EPT2) Does not restrict them when they don't stream
Based on those two points I see no harm. It does however make Riot seem a little effy, monopoly stuff, Poland's been through that and I can tell you: not nice at all.
Riot S4 LCS contract discussion - Page 6
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
McRatyn
Poland901 Posts
2) Does not restrict them when they don't stream Based on those two points I see no harm. It does however make Riot seem a little effy, monopoly stuff, Poland's been through that and I can tell you: not nice at all. | ||
|
Masq
Canada1792 Posts
Riot is also paying salaries to these players right? You don't see other 'athletes' from various sports running around with rivals jerseys and promoting the competition. It's not like they're saying they can't play those games, they just don't want them promoting it. | ||
|
perfidiusrex
Belgium78 Posts
On December 06 2013 04:40 Masq wrote: Makes a lot of sense and seems fair enough to me. Riot is also paying salaries to these players right? You don't see other 'athletes' from various sports running around with rivals jerseys and promoting the competition. It's not like they're saying they can't play those games, they just don't want them promoting it. depends what you define by competition.wow+diablo+hearthstone i doubt they are competition.dota2 maybe.and yes you see athlethes promoting other sports besides the ones they play in.in the superbowl or important basketball match athlethes form all competitions attend and are filmed in the stadium | ||
|
Kaneh
Canada737 Posts
People saying riot is evil because they're not being philanthropists And just throwing money away no strings attached. | ||
|
nojitosunrise
United States6188 Posts
On December 06 2013 04:07 NotYango wrote: Which is exactly why player unions exist to give players leverage in the face of such a monopoly. How are unions relevant when the restrictions everyone is angry about still exists?? Just because there is a lol players union doesn't magically mean these kinds of restrictions go away. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
| ||
|
Zhiroo
Kosovo2724 Posts
On December 06 2013 04:48 Sufficiency wrote: I think what Riot did was totally reasonable, but Riot's idea was misrepresented from the initial 'leak'. Also, the average LoLers are too .... dumb, if you will ... to understand this is how it works in the real world. Of course it was misrepresented considering who 'leaked' it. | ||
|
NotYango
United States719 Posts
On December 06 2013 04:43 Kaneh wrote: This is basic labor relations. But since Internet, it's getting sensationalized to a ridiculous degree. People saying riot is evil because they're not being philanthropists And just throwing money away no strings attached. In "basic labor relations" you either negotiate as a collective entity to protect your collective interests, or there are at least multiple employers competing for the same labor pool which keeps them in check. On December 06 2013 04:45 nojitosunrise wrote: How are unions relevant when the restrictions everyone is angry about still exists?? Just because there is a lol players union doesn't magically mean these kinds of restrictions go away. It means that the players have collective bargaining power against contract terms which they disagree with (and clearly quite a few players do disagree with it). Anyone sensible knows that the actual restriction itself has very little meaning (quite literally the only game on that list played in any sigificant capacity by LCS players is Hearthstone). It's much more a matter of precedent that makes this worrisome. | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On December 06 2013 04:45 nojitosunrise wrote: How are unions relevant when the restrictions everyone is angry about still exists?? Just because there is a lol players union doesn't magically mean these kinds of restrictions go away. It means that players can have a lawyer review Riot's contracts and negotiate unfavorable terms. It means that a controversial restriction like this that severely limit players' activities may not make it into the contract, or if it does, the players can get something favorable to them in return. Much better for the players when their hand isn't forced by the "take it or leave it" contractual terms Riot has full power over. Honestly I'm less annoyed by this particular restriction than I am the fact that Riot will continue to force upon players these one-sided contracts and there are still people who are against a player's union. | ||
|
nojitosunrise
United States6188 Posts
On December 06 2013 04:52 NotYango wrote: In "basic labor relations" you either negotiate as a collective entity to protect your collective interests, or there are at least multiple employers competing for the same labor pool which keeps them in check. It means that the players have collective bargaining power against contract terms which they disagree with (and clearly quite a few players do disagree with it). Players still have bargaining power in the LCS even without a union. And labor unions in the NBA NFL haven't prevented extremely restrictive contracts from being created. | ||
|
Shelke14
Canada6655 Posts
I think overall for what riot does for the teams and players it is a fair middle ground. | ||
|
RouaF
France4121 Posts
On December 06 2013 04:43 perfidiusrex wrote: depends what you define by competition.wow+diablo+hearthstone i doubt they are competition.dota2 maybe.and yes you see athlethes promoting other sports besides the ones they play in.in the superbowl or important basketball match athlethes form all competitions attend and are filmed in the stadium Of course it is competition. When there are 30 million people playing LoL there are less people playing WoW and vice versa. As we all know League of Legend despite not being a RTS is a huge competitor to starcraft 2, it even "stole" its esport spotlight. So yes all those Blizzard games are potential competitors, ESPECIALLY hearthstone which is the "hype" game of the moment and which targets exactly the same audience : casual game, easy to play, free etc. | ||
|
saddaromma
1129 Posts
On December 05 2013 15:59 Mannerheim wrote: The non-compete analogy is irrelevant here. When you stream you're not getting paid by Blizzard, Riot or any other gaming company, but by Twitch and the advertisers. I work in software development and I'm rather certain my contract doesn't bar me from streaming myself writing code for myself, and getting paid for it via the advertisements. It's called capital income, in the same way as stock dividends, i.e. no company can forbid you from buying the stock of a competing company and profiting from the dividends. Your analogy is irrelevant. You're not a public face. Better example: Cristiano Ronaldo wearing Barcelona shirt in public and getting shot by paparazzi. How would real madrid feel? | ||
|
Ethelis
United States2397 Posts
| ||
|
perfidiusrex
Belgium78 Posts
On December 06 2013 05:17 RouaF wrote: Of course it is competition. When there are 30 million people playing LoL there are less people playing WoW and vice versa. As we all know League of Legend despite not being a RTS is a huge competitor to starcraft 2, it even "stole" its esport spotlight. So yes all those Blizzard games are potential competitors, ESPECIALLY hearthstone which is the "hype" game of the moment and which targets exactly the same audience : casual game, easy to play, free etc. i think it is a mistake to presume that people play only 1 game.in general people try out and play dozens of games at the same time depending on which they consider the most fun.playing lol doesnt prevent you from playing wow and diablo and hearthstone.guess what:you can play all of them at the same time.the fact that riot thinks if they prevent dyrus from playing hearthstone they will slow the growth of hearthstone they have another thing coming | ||
|
BlueSpace
Germany2182 Posts
On December 05 2013 20:18 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Other people have already pointed out that when pro players play other game than LoL they do not promote the said game, but promote themselves. And, yeah, nobody would give a flak if they banned only MOBA games (we all know how dirty Riot plays on that ground from the day one, basically), but banning non-esportish Blizzard games like WoW, Warcraft 3 or Diablo, which are by no means LoL's direct competetitors, is another story. I do not know what do you mean by "witch hunting", but your (crack-pot) theory certainly deserves a little praise. I mean by witch hunting, that people paint Riot as being super evil for doing something that any of their competitors would also do if they were in the same position. You can critizise Riot for creating LCS the way it is, but it makes no sense to start this discussion every time Riot again behaves like a regular company. LCS = Promotion. Lol = Computer Game. Promoting Lol = Play more LoL over any other game. It is that simple. | ||
|
NotYango
United States719 Posts
| ||
|
Souone
Brazil470 Posts
On December 06 2013 05:31 saddaromma wrote: Your analogy is irrelevant. You're not a public face. Better example: Cristiano Ronaldo wearing Barcelona shirt in public and getting shot by paparazzi. How would real madrid feel? Isn't Riot FIFA though ? It's Cristiano Ronaldo wearing an NFL shirt. Or is Riot FIFA and Real ? What is TSM here ? Or are sports analogies just bad ? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ProBot
Canada170 Posts
 ) so i fail to see the point. It seems like they're trying to create an imaginary bridge between property rights and an individuals stream to control competition and i don't know how that doesn't come off as apparent when the list of games includes every other non-moba e-sport title, and coincidentally enough every other top viewed game being streamed on twitch. It might be good for riot in the short term, don't think it'll last. Just makes me more anxious for the blizzard moba tbh. | ||
| ||
