a lot of those jobs pay 6 figures. Saying that Dyrus making 6 figures for playing LoL is insane, is absurd, that's quite reasonable pay considering his fanbase, specialized skillsets, lack of possible replacements, and workload for the job. funny how you're arguing for the professionalism of LoL, but then mock how much the players should get paid for playing a "video game". from the other thread. are we on the same page when i say 6 figures? as in, at least $100,000? i dont think that LOTS of jobs pay that much i'm arguing that if the players want to get respect for playing a "video game" and rise above that stigma, they need to accept professional responsibilities. professional responsibilities should come with actual professional paycheck. Name jobs that have the selectivity of Dyrus's position, and I guarantee you most of those jobs are all 6 figures. On December 07 2013 05:47 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2013 05:38 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:36 JimmiC wrote:
The facts are its great that they are getting paid at all. Out side of korea it rarely happens. And the reason it's low is it's just starting. Not like NFL players made millions when it first started (not even if you take inflation) they made terrible money.
Right now there is a ton of people willing to do it for little to no money so they don't have to pay more. And riot makes way more money off micro transactions then the ad revenue brought in from the pro scene. If that changes and the pro scene advertizers start paying 5.4 billion, which is what a canadian TV network paid the NHL to broadcast the games in Canada, not to mention all the revenue at stadiums and so on. Then they will pay the pros more. For now they just want enough of a scene to keep it popular. And I think they legitimatly want a pro scene which is cool. Not sure why everyone puts negative spins on shit. Yes is could always be better and you could have more, but it could also be worse and you could have less.
People are pretty spoiled to complain about making a living playing a game, if they want a shitty job that pays more, no one is stopping these guys. Whether or not they're getting paid isn't the point, the question is whether or not they're getting paid enough to justify Riot's interference with their streams. It's a pointless discussion, they have the power of choice, they can choose to not accept the contract. And then one of the 1000's of other people that would die for the opportunity will take it. And lets not forget they can still make money in other ways then riot. Some are paid by teams, streaming league, coaching, winning prize money, so on. Yes, they make money other way from Riot. that means Riot should not be interfering with them. Such as streaming. Riot is not involved with the money they make from streaming, so why should Riot be involving themselves in such a way? Sorry to interrupt your discussion guys. but someone questioned that 100k is insane. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/league-of-legends-player-makes-close-to-1m-per-year/1100-6415722/
Oce is a special case, he has his own brand, which is not the norm for world class pro players.
|
On December 07 2013 06:02 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 05:58 Figgy wrote:
Everyone in the LCS is on Salary.
They get it waaaaaaaaaay better than anyone in the business of pro-gaming by a longshot.
It's a small price to pay for League to hold onto it's stranglehold of the MOBA market.
Obviously, they don't want their Employees advertising for the competition. This is the thing, everyone keeps calling the players Riot employees, when in reality I consider them more like contractors.
They are contractors.
Also, the Riot Salary is just basically the way that Riot ensures that there are less-successful teams available for the good/popular teams to wail on (in theory). That is the real point of the league: To give VES and C9 a chance to be VES and C9, while continuously showcasing TSM/CLG.
|
On December 07 2013 06:10 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:02 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:58 Figgy wrote:
Everyone in the LCS is on Salary.
They get it waaaaaaaaaay better than anyone in the business of pro-gaming by a longshot.
It's a small price to pay for League to hold onto it's stranglehold of the MOBA market.
Obviously, they don't want their Employees advertising for the competition. This is the thing, everyone keeps calling the players Riot employees, when in reality I consider them more like contractors. They are contractors. Also, the Riot Salary is just basically the way that Riot ensures that there are less-successful teams available for the good/popular teams to wail on (in theory). That is the real point of the league: To give VES and C9 a chance to be VES and C9, while continuously showcasing TSM/CLG.
Then salary should just be tied to what they're contracted to do, which is play LCS.
and everything else is moot.
|
On December 07 2013 06:10 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:02 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:58 Figgy wrote:
Everyone in the LCS is on Salary.
They get it waaaaaaaaaay better than anyone in the business of pro-gaming by a longshot.
It's a small price to pay for League to hold onto it's stranglehold of the MOBA market.
Obviously, they don't want their Employees advertising for the competition. This is the thing, everyone keeps calling the players Riot employees, when in reality I consider them more like contractors. They are contractors. Also, the Riot Salary is just basically the way that Riot ensures that there are less-successful teams available for the good/popular teams to wail on (in theory). That is the real point of the league: To give VES and C9 a chance to be VES and C9, while continuously showcasing TSM/CLG.
This is why losing Lautemortis sucks so much. He has one of the best personalities in the game. Could have given OddOne a run for his money.
|
I find it strange that consumers are willing to be against a free market where the best product wins in favour of a market where the most highly advertised product wins. I mean, dunno about you but I've had enough of that in "real life" as it were.
People construing this as a reasonable business move are forgetting that this, as a business move, is not a "win-win" move but rather a zero sum move. The more riot gains from this, the more the community loses. If the streamers and the community benefited from something like this, they wouldn't be streaming other things in the first place and Riot wouldn't have to put this shit in their contracts. If this is a "reasonable business move" (which i'm not disagreeing with) then the community should still be hard set against it.
Its like the community is begging to get fucked over by Riot because "thats what real businesses do". Has anybody been paying attention to EA/Blizzard recently? Lol.
|
On December 07 2013 06:07 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:02 remedium wrote:
Wei, you're using some sort of logical fallacy. NFL players get paid a lot and are the best in their field, so LCS players should get paid a lot because they are the best in their field. There's a disconnect in there.
Basic economics tells us that if these players have something better to do with their time than get $12,000 to compete in LCS, they will leave LCS and go do it. The problem is the LCS is that it is the only league that legitimizes the teams to sponsors, as far as Western LoL is concerned. So they are strong arming teams to follow their contracts or risk losing sponsors by being DQ'd out of LCS. That's called doing business out of bad faith, sure they can do it. But it's a huge dick move. Especially considering the problem was initially created by Riot (long queue times.) Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:06 illusiongamer wrote:On December 07 2013 05:50 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:47 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On December 07 2013 05:28 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:23 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On December 07 2013 04:38 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 04:33 Ketara wrote:On December 07 2013 04:32 Requizen wrote:On December 07 2013 04:31 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
Maybe riot should pay them like professionals instead of like fast food employees first. That's dumb. Professional athletes shouldn't get payed nearly as much as they do anyway. Not to mention they're making more than fast food employees do. Not off riot. From teams they do. It wouldn't be much of an issue if teams tell their players what they can or can't do in regards to public image because the teams are paying majority of salary. I rather Riot treat their relationship with the teams in regards to LCS as a tournament organizer than as opposed to employer. If riot wants control of player streams they should be paying players for their stream imo, which is clearly not the case. @shallowbay You don't think highly specialized skill that requires 40+ hours a week, that requires a lot of travel, group housing, and promotional gigs doesn't deserve 6figure paycheck? you're the one thats delusional. i'll ignore the 40+ hours a week part, since that's a normal workweek for almost anyone it must really suck to have a mansion paid for by your team travel and promo suck, yes, but any job has its downsides. could be worse from a job with 0 marketable skills outside of the specific industry You could say that about a lot of jobs, and a lot of those jobs pay 6 figures. Saying that Dyrus making 6 figures for playing LoL is insane, is absurd, that's quite reasonable pay considering his fanbase, specialized skillsets, lack of possible replacements, and workload for the job. funny how you're arguing for the professionalism of LoL, but then mock how much the players should get paid for playing a "video game". from the other thread. are we on the same page when i say 6 figures? as in, at least $100,000? i dont think that LOTS of jobs pay that much i'm arguing that if the players want to get respect for playing a "video game" and rise above that stigma, they need to accept professional responsibilities. professional responsibilities should come with actual professional paycheck. Name jobs that have the selectivity of Dyrus's position, and I guarantee you most of those jobs are all 6 figures. On December 07 2013 05:47 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2013 05:38 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:36 JimmiC wrote:
The facts are its great that they are getting paid at all. Out side of korea it rarely happens. And the reason it's low is it's just starting. Not like NFL players made millions when it first started (not even if you take inflation) they made terrible money.
Right now there is a ton of people willing to do it for little to no money so they don't have to pay more. And riot makes way more money off micro transactions then the ad revenue brought in from the pro scene. If that changes and the pro scene advertizers start paying 5.4 billion, which is what a canadian TV network paid the NHL to broadcast the games in Canada, not to mention all the revenue at stadiums and so on. Then they will pay the pros more. For now they just want enough of a scene to keep it popular. And I think they legitimatly want a pro scene which is cool. Not sure why everyone puts negative spins on shit. Yes is could always be better and you could have more, but it could also be worse and you could have less.
People are pretty spoiled to complain about making a living playing a game, if they want a shitty job that pays more, no one is stopping these guys. Whether or not they're getting paid isn't the point, the question is whether or not they're getting paid enough to justify Riot's interference with their streams. It's a pointless discussion, they have the power of choice, they can choose to not accept the contract. And then one of the 1000's of other people that would die for the opportunity will take it. And lets not forget they can still make money in other ways then riot. Some are paid by teams, streaming league, coaching, winning prize money, so on. Yes, they make money other way from Riot. that means Riot should not be interfering with them. Such as streaming. Riot is not involved with the money they make from streaming, so why should Riot be involving themselves in such a way? Sorry to interrupt your discussion guys. but someone questioned that 100k is insane. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/league-of-legends-player-makes-close-to-1m-per-year/1100-6415722/ Oce is a special case, he has his own brand, which is not the norm for world class pro players.
Do you care to give more details why he is a special case?
|
On December 07 2013 06:16 illusiongamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:07 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 06:02 remedium wrote:
Wei, you're using some sort of logical fallacy. NFL players get paid a lot and are the best in their field, so LCS players should get paid a lot because they are the best in their field. There's a disconnect in there.
Basic economics tells us that if these players have something better to do with their time than get $12,000 to compete in LCS, they will leave LCS and go do it. The problem is the LCS is that it is the only league that legitimizes the teams to sponsors, as far as Western LoL is concerned. So they are strong arming teams to follow their contracts or risk losing sponsors by being DQ'd out of LCS. That's called doing business out of bad faith, sure they can do it. But it's a huge dick move. Especially considering the problem was initially created by Riot (long queue times.) On December 07 2013 06:06 illusiongamer wrote:On December 07 2013 05:50 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:47 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On December 07 2013 05:28 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:23 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On December 07 2013 04:38 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 04:33 Ketara wrote:On December 07 2013 04:32 Requizen wrote:
[quote]
That's dumb. Professional athletes shouldn't get payed nearly as much as they do anyway. Not to mention they're making more than fast food employees do. Not off riot. From teams they do. It wouldn't be much of an issue if teams tell their players what they can or can't do in regards to public image because the teams are paying majority of salary. I rather Riot treat their relationship with the teams in regards to LCS as a tournament organizer than as opposed to employer. If riot wants control of player streams they should be paying players for their stream imo, which is clearly not the case. @shallowbay You don't think highly specialized skill that requires 40+ hours a week, that requires a lot of travel, group housing, and promotional gigs doesn't deserve 6figure paycheck? you're the one thats delusional. i'll ignore the 40+ hours a week part, since that's a normal workweek for almost anyone it must really suck to have a mansion paid for by your team travel and promo suck, yes, but any job has its downsides. could be worse from a job with 0 marketable skills outside of the specific industry You could say that about a lot of jobs, and a lot of those jobs pay 6 figures. Saying that Dyrus making 6 figures for playing LoL is insane, is absurd, that's quite reasonable pay considering his fanbase, specialized skillsets, lack of possible replacements, and workload for the job. funny how you're arguing for the professionalism of LoL, but then mock how much the players should get paid for playing a "video game". from the other thread. are we on the same page when i say 6 figures? as in, at least $100,000? i dont think that LOTS of jobs pay that much i'm arguing that if the players want to get respect for playing a "video game" and rise above that stigma, they need to accept professional responsibilities. professional responsibilities should come with actual professional paycheck. Name jobs that have the selectivity of Dyrus's position, and I guarantee you most of those jobs are all 6 figures. On December 07 2013 05:47 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2013 05:38 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:36 JimmiC wrote:
The facts are its great that they are getting paid at all. Out side of korea it rarely happens. And the reason it's low is it's just starting. Not like NFL players made millions when it first started (not even if you take inflation) they made terrible money.
Right now there is a ton of people willing to do it for little to no money so they don't have to pay more. And riot makes way more money off micro transactions then the ad revenue brought in from the pro scene. If that changes and the pro scene advertizers start paying 5.4 billion, which is what a canadian TV network paid the NHL to broadcast the games in Canada, not to mention all the revenue at stadiums and so on. Then they will pay the pros more. For now they just want enough of a scene to keep it popular. And I think they legitimatly want a pro scene which is cool. Not sure why everyone puts negative spins on shit. Yes is could always be better and you could have more, but it could also be worse and you could have less.
People are pretty spoiled to complain about making a living playing a game, if they want a shitty job that pays more, no one is stopping these guys. Whether or not they're getting paid isn't the point, the question is whether or not they're getting paid enough to justify Riot's interference with their streams. It's a pointless discussion, they have the power of choice, they can choose to not accept the contract. And then one of the 1000's of other people that would die for the opportunity will take it. And lets not forget they can still make money in other ways then riot. Some are paid by teams, streaming league, coaching, winning prize money, so on. Yes, they make money other way from Riot. that means Riot should not be interfering with them. Such as streaming. Riot is not involved with the money they make from streaming, so why should Riot be involving themselves in such a way? Sorry to interrupt your discussion guys. but someone questioned that 100k is insane. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/league-of-legends-player-makes-close-to-1m-per-year/1100-6415722/ Oce is a special case, he has his own brand, which is not the norm for world class pro players. Do you care to give more details why he is a special case?
That's like saying what Regi and HSGG makes is what the normal LoL player makes.
|
On December 07 2013 06:12 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:10 cLutZ wrote:On December 07 2013 06:02 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:58 Figgy wrote:
Everyone in the LCS is on Salary.
They get it waaaaaaaaaay better than anyone in the business of pro-gaming by a longshot.
It's a small price to pay for League to hold onto it's stranglehold of the MOBA market.
Obviously, they don't want their Employees advertising for the competition. This is the thing, everyone keeps calling the players Riot employees, when in reality I consider them more like contractors. They are contractors. Also, the Riot Salary is just basically the way that Riot ensures that there are less-successful teams available for the good/popular teams to wail on (in theory). That is the real point of the league: To give VES and C9 a chance to be VES and C9, while continuously showcasing TSM/CLG. Then salary should just be tied to what they're contracted to do, which is play LCS. and everything else is moot.
Riot isn't paying them money to play in the LCS. Riot is paying them money for the entire package -- playing the LCS, not streaming competitors' games, not smoking/using drugs on stream, not being toxic in solo queue, etc. It's easier to say the simple thing of "We are paying you to play in the LCS" but the contract shows what they're really paying the players to do.
|
On December 07 2013 06:16 illusiongamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:07 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 06:02 remedium wrote:
Wei, you're using some sort of logical fallacy. NFL players get paid a lot and are the best in their field, so LCS players should get paid a lot because they are the best in their field. There's a disconnect in there.
Basic economics tells us that if these players have something better to do with their time than get $12,000 to compete in LCS, they will leave LCS and go do it. The problem is the LCS is that it is the only league that legitimizes the teams to sponsors, as far as Western LoL is concerned. So they are strong arming teams to follow their contracts or risk losing sponsors by being DQ'd out of LCS. That's called doing business out of bad faith, sure they can do it. But it's a huge dick move. Especially considering the problem was initially created by Riot (long queue times.) On December 07 2013 06:06 illusiongamer wrote:On December 07 2013 05:50 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:47 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On December 07 2013 05:28 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:23 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On December 07 2013 04:38 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 04:33 Ketara wrote:On December 07 2013 04:32 Requizen wrote:
[quote]
That's dumb. Professional athletes shouldn't get payed nearly as much as they do anyway. Not to mention they're making more than fast food employees do. Not off riot. From teams they do. It wouldn't be much of an issue if teams tell their players what they can or can't do in regards to public image because the teams are paying majority of salary. I rather Riot treat their relationship with the teams in regards to LCS as a tournament organizer than as opposed to employer. If riot wants control of player streams they should be paying players for their stream imo, which is clearly not the case. @shallowbay You don't think highly specialized skill that requires 40+ hours a week, that requires a lot of travel, group housing, and promotional gigs doesn't deserve 6figure paycheck? you're the one thats delusional. i'll ignore the 40+ hours a week part, since that's a normal workweek for almost anyone it must really suck to have a mansion paid for by your team travel and promo suck, yes, but any job has its downsides. could be worse from a job with 0 marketable skills outside of the specific industry You could say that about a lot of jobs, and a lot of those jobs pay 6 figures. Saying that Dyrus making 6 figures for playing LoL is insane, is absurd, that's quite reasonable pay considering his fanbase, specialized skillsets, lack of possible replacements, and workload for the job. funny how you're arguing for the professionalism of LoL, but then mock how much the players should get paid for playing a "video game". from the other thread. are we on the same page when i say 6 figures? as in, at least $100,000? i dont think that LOTS of jobs pay that much i'm arguing that if the players want to get respect for playing a "video game" and rise above that stigma, they need to accept professional responsibilities. professional responsibilities should come with actual professional paycheck. Name jobs that have the selectivity of Dyrus's position, and I guarantee you most of those jobs are all 6 figures. On December 07 2013 05:47 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2013 05:38 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:36 JimmiC wrote:
The facts are its great that they are getting paid at all. Out side of korea it rarely happens. And the reason it's low is it's just starting. Not like NFL players made millions when it first started (not even if you take inflation) they made terrible money.
Right now there is a ton of people willing to do it for little to no money so they don't have to pay more. And riot makes way more money off micro transactions then the ad revenue brought in from the pro scene. If that changes and the pro scene advertizers start paying 5.4 billion, which is what a canadian TV network paid the NHL to broadcast the games in Canada, not to mention all the revenue at stadiums and so on. Then they will pay the pros more. For now they just want enough of a scene to keep it popular. And I think they legitimatly want a pro scene which is cool. Not sure why everyone puts negative spins on shit. Yes is could always be better and you could have more, but it could also be worse and you could have less.
People are pretty spoiled to complain about making a living playing a game, if they want a shitty job that pays more, no one is stopping these guys. Whether or not they're getting paid isn't the point, the question is whether or not they're getting paid enough to justify Riot's interference with their streams. It's a pointless discussion, they have the power of choice, they can choose to not accept the contract. And then one of the 1000's of other people that would die for the opportunity will take it. And lets not forget they can still make money in other ways then riot. Some are paid by teams, streaming league, coaching, winning prize money, so on. Yes, they make money other way from Riot. that means Riot should not be interfering with them. Such as streaming. Riot is not involved with the money they make from streaming, so why should Riot be involving themselves in such a way? Sorry to interrupt your discussion guys. but someone questioned that 100k is insane. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/league-of-legends-player-makes-close-to-1m-per-year/1100-6415722/ Oce is a special case, he has his own brand, which is not the norm for world class pro players. Do you care to give more details why he is a special case?
There is a small number of players who have build a brand around themselves/there team.
Hotshotgg & Reginald were the 2 biggest US LoL personality's aswell and owners of there own teams. They build a brand around that team when LoL went big (CLG/TSM) and they earn a lot of money off that brand.
Ocelot is similar in the EU although he doesnt have own team. He is a well known personality and makes a lot of money outside of directly playing.
For most players there salary is a small bit of stream income is what they make, still a healthy number all things considered but it pales to what people like Hotshot/Regi/Ocelot make.
|
On December 07 2013 06:13 Sn0_Man wrote:
I find it strange that consumers are willing to be against a free market where the best product wins in favour of a market where the most highly advertised product wins. I mean, dunno about you but I've had enough of that in "real life" as it were.
People construing this as a reasonable business move are forgetting that this, as a business move, is not a "win-win" move but rather a zero sum move. The more riot gains from this, the more the community loses. If the streamers and the community benefited from something like this, they wouldn't be streaming other things in the first place and Riot wouldn't have to put this shit in their contracts. If this is a "reasonable business move" (which i'm not disagreeing with) then the community should still be hard set against it.
Its like the community is begging to get fucked over by Riot because "thats what real businesses do". Has anybody been paying attention to EA/Blizzard recently? Lol.
Finally, someone gets it.
For all this talk about Coke and Pepsi, if I go to a restaurant and I want Pepsi for some reason but they are Coke exclusive, well, I'm out of luck. Congrats, Coke wins, but the customers lose having choice. If I were to work for Coke, that'd be great, but I don't so I don't give a damn about the well-being of Coke.
If I like watching TOO play Warcraft 3 during server downtime, and now he's unable to, that sucks for me and it sucks for TOO who is losing money on me not watching. But it's okay because it's a great business move for Riot? Why the hell do I care about Riot?
|
On December 07 2013 06:12 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:10 cLutZ wrote:On December 07 2013 06:02 wei2coolman wrote:On December 07 2013 05:58 Figgy wrote:
Everyone in the LCS is on Salary.
They get it waaaaaaaaaay better than anyone in the business of pro-gaming by a longshot.
It's a small price to pay for League to hold onto it's stranglehold of the MOBA market.
Obviously, they don't want their Employees advertising for the competition. This is the thing, everyone keeps calling the players Riot employees, when in reality I consider them more like contractors. They are contractors. Also, the Riot Salary is just basically the way that Riot ensures that there are less-successful teams available for the good/popular teams to wail on (in theory). That is the real point of the league: To give VES and C9 a chance to be VES and C9, while continuously showcasing TSM/CLG. Then salary should just be tied to what they're contracted to do, which is play LCS. and everything else is moot.
Well, the unknown teams are paid to either get good enough to survive on their own, or to lose. The good teams are paid to essentially be beloved characters for Riot. Think of TOO and Dyrus as Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse.
What I don't understand is how the teams have allowed this to happen. Its like, really risky to me for a TSM, etc to accept these terms.
Imagine: Xspecial streams Hearthstone. Riot can: Suspend Xspecial from LCS, Ban Him, dock the team wins, or remove the team from LCS. They would probably do #1, and for a week or 2 only. But that could be several losses for TSM, and could force them to play C9 in the playoffs, or it could knock them to relegation, etc. Moreover, the salary is not that much for TSM, so I wonder if they have actually negotiated sweetheart deals with Riot to get paid more than other teams in the LCS (which I totally think they should).
|
On December 07 2013 06:13 Sn0_Man wrote:
I find it strange that consumers are willing to be against a free market where the best product wins in favour of a market where the most highly advertised product wins. I mean, dunno about you but I've had enough of that in "real life" as it were.
People construing this as a reasonable business move are forgetting that this, as a business move, is not a "win-win" move but rather a zero sum move. The more riot gains from this, the more the community loses. If the streamers and the community benefited from something like this, they wouldn't be streaming other things in the first place and Riot wouldn't have to put this shit in their contracts. If this is a "reasonable business move" (which i'm not disagreeing with) then the community should still be hard set against it.
Its like the community is begging to get fucked over by Riot because "thats what real businesses do". Has anybody been paying attention to EA/Blizzard recently? Lol.
Those of us saying it's a business move and something real businesses do are bringing some reality to the situation where various people have some absurd notion that it's illegal/unheard of/crazy etc.
Saying that it happens in the real world is a counterpoint to idiots saying it is against human rights/illegal/etc. It's not, and it's a common thing. That doesn't mean it's good or bad, it is what it is and everyone will have and is entitled to their own opinion. What they shouldn't be doing is making stupid statements and claims about legality etc. Make judgements about ethics, that's fine.
It's a reasonable business move in the grand real world of business. That doesn't make it win-win, but Riot are interested in themselves, not us.
Do you think, for example, that Valve making Steam OS is really a win-win? No, it's a self interest move with a long term goal which isn't about consumers at all, but they can spin it as being win-win in the short term, which is all most people people think about. Pretty much everyone moves in their own interest, they just do it in their own way, and often manage to spin it in a PR positive way (like Valve) rather than having it negatively impact them (like this).
|
On December 07 2013 06:27 kainzero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:13 Sn0_Man wrote:
I find it strange that consumers are willing to be against a free market where the best product wins in favour of a market where the most highly advertised product wins. I mean, dunno about you but I've had enough of that in "real life" as it were.
People construing this as a reasonable business move are forgetting that this, as a business move, is not a "win-win" move but rather a zero sum move. The more riot gains from this, the more the community loses. If the streamers and the community benefited from something like this, they wouldn't be streaming other things in the first place and Riot wouldn't have to put this shit in their contracts. If this is a "reasonable business move" (which i'm not disagreeing with) then the community should still be hard set against it.
Its like the community is begging to get fucked over by Riot because "thats what real businesses do". Has anybody been paying attention to EA/Blizzard recently? Lol. Finally, someone gets it. For all this talk about Coke and Pepsi, if I go to a restaurant and I want Pepsi for some reason but they are Coke exclusive, well, I'm out of luck. Congrats, Coke wins, but the customers lose having choice. If I were to work for Coke, that'd be great, but I don't so I don't give a damn about the well-being of Coke. If I like watching TOO play Warcraft 3 during server downtime, and now he's unable to, that sucks for me and it sucks for TOO who is losing money on me not watching. But it's okay because it's a great business move for Riot? Why the hell do I care about Riot?
The implication is that in the long run a move that supports Coke/Riot in the short term gives them the means to improve their product which translates into an improvement for the customer in the long run.
The implication is that supporting Riot in their control over the LCS system will allow them to provide a better E-sports "product". Which, well, that depends on your view of the LCS system as a whole.
On December 07 2013 06:28 cLutZ wrote:
Imagine: Xspecial streams Hearthstone. Riot can: Suspend Xspecial from LCS, Ban Him, dock the team wins, or remove the team from LCS. They would probably do #1, and for a week or 2 only. But that could be several losses for TSM, and could force them to play C9 in the playoffs, or it could knock them to relegation, etc. Moreover, the salary is not that much for TSM, so I wonder if they have actually negotiated sweetheart deals with Riot to get paid more than other teams in the LCS (which I totally think they should).
They can also fine him off TSM's salary, which realistically is the most likely case.
|
On December 07 2013 06:33 NotYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:27 kainzero wrote:On December 07 2013 06:13 Sn0_Man wrote:
I find it strange that consumers are willing to be against a free market where the best product wins in favour of a market where the most highly advertised product wins. I mean, dunno about you but I've had enough of that in "real life" as it were.
People construing this as a reasonable business move are forgetting that this, as a business move, is not a "win-win" move but rather a zero sum move. The more riot gains from this, the more the community loses. If the streamers and the community benefited from something like this, they wouldn't be streaming other things in the first place and Riot wouldn't have to put this shit in their contracts. If this is a "reasonable business move" (which i'm not disagreeing with) then the community should still be hard set against it.
Its like the community is begging to get fucked over by Riot because "thats what real businesses do". Has anybody been paying attention to EA/Blizzard recently? Lol. Finally, someone gets it. For all this talk about Coke and Pepsi, if I go to a restaurant and I want Pepsi for some reason but they are Coke exclusive, well, I'm out of luck. Congrats, Coke wins, but the customers lose having choice. If I were to work for Coke, that'd be great, but I don't so I don't give a damn about the well-being of Coke. If I like watching TOO play Warcraft 3 during server downtime, and now he's unable to, that sucks for me and it sucks for TOO who is losing money on me not watching. But it's okay because it's a great business move for Riot? Why the hell do I care about Riot? The implication is that in the long run a move that supports Coke/Riot in the short term gives them the means to improve their product which translates into an improvement for the customer in the long run. The implication is that supporting Riot in their control over the LCS system will allow them to provide a better E-sports "product". Which, well, that depends on your view of the LCS system as a whole. Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:28 cLutZ wrote:
Imagine: Xspecial streams Hearthstone. Riot can: Suspend Xspecial from LCS, Ban Him, dock the team wins, or remove the team from LCS. They would probably do #1, and for a week or 2 only. But that could be several losses for TSM, and could force them to play C9 in the playoffs, or it could knock them to relegation, etc. Moreover, the salary is not that much for TSM, so I wonder if they have actually negotiated sweetheart deals with Riot to get paid more than other teams in the LCS (which I totally think they should). They can also fine him off TSM's salary, which realistically is the most likely case.
If Coke used their market advantage to kill Pepsi and had no competition, it's pretty bad for the market and the consumer, isn't it?
|
Oh yes sorry Steam OS exists so that consumers get fucked over by having choices. Gotcha.
I'm all for more choice (Steam OS) and very much against one company unilaterally crushing choice (this). Things that are good: Open markets that offer consumers choice. Things that are bad: Closed markets where businesses can say "My way or the Highway". Also known as monopolies.
The fact that in your words "Riot are interested in themselves and not us" is a problem. The community really ought to whine, bitch, moan and campaign until Riot does what the community wants, because if the community doesn't then Riot is gonna do whatever it damn well pleases at the consumer's expense just like any other business. If thats what you want, then I don't really know what to tell you.
|
One thing I think is a bit overlooked is that riot offers their streamers something which is unusual in the business.
Doesn't riot advertise some players as "featured streamers"? Additionally to that, streamers benefit from the regulated competitive scene with only a few but meaningful games in the way that they have more time streaming and less competition. Compare that to dota where pros play 10+ games a week and tournaments are running 24/7. It's a much harsher environment for streamers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
