|
On April 17 2010 19:38 Mothxal wrote:
Such an awful analogy. You might as well say "if I buy a CD, why can't I make copies of it and sell them to other people at just under the price of the original CD?". No, in your example the original company would lose something (they lose the sales of the CD). However, if games are played professionally, Blizzard doesn't lose anything, (greedily) they just want in on someone elses profit. On the contrary, most likely Blizzard gains money by having their games played by the pros (as then more people will buy the games).
Do you honestly think any other games company would object if kespa decided to pick their game as the next big thing? I think pretty much all of them would pay money for that to happen. Do you think any cell phone company would complain and demand money if their cell phone was shown in a feature show or in a feature movie? Think any car company would complain? We know they wouldn't, since they pay large sums of money for that to happen as in the long run it increases their income (by exposing their products to a large potential market).
I don't see how Blizzard could possibly demand money for such a thing when any other companies would see it as an honor and a blessing.
|
On April 17 2010 21:21 cartoon]x wrote:honestly if you have a job and make money, 25 dollars is pretty much nothing.
That is not the point, the point is that when you buy it for 25$ you make companies more interested to do gimmicks like that, to split they game into plenty of DLC that cost more, and offer less then traditional expansion. And even those small DLC money can add up to decent sum of $ but I am more worried about motivating companies to make $ on silly gimmicks rather then solid products.
On April 17 2010 21:21 cartoon]x wrote:I realize to a kid it seems like a ton of money. But for something you care about.. it's really not. I'm happy to see blizzard get money - they do great things with it. Look at all the work they put into sc2.
Look what they had put in SC when they were much smaller company, they had completely remade engine because they were not happy with the first alpha version, and they made allot of changes for it. WC3 had sold great, and SC2 will sold great as well they 25$ horse is irrelevant to SC2 production. SC2 will cost more but it will sell more as well, and they had already cover the expenses of new engine by mod selling/2expansions instead of one (or will they be full price(?)/making Diablo3 on the same engine.
On April 17 2010 21:21 cartoon]x wrote: The development of this game must of cost a fortune. Probably came from WoW money. Do you realize how rich blizzard got off WoW? Blizzard gets rich = we all win.
Kespa needs to learn its place. They don't have leverage over sc2, how could they possibly expect to?
We do?
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans 1994
The Lost Vikings II 1995
Justice League Task Force[10] 1995
Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness 1995
Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal 1996
Diablo 1996
StarCraft 1998
StarCraft: Brood War 1998
Warcraft II: Battle.net Edition 1999
Diablo II 2000
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction 2001
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos 2002
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne 2003
World of Warcraft 2004
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade 2007
World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King 2008
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty [11] 2010
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm 2010
Diablo III[ 2011 (?)
Just look how many games we got from Blizz thanks to WOW.
|
Wow, big blow for Blizzard.Now I will have ask my Korean friends if anyone in Korea give a damn about game rating.
Is this make SC2 adult show on TV? lol
|
Lol  BaBy cant play sc2
|
On April 17 2010 21:38 Paladia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2010 19:38 Mothxal wrote:
Such an awful analogy. You might as well say "if I buy a CD, why can't I make copies of it and sell them to other people at just under the price of the original CD?". No, in your example the original company would lose something (they lose the sales of the CD). However, if games are played professionally, Blizzard doesn't lose anything, (greedily) they just want in on someone elses profit. On the contrary, most likely Blizzard gains money by having their games played by the pros (as then more people will buy the games). Do you honestly think any other games company would object if kespa decided to pick their game as the next big thing? I think pretty much all of them would pay money for that to happen. Do you think any cell phone company would complain and demand money if their cell phone was shown in a feature show or in a feature movie? Think any car company would complain? We know they wouldn't, since they pay large sums of money for that to happen as in the long run it increases their income (by exposing their products to a large potential market). I don't see how Blizzard could possibly demand money for such a thing when any other companies would see it as an honor and a blessing.
This post is just dishonest. You can't possibly think creating an entire profitable industry around a game and not compensate the creators of the game one penny is equal to using a mobile phone as a prop in a movie?
I know my analogy was bad too, but that was a parody of yours, since you were coming up with nonsensical analogies first.
|
More people will want to play this game with an adult rating than if it didn't have one at all. Welcome to teenagers.
|
On April 17 2010 22:15 Fzero wrote:
More people will want to play this game with an adult rating than if it didn't have one at all. Welcome to teenagers.
But it will get very limited view from TV or live event. SC2 is a adult show in Korea haha, think about it!
|
Also, isnt GTA legalized in korea?
|
On April 17 2010 22:14 Mothxal wrote:This post is just dishonest. You can't possibly think creating an entire profitable industry around a game and not compensate the creators of the game one penny is equal to using a mobile phone as a prop in a movie?
And what do you think about writers that write in MS office, and don't give any royalties to MS? SC is a software, played game is a new thing made using the software just like a *.doc file. What is the difference? Should MS take royalties for everybody that use windows in they work, why not? What is the difference? Either take royalties or charge for the software, developer really is being very greedy for wanting both of those things, and really there is no need to give those rights to them, they make money on given copy rights laws already.
|
On April 17 2010 21:12 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2010 20:58 Appendix wrote:I´d say it would be more fitting to say that its like you painting a painting, and a gallery makes money from exhibiting your work of art and give you nothing for it. You had just said that players work put into the game adds nothing to the esports . That professional teams add nothing to the esports. Your analogy would only be true if OSL/MBC would show SC:BW box set, and cinematic from the game.
I'm not going to try to defend my analogy because I didn't put much thought into it. The point I was trying to get through is that brushes and tools are easily interchangeable, while BW and SC2 are not. Admittedly, I have to clear my thoughts on this matter so don't take me too litteraly right now. However, I think it boils down to Blizzard wanting to be more than just a game producer, extending their trademark into e-sports and therefore wants more control of their IP. I believe it is good because they are still a company acting on a competitive market, and the Korean model of today has so many flaws that it is bound to implode sooner or later.
|
Why is it rated adult
I mean kids are going to get parents to buy it for them anyways.
Look at games like Halo 3 and GTA.
And i dont see where the "drug use" is coming from....
|
On April 17 2010 22:38 Appendix wrote:
However, I think it boils down to Blizzard wanting to be more than just a game producer, extending their trademark into e-sports and therefore wants more control of their IP. I believe it is good because they are still a company acting on a competitive market, and the Korean model of today has so many flaws that it is bound to implode sooner or later.
Does not look like it so far. Really all they actions were badly organized, and it does not look like they want to do anything else then make sure to get as much rights as they can. They can't even stream games from they blizzcon event. I am not sure where the idea that they have so great organization for esports comes from. They didn't even speak with teams or OGN/MBC or sponsors, they want work to be done for them, and take profit for it, this is how it looks to me so far.
|
On April 17 2010 22:14 Mothxal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2010 21:38 Paladia wrote:On April 17 2010 19:38 Mothxal wrote:
Such an awful analogy. You might as well say "if I buy a CD, why can't I make copies of it and sell them to other people at just under the price of the original CD?". No, in your example the original company would lose something (they lose the sales of the CD). However, if games are played professionally, Blizzard doesn't lose anything, (greedily) they just want in on someone elses profit. On the contrary, most likely Blizzard gains money by having their games played by the pros (as then more people will buy the games). Do you honestly think any other games company would object if kespa decided to pick their game as the next big thing? I think pretty much all of them would pay money for that to happen. Do you think any cell phone company would complain and demand money if their cell phone was shown in a feature show or in a feature movie? Think any car company would complain? We know they wouldn't, since they pay large sums of money for that to happen as in the long run it increases their income (by exposing their products to a large potential market). I don't see how Blizzard could possibly demand money for such a thing when any other companies would see it as an honor and a blessing. This post is just dishonest. You can't possibly think creating an entire profitable industry around a game and not compensate the creators of the game one penny is equal to using a mobile phone as a prop in a movie? I know my analogy was bad too, but that was a parody of yours, since you were coming up with nonsensical analogies first.
this is why they have to teach ethics in computer science. so few people get it.
btw, i'm agreeing with u.
|
SC2 is more than just a 'hammer' that can be used to build a house. The game is the heart of the ESPORT. It has a major importance. If the game is good, it will help the ESPORT. Would ESPORT be as famous if the gameplay wasn't as good? Probably not. Buying the game allows you to play it, but when you start broadcasting it and making a decent profit out of doing so, it's the least to pay royalties to the creator of the game you're using to make your money.
Blizzard could let the royalties drop, but they shouldn't be bullied into it.
|
On April 17 2010 15:45 Waxangel wrote:
Mostly meaningless.
Brood War was also rated adult only for a period, so they just released a "teen" version (I think they released one in germany too) which had green blood and got a 15+ rating. Later they changed the rating for Brood War because it was so popular but that's another story.
In any case it's not too much work for Blizz to make a less violent version.
My heart is peaceful now =). I just hope they release the "normal" version without delay.
|
This just makes me /facepalm.
Like a little kid KESPA found a way get what it wants. No sticking to business, nah. Rather abuse corrupt organizations.
|
On April 17 2010 23:10 rockslave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2010 15:45 Waxangel wrote:
Mostly meaningless.
Brood War was also rated adult only for a period, so they just released a "teen" version (I think they released one in germany too) which had green blood and got a 15+ rating. Later they changed the rating for Brood War because it was so popular but that's another story.
In any case it's not too much work for Blizz to make a less violent version. My heart is peaceful now =). I just hope they release the "normal" version without delay.
German version was uncencored.
|
On April 17 2010 20:58 Appendix wrote:I´d say it would be more fitting to say that its like you painting a painting, and a gallery makes money from exhibiting your work of art and give you nothing for it.
It took 12 pages, but someone finally made a somewhat decent metaphor. The amount of horrible comparisons of IP to physical property in other people's posts is astounding. At least in North America, the laws governing these two are very different; you can't apply one to the other just because it makes an argument to support whichever side you're on; it's a fallacy.
Lots of people are babbling on when it seems they have no clue what the basic principles of licenses, intellectual property and broadcasting rights are. Do you honestly believe that the various sports leagues don't make a ton of cash from the TV stations that choose to broadcast their games (and from there make even more cash by selling the advertising spots)? Do you really think that bands aren't compensated when their music is played on the radio?
|
Wow... shocking. FU Kespa
|
This must be a joke, more violence my ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
