dogabutila wrote: Magic Johnson did not reinvent basketball or turn it into another game because he was the first person to do behind the back dribble. Basketball is still basketball. Just played differently within the same framework. Players finding out how to vulture micro or muta micro did not mean they were no longer playing starcraft. They just found out that starcraft allowed one to do certain things.
Its strange that you don't see the new bugs and tricks people found as being something that changes how you play pretty drastically since its a new tool to add to the arsenal. In order for SC:BW to flourish and become what it is today though, it took a lot of adjusting the game itself through patches which is what I was getting at. Eventually rulings on certain discoveries (tools) decided what was "legal" and "illegal" as far as moves go. The whole user-driven patch update system plus the rulings on the new "legal/illegal" moves isn't on par with "This pro player owns the sport because they're good at it". Its more on par with the addition of the 3-point line in basketball, the field goal and extra point in American football, etc. Also you're a little too assuming in your view that taking away the major lead organization of a somewhat localized sport would simply result in them moving on. E-Sports isn't strong yet, this is still going to be a serious blow because everyone is going to be in chaos for a little while until the changing of hands or the changing over is finished.
I'm not siding with either KeSPA or Activision Blizzard on this one. Its important to realize though that this really is a major decision that unless handled very very carefully can easily result in the (at least temporary) destruction of E-sports. To assume anything less would be asking for a bad outcome.
This seems extremely short sighted by KeSPA the more I think about it. They're in a shitty spot that is in no way as good as it was before Blizzard's involvement. They'd love if things stayed the same, but that's not a realistic option at this point. SC2 will move forward and Blizzard will be a huge force behind it. Even if KeSPA holds onto BW, isn't that simply delaying the inevitable and also cutting them out of the pie of SC2 entirely?
If BW fades that would mean they have nothing left. If SC2 goes forward they wont be involved and gain nothing from its success or popularity. Putting all your eggs in one basket seems like a terrible idea.
I have a theory as to why blizzard has given the rights to a korean company regaurding starcraft. Maybe blizzard has the thought in their head (and im sure some of the TL community does too) that if KeSPA takes them to court over IP rights, KeSPA may win the case because KeSPA is a korean company that is well known and the courts would back them up (possibly) over blizzard because they are a well known korean company. But if blizzard throws the rights to another company that is korean, they would have a better chance with them in court. blizzard intellegence +1?
On June 10 2010 15:37 NotGood- wrote: I have a theory as to why blizzard has given the rights to a korean company regaurding starcraft. Maybe blizzard has the thought in their head (and im sure some of the TL community does too) that if KeSPA takes them to court over IP rights, KeSPA may win the case because KeSPA is a korean company that is well known and the courts would back them up (possibly) over blizzard because they are a well known korean company. But if blizzard throws the rights to another company that is korean, they would have a better chance with them in court. blizzard intellegence +1?
This thought has occurred to me as well. I mean, beside the fact that esports (with regard to SC) is pretty much monopolized by Korea (not implying any certain company/firms, simply the evolution of culture) and there would be pretty much no other country that would continue the SC tradition, I think this is another reason as to why this decision was made (to license to another Korean company).
dogabutila wrote: Magic Johnson did not reinvent basketball or turn it into another game because he was the first person to do behind the back dribble. Basketball is still basketball. Just played differently within the same framework. Players finding out how to vulture micro or muta micro did not mean they were no longer playing starcraft. They just found out that starcraft allowed one to do certain things.
Its strange that you don't see the new bugs and tricks people found as being something that changes how you play pretty drastically since its a new tool to add to the arsenal. In order for SC:BW to flourish and become what it is today though, it took a lot of adjusting the game itself through patches which is what I was getting at. Eventually rulings on certain discoveries (tools) decided what was "legal" and "illegal" as far as moves go. The whole user-driven patch update system plus the rulings on the new "legal/illegal" moves isn't on par with "This pro player owns the sport because they're good at it". Its more on par with the addition of the 3-point line in basketball, the field goal and extra point in American football, etc. Also you're a little too assuming in your view that taking away the major lead organization of a somewhat localized sport would simply result in them moving on. E-Sports isn't strong yet, this is still going to be a serious blow because everyone is going to be in chaos for a little while until the changing of hands or the changing over is finished.
I'm not siding with either KeSPA or Activision Blizzard on this one. Its important to realize though that this really is a major decision that unless handled very very carefully can easily result in the (at least temporary) destruction of E-sports. To assume anything less would be asking for a bad outcome.
The game does not magically become something else simply because one finds that it is possible to do something different. New moves, and tricks might change HOW one plays the game, or how one approaches the game. Very rarely does it change the game itself.
What is more comparable, not the addition of a 3 point line (which was actually done for no real reason other then because league officials thought it might be more fun for viewership if they encouraged long shots...not something to do with user driven updates to rules), might possibly be offensive goaltending and dunking. When the first leagues started, there was a fixed height to baskets. As time went on, professional players became taller and more athletic. Eventually they were able to dunk the ball. However, this created a problem in regards to offensive goal tending rules. Previously, the rule had been basically that one could not touch the ball or basket when the ball is above imaginary cylinder above the hoop.
Section I-A Player Shall Not: a. Touch the ball or the basket ring when the ball is using the basket ring as its lower base. b. Touch the ball when it is above the basket ring and within the imaginary cylinder. etc, down to i.
The rules only defined what goaltending (rather, basket interference) was, and if one went straight by the letter of these rules. Obviously though, one cannot goal tend ones own shot by the act of shooting it. So the rule was amended. (or rather, exception added.)
Section I-A Player Shall Not: a. Touch the ball or the basket ring when the ball is using the basket ring as its lower base. EXCEPTION: If a player near his own basket has his hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if his contact with the ball continues after the ball enters the cylinder, or if, in such action, he touches the basket. b. Touch the ball when it is above the basket ring and within the imaginary cylinder. etc, down to i.
That is real user driven patching. It isn't a major change to rules. There are just clarifications and rulings on legality (much like boxer and allied mines). In this case, an exception had to be added. In other cases rules are changed. However, this is done to keep the game consistent with what the nature of the game should be. Thus, the changes or clarifications are done to keep the game as similar as possible within the framework, and not to create a completely new game.
Indeed, much of the time a change in gameplay or metagame or what is 'possible' changes, yet the rules do not significantly change. Occasionally the rules MUST change to keep the game as similar as possible without breaking the game. The game itself remains the same. Basketball does not become NBA ball because of the rule changes. It is simply still basketball. Basketball that remains as consistent as possible. That is real user driven patching. It isn't a major change to rules. There are just clarifications and rulings on legality (much like boxer and allied mines).
There are historic precedents for major orgs. of localized games disbanding or having to stop organizing for whatever reason, and the game continues to go on.
In regards to Kespa and esports, the dissolution of Kespa will not negatively impact esports. Why? Because another league will be ready to form immediately. There will be no vacuum in which things might die. If (or when) kespa dies. Gretech will immediately step in. The only problem that might possibly prevent Progamers from switching over would be no-compete clauses. Yet this does not even make sense as the contracts are not with Kespa but with the specific team they are on. Kespa will not exist, but samsung will still exist, CJ will still exist, and the teams will continue to be funded by those companies _as they are currently_
Basically, the teams, players, leagues, and broadcasters don't disappear when Kespa dies. Since the teams still exist, and since leagues will still exist, games will likely continue to be played. There is no sense in CJ staying in Kespa and being blocked out from playing when they could withdraw membership from Kespa and join the new league.
Previously, GOM failed because Kespa had the upper hand, in as much as they were the monopoly and GOM was challenging the monopoly. Since broadcasters and leagues are already part of Kespa they did not want a threat to their ability to make money and shut the new league down. Yet in this new 2010 case, it is the new league with the ability to keep the monopoly from doing what they do to make money. Gretech holds all the cards; Kespa will have to negotiate or they will disband. The teams will eventually make their way to the new GOM league, or players contracts will expire and move to the new leagues.
On June 10 2010 12:48 theramstoss wrote: 99% of Korean netizens are siding against KeSPA, just so you guys know.
interesting, I would be interested to hear what their take on activision-blizzard is.
I cant help but wonder if this isnt a double case of reverse "the devil you know is worse than the one you dont".
maybe its easy for us outside of korea to look at activision-blizzard as being the bad guy because they are who we interact with, and the koreans look at kespa as being the bad guys because that's who they interact with.
Also, I would appreciate if you could confirm that most koreans with interest are siding against kespa. Not that I dont believe you, but I might like to know where this sentiment is coming from.
The thing is, "esports" can continue without game developers, but it can NOT continue without sponsors. Which is, frankly, too bad.
On June 10 2010 23:39 red_b wrote: The thing is, "esports" can continue without game developers, but it can NOT continue without sponsors. Which is, frankly, too bad.
I disagree. "E-Sports" can't continue without both. However, it can continue without a 3rd party like KeSPA.
On June 10 2010 23:39 red_b wrote: The thing is, "esports" can continue without game developers, but it can NOT continue without sponsors. Which is, frankly, too bad.
I disagree. "E-Sports" can't continue without both. However, it can continue without a 3rd party like KeSPA.
you're right, I was not being clear.
"esports" can continue without specific developers (e.g. blizzard), but it cannot with sponsors in general. and kespa is the sponsor(s) for brood war.
this makes me happy. changes are so exciting, regardless of the outcome! i would be more happy if kespa just made a deal with blizzard (now gretech), but that is something that only kespa decides.
I don't think blizzard wants sc1 to go away at all and in fact I believe they are counting on it continuing. Like I said in another post, blizzard's best bet and goal is to not shut down the leagues but to add some sort of requirement in order to promote sc2. For example they may give unlimited broadcasting rights as long as they spend 10% of the live coverage discussing or promoting sc2. Blizzard is a smart company and they will do whatever is best for sc2. Upsetting sc1 fans is not something that is good for profits. Promoting sc2 during sc1 games is.
On June 09 2010 06:43 Plexa wrote: This is a disgusting situation. If things don't improve, all the people the article talked about at the end could lose their livelihood. I mean, does gretech intend to continue the SC1 scene? I would hate to see our beloved game die due to politics.
I agree wholeheartedly Plexa.
But as for the OP, I do not think this is simply KeSPA's ego getting in the way. There is no guarantee that a Korean Court will uphold the supposed IP rights of Blizzard. So really, I don't see that they ever have to negotiate with Blizzard.
On June 11 2010 03:45 darmousseh wrote: Blizzard is a smart company and they will do whatever is best for sc2. Upsetting sc1 fans is not something that is good for profits. Promoting sc2 during sc1 games is.
Ownership. Game clients and Service. The Game clients and the Service (including without limitation any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialogue, catch phrases, concepts, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions, audio-visual effects, methods of operation, moral rights, documentation, in-game chat transcripts, character profile information, recordings or replays of Games, and the Game client and server software) are copyrighted works owned by Blizzard and its licensors.
and by extension blizzard claiming they own replays makes my analogy about Adobe trying to claim owenership of pictures made in photoshop is a valid one.
You do realize that if you're right, that means anybody can make derivative novels, games or movies based on Disney characters like Mickey Mouse, right? They don't because Disney will sue them.
Adobe makes publishing software. That's a completely different type of IP than creative works.
I wonder if anyone from Blizzard is even on KeSPA's board of directors. Legally, I think Blizzard has the overall advantage to the rights, but you know how any legal system can be influenced or corrupted. As for people pondering or complaining about Blizzard's recent moves against E-Sports, it's just to protect their rights and their property. If the majority of an E-Sports scene was built upon violating people's rights and property, it just sends a red flag. I do have sympathy for the progamers if this drastically changes to a point where they can no longer have a stable sponsorship. I know that SC/BW wasn't created specifically for E-sports, but when you install the game, you agree to the EULA. Just like World of Warcraft, I can pay $15 USD a month to play, and I can get banned for no reason by Blizzard. Might not be good for business, but they have the right to it since you agreed to the EULA.
Got to remember when Blizzard started negotiating with KeSPA. I think Blizzard had thoughts about their IP rights being violated long before early 2007, but didn't start negotiating until around the time SC2 was announced, because it was a new game intended support for E-Sports.
Somehow, I do get the feeling that if Blizzard retains their SC/BW IPs and maintains SC2 IP, they will later patch in LAN support on SC2.
look at all the korean law experts on tl.net...sc and google are the same age...blizzard's sudden interest in its relatively ancient RTS IP is transparent to all observing...
blizzard is really falling off a cliff here...wc3 was a mediocre product, sc2 just might be worse...now they're making some powerplay that - whether INTENTIONAL OR NOT - is likely to severely damage or kill outright the korean esports scene....a scene admired and beloved of tens if not hundreds of thousands of international fans outside of korea...they should have shown some integrity and put sc2 head to head with bw - let the better product win...instead they flinched, doubted themselves, and created this situation...they've been exposed, sc/bw was clearly a fluke...these are merely the symptoms of the slow, grinding decay of their accidental RTS supremacy...
On June 09 2010 06:56 Veil wrote: Think Gretech or Blizzard would take up the reins regarding all aspects of E-sports after Kespa is gone?
Long as E-sports and Pro-teams grow in the future, I don't really care who is running it.
Except that if KeSPA loses, there will be no one to sponsor the teams. T___T
This.... I think we may end up with a lose-lose situation, either that or a lose- win for a very short period of time. I hope some thing good comes out of this.
EPT
