|
On December 07 2013 06:38 Sn0_Man wrote:
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 systems that offer consumers choice. Things that are bad: Closed systems where businesses can say "My way or the Highway".
The fact that "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.
How is the company crushing choice?
The players can play whatever the hell game they want. They just won't get paid by Riot if they choose to stream themselves doing so.
No one is stopping people from doing what they want, they just won't get paid as much if they do it. because Riot won't pay them.
Unless you don't think there is any competition for LoL. You seem to think that the players are being forced to play LoL or something. Last I checked, they chose to play LoL. If they don't want to suffer under Riot's rules, they are free to play Dota 2 or anything else they want.
|
On December 07 2013 06:38 Sn0_Man wrote:
The fact that "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.
Well, no, that's sort of the extreme.
The reality is that everyone will protect their own interests, and the medium we eventually reach is where those interests connect.
Riot will protect their own interests. They're in their right to do so. But at the same time, we as consumers are equally within our rights to protect our own interests, and to speak out against something we dislike. It is not somehow distasteful or wrong for people to speak out against this decision if it does not feel like it does not align with their own, as some people seem to suggest.
Put simply, there is no obligation for Riot to act in the consumer's best interest. But equally so, there is no obligation for us as consumers to accept their decision when we feel it does not align with our interest. What aligns with our interest is something that people will disagree on, but I find it hypocritical how condescending some people have been in this thread toward people who dislike the terms of the contract.
On December 07 2013 06:37 Seiuchi wrote:
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?
Anti-trust law applies in some fashion before you reach that logical extreme so that slippery slope doesn't apply.
|
On December 07 2013 06:43 NotYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:38 Sn0_Man wrote:
The fact that "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. Well, no, that's sort of the extreme. The reality is that everyone will protect their own interests, and the medium we eventually reach is where those interests connect. Riot will protect their own interests. They're in their right to do so. But at the same time, we as consumers are equally within our rights to protect our own interests, and to speak out against something we dislike. It is not somehow distasteful or wrong for people to speak out against this decision if it does not feel like it does not align with their own, as some people seem to suggest. Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:37 Seiuchi wrote:
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? Anti-trust law applies in some fashion before you reach that logical extreme so that slippery slope doesn't apply.
Riot's already succeeded at getting tournaments to ban games it doesn't want shown along LoL, it tried to get teams to not have DotA squads if they had LoL squads before the teams disputed it, and with this contract dispute, haven't we already pretty much gone down the slope?
Not to mention anti-trust as a form of law has basically withered on the vine, but I guess that's a different debate and I go to TL to escape looking at the law more.
|
On December 07 2013 06:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:16 illusiongamer wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Thanks for the information.
I only start follow LoL with OGN Summer semi-finals.
|
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.
Yes they're contractors. Basically Riot Games is just a promotions company and the LCS teams are their fighters.
Would you see a UFC fighter hyping up a Strifeforce event? I bet they aren't even aloud to attend the events of a rival promotion l0l.
|
I don't really know how I feel about this whole ordeal. I get the parallels to 'real business' but at the same time I feel there is a uniqueness to the medium of streaming and the role it plays for these gamers/personalities that also happen to be LCS pros, that complicates the issue in my head on whether I think it's fair play or not.
I really wish I knew what Riot's endgame with all of this was. Do they want to continue to control all things related to League, or do they eventually want to be able to hand the game over to leagues and broadcasting networks ala Korea and China.
|
At this point its safe to say riot treasure their absolute control over all things LoL.
|
On December 07 2013 07:34 red_ wrote:
I don't really know how I feel about this whole ordeal. I get the parallels to 'real business' but at the same time I feel there is a uniqueness to the medium of streaming and the role it plays for these gamers/personalities that also happen to be LCS pros, that complicates the issue in my head on whether I think it's fair play or not.
I really wish I knew what Riot's endgame with all of this was. Do they want to continue to control all things related to League, or do they eventually want to be able to hand the game over to leagues and broadcasting networks ala Korea and China.
I'm rather excited that Riot's willing to try, but we'll see how it pans out.
|
On December 07 2013 06:49 Seiuchi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:43 NotYango wrote:On December 07 2013 06:38 Sn0_Man wrote:
The fact that "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. Well, no, that's sort of the extreme. The reality is that everyone will protect their own interests, and the medium we eventually reach is where those interests connect. Riot will protect their own interests. They're in their right to do so. But at the same time, we as consumers are equally within our rights to protect our own interests, and to speak out against something we dislike. It is not somehow distasteful or wrong for people to speak out against this decision if it does not feel like it does not align with their own, as some people seem to suggest. On December 07 2013 06:37 Seiuchi wrote:
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? Anti-trust law applies in some fashion before you reach that logical extreme so that slippery slope doesn't apply. Riot's already succeeded at getting tournaments to ban games it doesn't want shown along LoL, it tried to get teams to not have DotA squads if they had LoL squads before the teams disputed it, and with this contract dispute, haven't we already pretty much gone down the slope? Not to mention anti-trust as a form of law has basically withered on the vine, but I guess that's a different debate and I go to TL to escape looking at the law more.
There are actually significant anti-trust ramifications to some of Riot's deals with IPL and MLG if the DOJ ever really starts to care about esports. That is also a huge motivator for them having their own league: they get complete control with no risk of being exposed to the risk of an antitrust suit.
Edit, also, Coke could drive Pepsi out of business totally legally, as long as they do it by making a better product, more cheaply, etc. They just can't negotiate in bad faith, etc, which is why grocery stores all have both.
|
On December 07 2013 07:44 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:49 Seiuchi wrote:On December 07 2013 06:43 NotYango wrote:On December 07 2013 06:38 Sn0_Man wrote:
The fact that "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. Well, no, that's sort of the extreme. The reality is that everyone will protect their own interests, and the medium we eventually reach is where those interests connect. Riot will protect their own interests. They're in their right to do so. But at the same time, we as consumers are equally within our rights to protect our own interests, and to speak out against something we dislike. It is not somehow distasteful or wrong for people to speak out against this decision if it does not feel like it does not align with their own, as some people seem to suggest. On December 07 2013 06:37 Seiuchi wrote:
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? Anti-trust law applies in some fashion before you reach that logical extreme so that slippery slope doesn't apply. Riot's already succeeded at getting tournaments to ban games it doesn't want shown along LoL, it tried to get teams to not have DotA squads if they had LoL squads before the teams disputed it, and with this contract dispute, haven't we already pretty much gone down the slope? Not to mention anti-trust as a form of law has basically withered on the vine, but I guess that's a different debate and I go to TL to escape looking at the law more. There are actually significant anti-trust ramifications to some of Riot's deals with IPL and MLG if the DOJ ever really starts to care about esports. That is also a huge motivator for them having their own league: they get complete control with no risk of being exposed to the risk of an antitrust suit. Edit, also, Coke could drive Pepsi out of business totally legally, as long as they do it by making a better product, more cheaply, etc. They just can't negotiate in bad faith, etc, which is why grocery stores all have both.
What? What Riot did was equivalent of a business negotiating for exclusivity for it's product at an event. This happens everywhere.
|
That is what Riot's lawyers would say 
But the reality is, the case would hinge on how the DOJ and a Federal Judge defined the "Relevant Market". Is the market esports events in the US? Is it MOBAs at esports events held in California? These are arguments good AT lawyers (not me) would make.
|
I doubt antitrust can even exist in the eSports market, especially when consider that someone like Valve controls their made Dota 2 tournament which is like 90% of the prizemoney in Dota 2. Riot can't do anything to harm their competitor directly while their competitor is set up like that.
Also you'd have to define what you were anti trusting, since is eSports different to gaming, or is it the same?
|
On December 07 2013 06:42 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 06:38 Sn0_Man wrote:
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 systems that offer consumers choice. Things that are bad: Closed systems where businesses can say "My way or the Highway".
The fact that "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. How is the company crushing choice? The players can play whatever the hell game they want. They just won't get paid by Riot if they choose to stream themselves doing so. No one is stopping people from doing what they want, they just won't get paid as much if they do it. because Riot won't pay them. Unless you don't think there is any competition for LoL. You seem to think that the players are being forced to play LoL or something. Last I checked, they chose to play LoL. If they don't want to suffer under Riot's rules, they are free to play Dota 2 or anything else they want.
Let's say I enjoy watching Dyrus play Hearthstone for some reason.
Well, now I can't.
As a consumer, I am denied a choice. Now I need to watch Trump play Hearthstone or watch Dyrus play LoL.
|
This is a necessary move by Riot. People are bitching about it way too much because they dont understand how the real world works
|
Also about Gordon Heyward since he was brought up(I didn't read a lot of pages in the middle of this thread so sorry of this was clarified already), it isn't some crazy non-compete that made him stop streaming when the NBA lockout ended, it's the fact that THE FUCKING NBA LOCKOUT ENDED. Turns out being a pro athlete is a ton of work, and he started streaming significantly less when he was actually playing pro ball.
He still streams(League of Legends even, lulz), the Utah Jazz aren't worried about him advertising another 'sport.'
|
On December 07 2013 08:34 red_ wrote:
Also about Gordon Heyward since he was brought up(I didn't read a lot of pages in the middle of this thread so sorry of this was clarified already), it isn't some crazy non-compete that made him stop streaming when the NBA lockout ended, it's the fact that THE FUCKING NBA LOCKOUT ENDED. Turns out being a pro athlete is a ton of work, and he started streaming significantly less when he was actually playing pro ball.
He still streams(League of Legends even, lulz), the Utah Jazz aren't worried about him advertising another 'sport.'
Riot aren't worried about people streaming basketball either (obv not NBA since that would be copyright infringement probably, but other basketball would be fine, apart from being against the TOS of Twitch, unless it was an NBA game).
Or did you magically see basketball on the list of banned things for streaming where I missed it?
|
United States23745 Posts
|
On December 07 2013 08:37 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 08:34 red_ wrote:
Also about Gordon Heyward since he was brought up(I didn't read a lot of pages in the middle of this thread so sorry of this was clarified already), it isn't some crazy non-compete that made him stop streaming when the NBA lockout ended, it's the fact that THE FUCKING NBA LOCKOUT ENDED. Turns out being a pro athlete is a ton of work, and he started streaming significantly less when he was actually playing pro ball.
He still streams(League of Legends even, lulz), the Utah Jazz aren't worried about him advertising another 'sport.' Riot aren't worried about people streaming basketball either (obv not NBA since that would be copyright infringement probably, but other basketball would be fine, apart from being against the TOS of Twitch, unless it was an NBA game). Or did you magically see basketball on the list of banned things for streaming where I missed it?
Is this supposed to be some magical 'gotcha' moment where you caught me being intellectually irresponsible? It's a response to the specific insinuation that Heyward stopped streaming video games when the lockout ended because it was some sort of rule he had to follow. Nowhere in my post am I stating anything near what you assert I have(in fact, I'm basically saying the opposite, since I am clearly putting forth that pro sports and video game streams are of no interrelated business concern).
|
New update was posted on reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1sa59j/update_on_the_lcs_streaming_policy/
Hey everyone,
There’s been a ton of discussion around our LCS team contracts, which stipulated active LCS players couldn’t stream a variety of other games.
First, background on why we did this: there’ve been instances of other game studios trying to buy access to League fans by using (or trying to use) LCS teams/players to promote their competing games on stream.
The way we chose to deal with this was clearly an overreach. It hit our goal of preventing companies from advertising through LCS players, but it also encroached on pros’ ability to have fun and entertain viewers during long Challenger queues – and we realize that’s not cool.
After reading all of your comments and having a LOT of internal debate over the last 24 hours, we’re going to be changing the LCS team requirement to something that more closely matches our intent. While under contract to the LCS, teams and players can’t accept sponsorship from other game companies to promote other titles. Besides that, they are free to stream any games they want.
|
B) changed to still fill its purpose in a better way. Good to hear
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
