[Patch 6.16] Kled General Discussion - Page 8

On August 23 2016 17:01 cLutZ wrote:
It does, as is typical of Riot, circle back to the lack of dissenting voices ever being in the room, or the company at all.

Sure Regi is never going to win the laneswaps argument, but then you accuse him of funneling money out of league? That's ridiculous. The LCS stipend doesn't cover half thier salaries and they probably don't come out ahead pre -sponsors unless they win worlds. Do they think TSM and CLG should just stick around as vassal states to a rigid company with no games evidently in the pipeline, that pays a stipend that was outdated 3 years ago, offers the lowest prizepool of any major game, and has low prospects for future monetization?

On August 23 2016 17:01 cLutZ wrote:
[...] The LCS stipend doesn't cover half thier salaries and they probably don't come out ahead pre -sponsors unless they win worlds. Do they think TSM and CLG should just stick around as vassal states to a rigid company with no games evidently in the pipeline, that pays a stipend that was outdated 3 years ago, offers the lowest prizepool of any major game, and has low prospects for future monetization?

On August 23 2016 14:27 iCanada wrote:
I mean...

Tryndamere basically came out and called Regi a cheapskate who doesn't want to fairly pay his players, and said he is trying to funnel money out of competitive LoL into other e-Sports. I can see how Tryndamere would think that is a bad thing, but even if he felt that... him suggesting that is a bad thing can't possibly do anything but piss his entire customer base off.

Not to mention, I am fairly sure a lot of that is BS. I mean, TSM exists because of LoL, but I am also pretty sure TSM gets a lot more from HTC, Logitech, HyperX, Redbull, Geico, Twitch, and Cyberpower than they do from Riot in the first place. Which, may be largely because of their popularity with the league community, but it isn't like Riot was open to accepting more corporate sponsorships regardless.

Conveniently he went back and deleted half that stuff.

http://i.imgur.com/6H14ghF.jpg

vs

https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/4z1eec/reginald_on_how_riots_major_patch_changes_hurt/d6sarg4

Sure it is more interesting, but it is also some kind of stupid.

On August 23 2016 20:23 Prog wrote:


Why does it matter if they come out ahead pre-sponsors? That's just not how sports work (at least those I am familiar with). They all rely on sponsorship, why should it be different in league? It's not the job of a league to make sure that teams have enough money. That's the teams' job.

On August 23 2016 23:47 GrandInquisitor wrote:

Reginald asking for more money is a pretty interesting point. Where is that money going to come from?

In a traditional sport money comes from the fans via ticket sales, paying for cable TV, merchandise, and (indirectly) sponsorships. The first two aren't true for LCS since tickets cost barely anything and you can stream every game for free. And the third and fourth are already 100% for the owners, since I assume Riot doesn't take a cut of the TSM store's revenues or TSM's RedBull sponsorship.

So that money's only going to come from Riot. And that's what makes Tryndamere mad, though even he wouldn't say this. Why should Reginald get more money from Riot? What does Reginald do for Riot, compared to what Riot has done for him?

On August 24 2016 01:12 cLutZ wrote:


It is actually how "sports" works. Most teams get the bulk of their money from "the league" through shared revenue on national deals, and gate is 2nd. The sponsors for NFL, NBA, MLB teams are a tiny portion. E-sports is different and a lot comes from sponsorships, but for TSM a lot of that isn't team-specific, some of it also is on Solomid.net, Redbull sponsors all TSM teams across games, etc. Its not really relevant, but neither is the accusation that money is being funneled out of League, because Riot is probably including money Regi gets from his website empire (and sponsors/streamers there) as "League revenue" when he could capture that with or without the LCS.

On August 24 2016 02:40 GrandInquisitor wrote:
I don't think Riot actually tells it as a sob story. It should be patently obvious to everyone in the world that LCS is a loss leader. The only question is, how should the people that participate in that loss leader be compensated?

Suppose that Nathan's Hot Dogs is sponsoring a hot dog eating league. It pays regular salaries to competitors and organizes tournaments that pay out prize money. Should the hot dog eaters band together and demand a share of the overall sales of hot dogs? Isn't the real dispute just over how much their salaries / prize money should be?

Also, how the fuck is Riot going to sell broadcast rights? Because it's damn clear that if they were going to sell it to ESPN, ESPN is not going to be OK with them broadcasting the games on YouTube/Twitch. So the only way broadcasting money is viable is if you have to pay for ESPN in order to watch LCS. Yeah, let me know how that'll go.

On August 24 2016 02:40 GrandInquisitor wrote:
I don't think Riot actually tells it as a sob story. It should be patently obvious to everyone in the world that LCS is a loss leader. The only question is, how should the people that participate in that loss leader be compensated?

Suppose that Nathan's Hot Dogs is sponsoring a hot dog eating league. It pays regular salaries to competitors and organizes tournaments that pay out prize money. Should the hot dog eaters band together and demand a share of the overall sales of hot dogs? Isn't the real dispute just over how much their salaries / prize money should be?

Also, how the fuck is Riot going to sell broadcast rights? Because it's damn clear that if they were going to sell it to ESPN, ESPN is not going to be OK with them broadcasting the games on YouTube/Twitch. So the only way broadcasting money is viable is if you have to pay for ESPN in order to watch LCS. Yeah, let me know how that'll go.