|
On March 06 2010 01:16 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 01:09 TestSubject893 wrote:On March 05 2010 08:41 StarcraftMan wrote:
"Selling just as well" is not enough. Blizzard wants to start an E-Sport revolution and their base right know is Korea. I guarantee you that when SC2 is about to be released and Blizzard is unable to establish a pro-league for SC2 in Korea, Blizzard will give in to Kespa because having no SC2 pro league at all in the strongest E-Sport base in the world is much worse than a successful SC2 league run by Kespa where Blizzard gets not profits.
Why is it that having no pro teams in Korea is worse for Blizzard than not getting money for it? Yes, they have said that e-sports is a large focus of SC2, but that is likely more of a design goal than a business goal. Dustin Browder is not the one negotiating with KeSPA here; it is Activision executives. They don't give a fuck if pro teams exist or not, unless it means that their company is getting more money. It's their job to make the most money for the company, and they don't care what any community thinks unless it has an impact on sales. 4.5 mln copies of SC sold in Korea, esport had influenced that for sure, or do you believe that so much exposure in TV for your game don't influence sells?
I apologize, my post wasn't clear. I know that it will have some influence on sales, but one would also assume that SC:BW on TV would similarly influence SC2 sales (though to a lesser extent). To clarify, I was attempting to point out that, it is almost entirely a business decision. Our view of the Korean pro scene is much different than that of a business executive, and if it means taking the risk of a moderately small loss in sales in exchange for the potential of hugely increased profits, then I'm sure most executives would take that risk. From StarcraftMan's post, I inferred that he believed that Blizzard had a huge stake to lose if they did not come to an agreement with KeSPA, almost as if SC2 would not be a success overall if it is not a successful e-sport. I was simply trying to point out that, those negotiating with KeSPA will not judge success on whether or not SC2 is a successful e-sport, but rather on the revenue that it generates for Activision.
edit: It was pointed out that Activision and Blizzard are owned by Vivendi, rather than Activision owning Blizzard, I apologize for this misunderstanding, but I believe the general ideas in my post remains unchanged by this fact.
|
On March 06 2010 01:30 TestSubject893 wrote:
[ From StarcraftMan's post, I inferred that he believed that Blizzard had a huge stake to lose if they did not come to an agreement with KeSPA, almost as if SC2 would not be a success overall if it is not a successful e-sport. I was simply trying to point out that, those negotiating with KeSPA will not judge success on whether or not SC2 is a successful e-sport, but rather on the revenue that it generates for Activision.
But deal with KeSPA =/= no direct income from esports in Korea for Blizzard, it means that they would have to share it, organization will alweys cost money with KeSPA or without it.
On March 06 2010 01:30 TestSubject893 wrote: I was simply trying to point out that, those negotiating with KeSPA will not judge success on whether or not SC2 is a successful e-sport, but rather on the revenue that it generates for Activision.
Revenue from what? Who would finance leagues/teams with no rights to profit for them? Blizzard know nothing about Korean esports it would not be easy for them to organize it, and it would likely cost them more then it is worth to avoid dealing with KeSPA.
|
France2061 Posts
It's true that Kespa has a lot more to lose than Blizzard. Blizzard has its WoW cash cow, and they'll still sell millions of SC2 copies even without any proscene. They just won't be able to reliably milk it in the long term like they seem to want to do with all of their franchises. Kespa, on the other hand, will stagnate if it sticks with SCBW and torpedoes SC2 -- they need the game to rekindle interest in progaming. So, although they probably do have the muscle to prevent the game from succeeding in Korea if they don't negotiate satisfactory terms with Blizzard (people forget that they're an official, government-recognized body), it will hurt them a lot more than it hurts Blizzard.
That's why I doubt the doomsday scenarios will come to pass.
|
On March 06 2010 02:53 snowdrift86 wrote:
It's true that Kespa has a lot more to lose than Blizzard. Blizzard has its WoW cash cow, and they'll still sell millions of SC2 copies even without any proscene. They just won't be able to reliably milk it in the long term like they seem to want to do with all of their franchises. Kespa, on the other hand, will stagnate if it sticks with SCBW and torpedoes SC2 -- they need the game to rekindle interest in progaming. So, although they probably do have the muscle to prevent the game from succeeding if they don't negotiate satisfactory terms with Blizzard (people forget that they're an official, government-recognized body), it will hurt them a lot more than it hurts Blizzard.
That's why I doubt the doomsday scenarios will come to pass.
SC2 will be part of e-sport. It's just a matter of who will give in first. The $$ of blizzard or the player-controlling-power of kespa
|
On March 06 2010 02:45 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 01:30 TestSubject893 wrote:
[ From StarcraftMan's post, I inferred that he believed that Blizzard had a huge stake to lose if they did not come to an agreement with KeSPA, almost as if SC2 would not be a success overall if it is not a successful e-sport. I was simply trying to point out that, those negotiating with KeSPA will not judge success on whether or not SC2 is a successful e-sport, but rather on the revenue that it generates for Activision. But deal with KeSPA =/= no direct income from esports in Korea for Blizzard, it means that they would have to share it, organization will alweys cost money with KeSPA or without it. Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 01:30 TestSubject893 wrote: I was simply trying to point out that, those negotiating with KeSPA will not judge success on whether or not SC2 is a successful e-sport, but rather on the revenue that it generates for Activision. Revenue from what? Who would finance leagues/teams with no rights to profit for them? Blizzard know nothing about Korean esports it would not be easy for them to organize it, and it would likely cost them more then it is worth to avoid dealing with KeSPA.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, but, the way I am reading it, you seem be implying that the only two options are Blizzard gets all the money from the pro scene or KeSPA gets all the money from the pro scene. I believe that most negotiations tend to end with at least a small amount of compromise and therefore the answer to your question "Revenue from what?" is from the pro scene. I'm sure that leagues would still be able to function while paying royalties to Blizzard, and even allowing Blizzard to have some shared control over them.
|
I think that what you guys are missing is the fact that even if Kespa agrees to Blizzard's terms and follows their rules, they will still be making good money. Because of that, in the end, they'll go through with it. This is just Kespa trying to get more money. Why? Because that's just what businesses do. Better for them to try their luck and then give up later than not try at all. But with Blizzard already having deals with MLG and presumably European organizations like ESL later on, Kespa needs Blizzard more than Blizzard needs Kespa.
|
On March 06 2010 03:31 TestSubject893 wrote:Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, but, the way I am reading it, you seem be implying that the only two options are Blizzard gets all the money from the pro scene or KeSPA gets all the money from the pro scene.
No that is why I had written: But deal with KeSPA =/= no direct income from esports in Korea for Blizzard.
What I think is that Blizzard will take all the money if KeSPA will not get contract before it will start to promote SC2.
On March 06 2010 03:31 TestSubject893 wrote:I believe that most negotiations tend to end with at least a small amount of compromise and therefore the answer to your question "Revenue from what?" is from the pro scene. I'm sure that leagues would still be able to function while paying royalties to Blizzard, and even allowing Blizzard to have some shared control over them.
The problem is that KeSPA can't organize SC2 scene before they will have a contract with Blizzard. Without contract you don't know how much Blizzard will want, two scenarios:
1)SC2 fail you will just loose money.
2)SC2 esport will success you will make very little because Blizzard can take as much as it would like. You may even make nothing becouse Blizzard could decide to run they own leagues now when SC2 is popular.
For those reasons you can't work without any contract.
|
I really wonder what people mean when they say that Blizzard "owns" SC2.
In my opinion that just means that you have to buy a copy of SC2 when you want to play it.
Why this means Blizzard automatically must be payed license fees when you want to broadcast an SC2 game on TV, I have no clue.
With the same reasoning you could say that when broadcasting SC2, Microsoft should get payed (because you are running the SC2 on "their" Operating System), Intel or AMD should get payed (because you are running the game on "their" CPU).
The same reasoning says that if you have a race with real cars and you want to broadcast it via TV, you have to pay BMW,Porsche,Ferrari,etc. because you drive "their" cars in the race.
It all comes down to the question what "own" means.
I really do not like the idea that Blizzard "owning" SC2 means that they are allowed to have absolute control over anything which is done with this game.
When I buy a car I also expect that from the point on I bought the car I MYSELF can decide what to do with it and not the car manufacturer.
That is also the reason why I absolutely puke at the fact that SC2 seems to require an internet connection and the battle.net server to play the game together with other players.
It means that I will never be able to play SC2 with friends at home without an internet connection, just because Blizzards does not want me to do that.
It's like buying a car and in the fine print it says: If you intend to drive the car off-road, please contact the car manufacturer for permission first. Horrible idea.
|
I can't wait until KeSPA dies. I think on that day I will sacrifice 100 bulls to honor Blizzard's triumph.
|
lundril, you do not "buy" SC2. You "buy" a license to install a copy of SC2. This gives you certain rights to use the SC2 software personally, but other rights are still reserved by Blizzard. This is what copyright is all about.
For example, when you buy a book, you are not allowed to copy it and sell it to others. When you buy a DVD, you are not allowed to play it in your own theater and charge admission. When you buy a license of a game, well... it's a legal gray area as to whether you can broadcast public displays of that game w/o an additional license agreement.
It is a fallacy to compare copyright laws with property laws. They are not the same thing at all.
|
"Blizzard's treatment of the teams as individual entities could be an effort to undermine their unity on that issue."
retards, seriously
how do they come to the conclusion that the developer of a game THAT IS BASICALLY RELYING ON THOSE GAMERS SUPPORT is trying to undermine what is basically the players union
dumb, dumb, dumb
whoever wrote it should be punched in the face then buried in a bush somewhere. horrible, insipid reporting.
|
ungood: yes I understand what the license from Blizzard says.
I also understand what the license for Microsoft Windows says.
Does the license from MS Windows state that you are allowed to broadcast anything which runs on MS Windows. If not, why do you think that you do not need to pay Microsoft when broadcasting SC1 or SC2 or whatever ?
Would you like it if you would have to pay a fee to Adobe for each published picture which was produced with Photoshop ?
My question is simply why everybody seems to accept this "you just buy a license but nothing else" motto ? After all the Software Companies do not take on ANY kind of responsibility when their software damages your computer (this is also what their license says), or if the software does not work as expected (again what the license says).
So basically you "buy" almost nothing and the SW companies even do not make any kind of warranty about what you bought.
About license texts in general: Just because the license says something does NOT make it legally binding.
For example in Germany it is allowed (or at least was allowed - maybe it changed) to sell the original CD/DVD for a game as long as you did destroy all copies of it you had, even if the license texts basically forbid that. (Court ruled that this kind of license rules are not applicable, because they clash with other laws.) Obviously that is different in the US (you say that you are not allowed to sell a book. In Germany you are allowed to do that.)
|
Does the license from MS Windows state that you are allowed to broadcast anything which runs on MS Windows. If not, why do you think that you do not need to pay Microsoft when broadcasting SC1 or SC2 or whatever ?
fairly sure that would breach antitrust laws 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
