EPTBlizzard paying for teams and houses? what are you guys smoking?
KeSPA responds to Blizzard - Page 21
| Forum Index > News |
|
wiesel
Germany727 Posts
Blizzard paying for teams and houses? what are you guys smoking? | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
The sponsors work together to make SC as profitable for them (via exposure to the fans) as possible. When KeSPA says they work for the benefit of the fans, that is actually true, since more fans = more exposure for the sponsors. But like I've said, they don't really care about the vast majority of the players, only the ones with significant fan bases: the rest are replaceable and are treated as such. Furthermore, they don't care about e-sports in general. They care about the e-sports sponsored by themselves. If another company wants to get into e-sports without benefitting the KeSPA sponsors, then KeSPA's best interest is to forcibly shut them down, like we saw with GOM. Basically, they want to maintain a monopoly on e-sports. On June 01 2010 03:32 snowdrift86 wrote:Again, your point is inane. Those sponsors that find esports to be worth the investment are in KeSPA. If other companies were involved, then it would just be KeSPA under another name. GOM will perhaps find its own sponsors, but with all the companies interested in a long-term investment in esports (not just one or two starleagues) already in KeSPA, there's no reason to think that they will. Korean business culture makes it even less probable, as the chaebols are all closely linked and often imbricated with one another in joint ventures, so that if KeSPA refuses to deal with GOM other companies will follow suit. Maybe other potential sponsors disagree with the way KeSPA runs things, in some way? Or maybe some of the competitors of the existing sponsors are being kept out of the loop? Even if every possible sponsor is already a part of KeSPA (which I doubt), that doesn't mean they won't deal with Blizzard + GOM in the future, especially if there is money to be made sponsoring GOM and SC2. I can see why the sponsors oppose Blizzard's terms. Not only do they want to avoid paying licensing fees to Blizzard, they also want to avoid losing control of the scene, which makes e-sports a much more risky investment. Still, if other companies play ball with Blizzard and start profiting from it, then it may illustrate that the companies can still turn a nice profit despite the added fees and increased risks. Being a business itself, I doubt Blizzard would take a huge risk like this -- the risk of destroying the e-sports scene for StarCraft and greatly hurting their games -- if they hadn't already spoken to or made deals with other potential sponsors to keep e-sports going strong even with KeSPA temporarily out of the picture. | ||
|
Rkie
United States1278 Posts
| ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
On June 01 2010 03:36 Ryo wrote: Like you said, Kespa minimises the risks for sponsors. The risk is a lot higher than 10% considering the millions it costs to run a gaming house each year. It took over a decade for the SCBW scene to get to the level of sponsorship it has today. E-sports is not like football (soccer) in Korea, the returns aren't nearly as great. You're exaggerating the amount of money to be made in E-sports. Why would sponsors readily invest millions into an industry if you take away their ability to minimize loses/their representative organization? Corporations like Samsung/STX/SKT, if the risk outweigh the benefits, they will simply not invest. And if massive conglomerates pull their sponsorship of teams, what makes you so sure other corporations will readily jump in? Why invest millions into e-sports when you have little bargaining power against Blizzard? Kespa may be unnecessary from your perspective but certainly not from the perspective of sponsors. I'm not sure at all. Every non-KeSPA controlled theory I have includes the stipulation that there is money to be made. If I can prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that you can profit from investing into my league or tournament, why wouldn't you? I don't think I've exaggerated the amount of money anywhere in my posts. Truthfully, I have a hard time believing that these companies see a worthwhile return from esports period, but there must be something that keeps them coming back. Sponsors should have rights, but not at the expense of player's rights. I don't understand how anyone expects esports to grow if KeSPA stayed as they are right now. They have NO intention of going international. GOM, god bless them, tried and was thwarted by sponsors who were focused on the short term losses they may or may not take from a non-KeSPA sanctioned tournament being run. | ||
|
iounas
409 Posts
On June 01 2010 03:50 Smikis wrote: gom> kespa.. i dont give a shit if there is 50 games a week, or just 5.. if i can watch those 5 in English commentary, in english website, without having to listen to some korean screaming, not to mention trying to find games in korean website = i dont give a shit if there is a terrorist attack that kills many people as long as Im not affected.. Korean sponsors are paying for leagues so they can get exposure and advertise to Korean audiences.. Why would they care about internationals.. Does Lithuanian basketball league have english commentary? No? Those bastards... | ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
On June 01 2010 04:00 keV. wrote: I don't understand how anyone expects esports to grow if KeSPA stayed as they are right now. They have NO intention of going international. GOM, god bless them, tried and was thwarted by sponsors who were focused on the short term losses they may or may not take from a non-KeSPA sanctioned tournament being run. Why would they go international? Kespa was made for Korean Esports, not for international esports. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On June 01 2010 02:59 snowdrift86 wrote: They're the SPONSORS. No KeSPA = no money = no proscene. That's why saying that they're making a profit when this is mainly an advertisement venture is a bit silly. How can people keep missing this point? It's beyond me. | ||
|
L6-636536
United States94 Posts
The whole dispute between acti-blizzard and kespa doesnt even matter at this point. | ||
|
lundril
Germany12 Posts
On June 01 2010 03:16 WGT-Baal wrote: Well KeSPA arguments looks nice but there is one point that disturbs me: when they say that esports is like a regular sport and its broadcasting is therefore free, then taking adidas as an example, is completly misleading. You pay to braodcast the world cup! Adidas is an equipment maker, just like razer in a league for instance so obviously they dont get anything. But the broadcasts are never free. ... This is not obvious at all when it comes to IP rights. The design of the sport shoes (the IP) is owned by adidas. So it is not clear that you are allowed to broadcast anything which shows that IP (the design). Also think about car racing: Each and every car manufacturer could claim that you are only able to "play this game", because they created/invented the necessary cars. The car companies could also claim that when you buy a car that you only buy a license to use this car but in you do not own the car. (A little bit like a hidden leasing contract...) Then the car manufacturers could claim that they own the broadcasting rights for every kind of car race, since your license does not include to broadcast images of this car. Additionally they could forbid any kind of modification to a car which is used in a car race or otherwise, because the car is their product and you are not allowed to modify it. The big difference is that with a car you would simply not accept these terms, whereas with a computer game for some unknown reason people seem to believe that this kind of purely synthetic IP rights are reasonable... I wonder if it would help if all SC:BW videos are banned from youtube for a while, with the reasoning that putting SC:BW videos on youtube is exactly the same as broadcasting SC:BW games via TV. Maybe then some of the posters here will come to the conclusion that this kind of IP rights are unreasonable. (Just imagine: No VOD thread anywhere on TL...) It might also be helpful if Microsoft started to claim that broadcasters of any computer game running on the Windows OS need the permission from Microsoft. Maybe then some of the posters here might find that this kind of IP rights are unreasonable. (Just imagine: No VODs of gaming anywhere in the world...) | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On June 01 2010 03:52 hacpee wrote: Who will pay for the team's salaries? For the housing and food? Blizzard? If so, great. Maybe no one will, at first. That's fine. Players don't need to be paid salaries to produce great games of StarCraft. Honestly, they don't need to play 11-13 hours a day, either. Maybe they won't have perfect macro anymore, or perfectly-timed builds for every situation, but so what? Players 5+ years ago sucked compared to today -- hell, the best player at the time, Boxer, was known for having some of the worst macro of any of the high-level pros. But they were still fantastic to watch. Even now, there's no money in progaming for the vast majority of players. That wouldn't change. You just wouldn't be able to have houses of players who play 13 hours a day and don't have to pay for food. Maybe that would actually be for the better. Maybe we can rebuild an e-sports scene where the average progamer isn't a slave. | ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
| ||
Waxangel
United States33432 Posts
On June 01 2010 04:08 Bill307 wrote: Maybe no one will, at first. That's fine. Players don't need to be paid salaries to produce great games of StarCraft. Honestly, they don't need to play 11-13 hours a day, either. Maybe they won't have perfect macro anymore, or perfectly-timed builds for every situation, but so what? Players 5+ years ago sucked compared to today -- hell, the best player at the time, Boxer, was known for having some of the worst macro of any of the high-level pros. But they were still fantastic to watch. Even now, there's no money in progaming for the vast majority of players. That wouldn't change. You just wouldn't be able to have houses of players who play 13 hours a day and don't have to pay for food. Maybe that would actually be for the better. Maybe we can rebuild an e-sports scene where the average progamer isn't a slave. Fantastic because of the narrative and scene OnGameNet created  | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On June 01 2010 04:07 lundril wrote: [snip] Blizzard is not going to stop everyone from broadcasting SC/SC2. It may say that in the EULA, but they won't because it would do far more harm than good. Blizzard makes more money as a result of people streaming themselves playing Blizzard's games, and organizing tournaments for it. Why would Blizzard stop that? Blizzard has simply decided that it can make more money from the e-sports scene in Korea by acting on its ownership of the broadcasting rights there. Blizzard believes they can keep e-sports going in Korea while also having control over the broadcasting and receiving broadcasting fees. And if they can't, then it is in their best interest to return to the current model, so that they can continue to benefit from the presence of e-sports even if they don't have control or receive fees. As you can see, this situation is vastly different from people uploading videos to Youtube. | ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
On June 01 2010 04:08 Bill307 wrote: Maybe no one will, at first. That's fine. Players don't need to be paid salaries to produce great games of StarCraft. Honestly, they don't need to play 11-13 hours a day, either. Maybe they won't have perfect macro anymore, or perfectly-timed builds for every situation, but so what? Players 5+ years ago sucked compared to today -- hell, the best player at the time, Boxer, was known for having some of the worst macro of any of the high-level pros. But they were still fantastic to watch. Even now, there's no money in progaming for the vast majority of players. That wouldn't change. You just wouldn't be able to have houses of players who play 13 hours a day and don't have to pay for food. Maybe that would actually be for the better. Maybe we can rebuild an e-sports scene where the average progamer isn't a slave. So you're saying you'd rather have players at the level of Therock rather than Stork? If you enjoy watching that, I don't know what to say? | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
What is so hard to understand about that. | ||
|
iounas
409 Posts
On June 01 2010 04:08 Bill307 wrote: Maybe no one will, at first. That's fine. Players don't need to be paid salaries to produce great games of StarCraft. Honestly, they don't need to play 11-13 hours a day, either. Maybe they won't have perfect macro anymore, or perfectly-timed builds for every situation, but so what? Players 5+ years ago sucked compared to today -- hell, the best player at the time, Boxer, was known for having some of the worst macro of any of the high-level pros. But they were still fantastic to watch. Even now, there's no money in progaming for the vast majority of players. That wouldn't change. You just wouldn't be able to have houses of players who play 13 hours a day and don't have to pay for food. Maybe that would actually be for the better. Maybe we can rebuild an e-sports scene where the average progamer isn't a slave. Why would players keep playing if only few top players are winning all prize money.. It will become a hobby then and hobby is opposite of pro gaming. | ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
On June 01 2010 04:16 StarStruck wrote: Whatever money they make directly goes right back into their network = non-profit. KeSPA represents all the Sponsors; in other words, every team/sponsor has a representative in the board of directors. ._. What is so hard to understand about that. So the profit KeSPA doesn't make goes back into pro-teams. Such nice guys. The interests KeSPA protects sure as hell do not put everything they make back into e-sports. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On June 01 2010 04:10 Waxangel wrote: Fantastic because of the narrative and scene OnGameNet created Thankfully, I don't think we'd be regressing to 2003-level-of-play. We have higher expectations now, and the players (even non-pros) have a lot of skill built up from all these years of intense StarCraft.Even so, I don't think they have to be perfect to be entertaining. The TSLs are great example of how entertaining non-slave SC and SC2 players can be. Edit: relatedly: On June 01 2010 04:16 iounas wrote: Why would players keep playing if only few top players are winning all prize money.. It will become a hobby then and hobby is opposite of pro gaming. Edit 2: On June 01 2010 04:16 hacpee wrote: So you're saying you'd rather have players at the level of Therock rather than Stork? If you enjoy watching that, I don't know what to say? I guess you guys must really dislike the TSL, then. All those hobby players must be an eye-sore! | ||
|
wiesel
Germany727 Posts
Maybe we can rebuild an e-sports scene where the average progamer isn't a slave. Just wondering how much is a B-Teamer earning each year compared to the average yearly south korean income? Only heard stories like a B Teamer makes ~10k a year which in addition with housing and food would still be decent compared to a average south korean income of 20k$+(like my googled source says, i dont know) a year. | ||
Milkis
5003 Posts
| ||
| ||
