|
On December 05 2013 06:27 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 06:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 05 2013 06:14 Redox wrote:On December 05 2013 04:47 Zealos wrote:
This just about sums up the problem I, and a lot of non-LoL players have with Riot.
Op needs some work though. Why should you as a non-LoL player (and presumably non-LoL stream watcher) care which content LoL streamers stream? Well there are guys who care about other esports and this move from riot shows again that they aren't happy til every other competitor fails. I mean i can understand why they do this, it makes sense business wise, but it feels so wrong. I hope some players will voice their opinion about it, but i fear nobody will risk the LCS spot for something like that. Imo it feels normal. If you sign with Nike, you dont wear anything from Adidas. If you are a celeb advertising for Coke, you are not supposed to be seen drinking Pepsi in public. If you are sponsored by Razor, you dont use Steelseries gear in public. It is simple professionalism.
The difference is that lol players get money for being in the lcs, not for streaming league of legends (as far as i know).
But well, riot aims for more power and they will get it, i just wonder what is next, maybe LCS players have to shittalk Blizzard and Valve next? (/jk)
|
On December 05 2013 06:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 06:27 Redox wrote:On December 05 2013 06:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 05 2013 06:14 Redox wrote:On December 05 2013 04:47 Zealos wrote:
This just about sums up the problem I, and a lot of non-LoL players have with Riot.
Op needs some work though. Why should you as a non-LoL player (and presumably non-LoL stream watcher) care which content LoL streamers stream? Well there are guys who care about other esports and this move from riot shows again that they aren't happy til every other competitor fails. I mean i can understand why they do this, it makes sense business wise, but it feels so wrong. I hope some players will voice their opinion about it, but i fear nobody will risk the LCS spot for something like that. Imo it feels normal. If you sign with Nike, you dont wear anything from Adidas. If you are a celeb advertising for Coke, you are not supposed to be seen drinking Pepsi in public. If you are sponsored by Razor, you dont use Steelseries gear in public. It is simple professionalism. The difference is that lol players get money for being in the lcs, not for streaming league of legends (as far as i know). But well, riot aims for more power and they will get it, i just wonder what is next, maybe LCS players have to shittalk Blizzard and Valve next? (/jk)
This is how jobs work though, my contract pays for my time spent in the office, but there's still a no-compete clause stating that I can't work for/represent/advertise any competitors at any other time.
The equivalent for other e-sports would be players representing sponsors competitors on-stream (as they are the one's paying the bills). Anyone who thinks Valve/Blizzard etc... wouldn't include the same clause if they were directly employing players are forgetting that this is a business and these companies are in it to make money.
|
I bet most LCS proplayers are totally okay with this, that's the joke.
I like the idea Riot's management is seriously afraid that their "employees" are eventually going to promote other products than their own so much they don't think any public backlash can hurt them more in the long run.
Ah, good luck. Let's see will LCS be intact in say, five, years. Five consecutive years with all Asian World Championship Grand Finals no matter how atrocious and rigged format higher executives will come up with.
|
Caldeum1977 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:33 nojitosunrise wrote:
What i get from this is that even though it's in the contract, Riot doesn't enforce it? Only on MOBAs?
It can't be that old of a contract if it also includes Hearthstone in it...
|
On December 05 2013 06:29 FlyingToilet wrote:
I always have a friend who defends riot for stuff like this, if i bring up the controversy with pendragon, its all just company mentality, i mean who cares about killing esports when your making money? It's still inexcusable and i hope the community slams riot for this.
But not making money actually kills ESPORTS...
|
Whalen responds http://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1s38ea/lcs_2014_contract_stipulates_players_cannot/cdtp3xj
We say this all the time: we want League of Legends to be a legitimate sport. There are some cool things that come from that (salaried professional athletes, legitimate revenue streams, visas, Staples Center), but there’s also a lot of structural work that needs to be done to ensure a true professional setting.
We recognize there may be some differences of opinion in the perception of pro players’ streams. In the past, pro gamers only had to worry about their personal brands when streaming and, at most, may have had to worry about not using the wrong brand of keyboard to keep their sponsor happy. Now, however, these guys are professionals contracted to a professional sports league. When they’re streaming to 50,000 fans, they’re also representing the sport itself.
I can’t stress enough how these guys in the LCS are on the road to being real, legitimate athletes. This is new territory for a lot of teams (especially in esports), because the transition goes from being a group of talented individuals to being real icons of a sport and a league. Similarly, you probably wouldn’t see an NFL player promoting Arena Football or a Nike-sponsored player wearing Reebok on camera. Pro players are free to play whatever games they want – we’re simply asking them to keep in mind that, on-stream, they’re the face of competitive League of Legends.
|
There's a huge kneejerk reaction to this, but it's really not that big of a deal. Reddit blew it way out of proportion, but looking at the contract (which may not even be the final draft they had the players sign), there's not too many issues here from my perspective. It's fairly standard - the NFL wouldn't want players advertising or playing in the CFL while under contract, so why would Riot want their players to advertise competing products?
It looks like all Riot wants to do is keep LoL content separate from other competitive games content, which is kind of understandable. Hearthstone might be a bit of a stretch, but I understand them wanting to keep Dota 2 out of their LoL streams, and let's be realistic. Is this really going to affect guys like qtpie playing FFX in between streams? Of course not. Are people going to have to sit there and stare awkardly at pro players while they queue? No, the pro players will find other ways to entertain their stream in between games. The most that's going to have to happen is that all the Hearthstone spammers will have to find a new game to play or way to entertain during queue times.
|
I guess it doesn't seem ridiculous to ya'll that a player can't stream hearthstone while he's waiting for his 20+ minute queue to pop?
|
speaking of smite, you guys remember when all the TSM guys were mass streaming it?
|
Yeah, if Riot are paying players they have a right to restrict what games they stream. But the NFL doing something similar doesn't make this not an issue. Maybe if the NFL would be less restrictive it would be good for all involved. Just like in this case. Riot could be less restrictive which builds good will and it might be better for them in the long run.
|
Remember when I brought up the idea of a player's union and the Riot employee posting here said it was completely unnecessary and harmful? LOL!
The problem isn't with Riot trying to put favorable conditions in their contracts, it's the fact that the players have no ability for collective action or negotiating power.
|
Because Hearthstone is so much competition.
And poor people who tune in to see LoL on twitch, see some different game and keep watching for hours before realizing it's not LoL.
I guess when you have the most popular game, you start to want to have the only sole game.
|
On December 05 2013 08:23 Slow Motion wrote:
Remember when I brought up the idea of a player's union and the Riot employee posting here said it was completely unnecessary and harmful? LOL!
The problem isn't with Riot trying to put favorable conditions in their contracts, it's the fact that the players have no ability for collective action or negotiating power.
unions are harmful if they are created incorrectly. GIven how little money is in eSports, i can definitely see a union taking advantage of it's members by asking for unnecessary "fees" or monetary contributions.
|
On December 05 2013 08:33 nojitosunrise wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 08:23 Slow Motion wrote:
Remember when I brought up the idea of a player's union and the Riot employee posting here said it was completely unnecessary and harmful? LOL!
The problem isn't with Riot trying to put favorable conditions in their contracts, it's the fact that the players have no ability for collective action or negotiating power. unions are harmful if they are created incorrectly. GIven how little money is in eSports, i can definitely see a union taking advantage of it's members by asking for unnecessary "fees" or monetary contributions.
I suggested a player formed union that could be scrutinized by the public (and accountable by law). The argument the Riot employee was making is that it would have just slowed thing down and that Riot always knows what's best. It was such an absurd argument but I didn't call him out on his obvious bias at the time cause I probably would have gotten banned.
Veterans of the scene with management experience like Hotshot and Reginald need to step up.
|
This is pretty much the same as banning a NBA player from playing hockey in his free time.
|
On December 05 2013 08:53 Glasse wrote:
This is pretty much the same as banning a NBA player from playing hockey in his free time.
and trying to get their hockey game broadcast on TV while taking a cut of the advertising. stop with the analogies if you're going to be wrong and or stupid.
|
On December 05 2013 08:59 ItsFunToLose wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 08:53 Glasse wrote:
This is pretty much the same as banning a NBA player from playing hockey in his free time. and trying to get their hockey game broadcast on TV while taking a cut of the advertising. stop with the analogies if you're going to be wrong and or stupid.
this is just like the NBA banning gordon hayward from streaming SC2.
|
On December 05 2013 08:59 ItsFunToLose wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 08:53 Glasse wrote:
This is pretty much the same as banning a NBA player from playing hockey in his free time. and trying to get their hockey game broadcast on TV while taking a cut of the advertising. stop with the analogies if you're going to be wrong and or stupid.
It's saying you can't make money by advertising our competition, a standard no-compete clause in any employment contract.
|
On December 05 2013 08:53 Glasse wrote:
This is pretty much the same as banning a NBA player from playing hockey in his free time.
Uhhh... not even close. First of all, NBA players are only on TV when they're playing basketball. While they're playing basketball, they can't promote other sports or activities they may be a part of (See: Gordon Hayward who was all about SC2 when the NBA was on strike, and suddenly disappeared after it came back... huh) their lives. In fact, they can't even promote products that they're not suppose to promote or they get fined out the ass for it.
Second, they can still play these games during the LCS - They just can't stream them because that makes sense. If you're going to be contracted and paid by a company, you best be promoting their product when you're showing your face to the public, not someone else's. Riot needs their players to be standing by the game 100% so companies will invest into LoL, and not have to expect players or teams to drop it because this new game came out last week, and everyone thinks it's going to be hot shit. No point in investing in something if the wind is going to change in a year or two.
Third, most people are overreacting about this. It's a step in the right direction - a giant one at that. People want Esports to be more legit, but when shit like this comes along, the viewers rant and rave about it. I'm just glad that Riot will likely not back down in this instance just because a bunch of whiney fans think they know better which they don't.
|
On December 05 2013 09:06 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 08:59 ItsFunToLose wrote:On December 05 2013 08:53 Glasse wrote:
This is pretty much the same as banning a NBA player from playing hockey in his free time. and trying to get their hockey game broadcast on TV while taking a cut of the advertising. stop with the analogies if you're going to be wrong and or stupid. this is just like the NBA banning gordon hayward from streaming SC2.
Except SC2 is not a direct competitor to basketball, not even close, and if it were, they would ban him from doing it during the season. It makes sense, and if you disagree with it, you probably know little to nothing about how you should contract players if you want a company to invest in your team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
