|
On April 18 2010 02:17 psychopat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2010 01:48 Polis wrote:On April 18 2010 01:35 psychopat wrote:What people are interested in isn't the crux of the issue though. Kespa is broadcasting Blizzard's intellectual property without permission, which is illegal in North America. Even if you don't believe this, you could use your own argument for regular sports... and yet broadcasting rights are still multi-million dollar propositions. No I can't, Blizzard didn't made leagues, they didn't made that content they had made the software. Your point? Based on a couple other posts in this thread, Kespa didn't either.
Kespa represents pro teams, and that is beside the point anyway, Blizzard didn't say that they will only take royalties from Kespa they will want they share no matter who would do SC2 pro gaming.
My point is that Blizzard didn't do it, nothing indicates that they want to do it, and they want royalties for it.
|
Stimpacks --> Ginseng Supplements
|
Does this mean other countries have a better chance in SC2 esports?
No but seriously, Fuck Kespa.
They dare try to deny me amazing Korean Stalker blink micro? Oh no, this will not go unpunished.
|
Hold on.
Am I missing something here?
The article doesn't mention anything about Kespa.
It mentions that the Game Ratings Board, which is a unit of the Ministry of Culture, will decide on SC2's ratings. Kespa = Korean ESPORTS Association. Since when do they rate all the games in Korea ever?
I'm all for hating on Kespa, but this is the Game Ratings Board's decision.
|
On April 17 2010 19:27 Paladia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2010 18:46 Ocedic wrote:On April 17 2010 18:36 Polis wrote:
It is funny that when Blizzard wanted to change terms of SC2 esports then most people didn't find anything wrong with it becouse it was legal, but when something happens that is legal, and they don't approve it then most people are against it becouse of some other reason. At least try to be a little bit coherent in your arguments kk? If just becouse something is legal don't automatically makes it good/moral/whatever word you want to use then don't use it as an argument. Then let's take legality out of the equation. What is immoral about Blizzard wanting money from you if you profit from one of their products/IPs? It's not like Kespa is some mom and pop shop that Blizzard is squeezing every penny they can out of. If you buy something you should be allowed to use it as you please, you've already payed for the product. It's like if I would buy a hammer and then utilize it to contruct a house, and then all of a sudden the hammer company decides to sue me for making a profit and thus want a share of my house. It makes no sense, a hammer is made to construct things, a game is made to be played and watched. If anything they should be thankful that they get the free 2 hour advertising for their game at prime time every night. Most companies would pay quite a bit to get that kind of exposure for their product. Another comparison would be to football shoes. If someone uses a companies shoes while playing in a high concept match (say for example Real Madrid vs Barcelona). You think the shoe company would try to get in on the profit the player is making from using the shoes? Hardly, instead they pay large amounts of money for the players to actually use the shoes, since in the end it means a profit for them with the added exposure. Blizzard is just being much more greedy than most.
These aren't very good analogies. If the hammer or shoes had legal agreements that had such clauses, it would probably be their right to do so. Then you wouldn't buy that brand of shoes and buy another. Just like Kespa could choose to not buy StarCraft 2 and use another game as an E-sport title, but they don't want to.
|
I think this decision has a lot more to do with the gaming scene as a whole in Korea in regards to StarCraft specifically. I believe the rating is a move to keep less mature players out of the game (not necessarily in age but rather in their maturity in regards to approaching the game) to possibly encourage even more progaming.
|
On April 18 2010 03:53 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2010 02:17 psychopat wrote:On April 18 2010 01:48 Polis wrote:On April 18 2010 01:35 psychopat wrote:What people are interested in isn't the crux of the issue though. Kespa is broadcasting Blizzard's intellectual property without permission, which is illegal in North America. Even if you don't believe this, you could use your own argument for regular sports... and yet broadcasting rights are still multi-million dollar propositions. No I can't, Blizzard didn't made leagues, they didn't made that content they had made the software. Your point? Based on a couple other posts in this thread, Kespa didn't either. Kespa represents pro teams, and that is beside the point anyway, Blizzard didn't say that they will only take royalties from Kespa they will want they share no matter who would do SC2 pro gaming. My point is that Blizzard didn't do it, nothing indicates that they want to do it, and they want royalties for it.
They want royalties for MAKING PROFIT out of it. That's the difference and that's what i agree with - it is wrong that kespa wants to make money from SC2 and still not give anything to Blizz
|
Can people stop with the awful analogies?
Regarding SC2 being a tool for creating content in the same way that Photoshop or 3DSMax is: no. There is a reason you pay 50 bucks for a game and thousands of dollars for that kind of software. They are simply not the same.
I think its ridiculous that people are defending KeSPA. How is it fair that one company makes millions of dollars off of someone's IP without giving them a cent? Of course it boils down to money, but Blizzard is in no way greedy in asking for broadcasting royalties.
Honestly don't understand how anyone can think otherwise.
|
kespa will be run out of business ^O^
|
I have to say that yes, people are going to be angry about this, and yes, it puts the younger gamers at a disadvantage, but you really do need to notice that SCII is extremely violent. People exploding, being set on fire and burning to death, being dissolved in acid. Zerg units and buildings explode in blood, with buildings giving very explicit collapse based on their skeletal structure and leaving a crater of gore behind.
Yes, players are distanced from it by being a commander rather than a 1st or 3rd person perspective, but that really doesn't change the inherent violence. From the perspective an external group, I can definitely see why non-gamers would want it constrained to adults.
|
On April 18 2010 07:50 Reutan wrote:
I have to say that yes, people are going to be angry about this, and yes, it puts the younger gamers at a disadvantage, but you really do need to notice that SCII is extremely violent. People exploding, being set on fire and burning to death, being dissolved in acid. Zerg units and buildings explode in blood, with buildings giving very explicit collapse based on their skeletal structure and leaving a crater of gore behind.
Yes, players are distanced from it by being a commander rather than a 1st or 3rd person perspective, but that really doesn't change the inherent violence. From the perspective an external group, I can definitely see why non-gamers would want it constrained to adults.
Are you trolling or not getting it?  This is not about children, this is about money. ^___^
|
On April 18 2010 04:33 soudo wrote:
Hold on.
Am I missing something here?
The article doesn't mention anything about Kespa.
It mentions that the Game Ratings Board, which is a unit of the Ministry of Culture, will decide on SC2's ratings. Kespa = Korean ESPORTS Association. Since when do they rate all the games in Korea ever?
I'm all for hating on Kespa, but this is the Game Ratings Board's decision.
This. Unless there is some sort of conspiracy running behind the scenes, these two are not directly related are they?
|
On April 18 2010 07:50 Reutan wrote:
I have to say that yes, people are going to be angry about this, and yes, it puts the younger gamers at a disadvantage, but you really do need to notice that SCII is extremely violent. People exploding, being set on fire and burning to death, being dissolved in acid. Zerg units and buildings explode in blood, with buildings giving very explicit collapse based on their skeletal structure and leaving a crater of gore behind.
Yes, players are distanced from it by being a commander rather than a 1st or 3rd person perspective, but that really doesn't change the inherent violence. From the perspective an external group, I can definitely see why non-gamers would want it constrained to adults.
I disagree. An 18+ violence rating is meant for things like Hostel. Starcraft is as violent as Worm Armagedon. Worms burning, exploding and drowning. There's a big difference between a unit dying in Starcraft and someone getting shanked close and personal in a worse game.
|
On April 18 2010 07:59 Tdelamay wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2010 07:50 Reutan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I have to say that yes, people are going to be angry about this, and yes, it puts the younger gamers at a disadvantage, but you really do need to notice that SCII is extremely violent. People exploding, being set on fire and burning to death, being dissolved in acid. Zerg units and buildings explode in blood, with buildings giving very explicit collapse based on their skeletal structure and leaving a crater of gore behind.
Yes, players are distanced from it by being a commander rather than a 1st or 3rd person perspective, but that really doesn't change the inherent violence. From the perspective an external group, I can definitely see why non-gamers would want it constrained to adults.
I disagree. An 18+ violence rating is meant for things like Hostel. Starcraft is as violent as Worm Armagedon. Worms burning, exploding and drowning. There's a big difference between a unit dying in Starcraft and someone getting shanked close and personal in a worse game.
I don't disagree that it shoudn't be getting the 18+, but it is way worse than Worms. I'm trying to distance myself from my background as a gamer. You'd agree that the buildings explode into gore similarly to an imp being close ranged in Doom, right, but in higher resolution? You can zoom down in and get about that close. Doom II was one of the first games to be rated Mature; do you think we should really lower our standards for how young violence is appropriate for as time goes on?
|
yea! Stiming your marines is encouraging drug use
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 18 2010 08:08 Reutan wrote:
I don't disagree that it shoudn't be getting the 18+, but it is way worse than Worms. I'm trying to distance myself from my background as a gamer. You'd agree that the buildings explode into gore similarly to an imp being close ranged in Doom, right, but in higher resolution? You can zoom down in and get about that close. Doom II was one of the first games to be rated Mature; do you think we should really lower our standards for how young violence is appropriate for as time goes on?
The thing is, ratings are all relative. What is OK and what isn't can only really be determined in any somewhat objective manner by making use of precedent. And the precedent set by SC, WC3, and a host of more violent and bloody games since then all point to SC2 not being anywhere close to the borderline for an AO game.
Also, the "Mature" rating on games in the US is not analogous to the rating that SCII is getting in Korea. The proper analogous rating is AO, which almost never gets sold on store shelves here.
|
On April 18 2010 09:20 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2010 08:08 Reutan wrote:
I don't disagree that it shoudn't be getting the 18+, but it is way worse than Worms. I'm trying to distance myself from my background as a gamer. You'd agree that the buildings explode into gore similarly to an imp being close ranged in Doom, right, but in higher resolution? You can zoom down in and get about that close. Doom II was one of the first games to be rated Mature; do you think we should really lower our standards for how young violence is appropriate for as time goes on? The thing is, ratings are all relative. What is OK and what isn't can only really be determined in any somewhat objective manner by making use of precedent. And the precedent set by SC, WC3, and a host of more violent and bloody games since then all point to SC2 not being anywhere close to the borderline for an AO game. Also, the "Mature" rating on games in the US is not analogous to the rating that SCII is getting in Korea. The proper analogous rating is AO, which almost never gets sold on store shelves here.
Of course, of course. My argument is indeed that it would deserve an M but not an AO. I wanted to solidly put it above Worms, however. I feel that AO is mostly for sexual content, of which at least America tries to contend is for those who are 18+.
|
On April 18 2010 08:31 Fitzhunt1 wrote:
yea! Stiming your marines is encouraging drug use
Marines and Marauders are my role models!
|
On April 18 2010 09:20 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2010 08:08 Reutan wrote:
I don't disagree that it shoudn't be getting the 18+, but it is way worse than Worms. I'm trying to distance myself from my background as a gamer. You'd agree that the buildings explode into gore similarly to an imp being close ranged in Doom, right, but in higher resolution? You can zoom down in and get about that close. Doom II was one of the first games to be rated Mature; do you think we should really lower our standards for how young violence is appropriate for as time goes on? The thing is, ratings are all relative. What is OK and what isn't can only really be determined in any somewhat objective manner by making use of precedent. And the precedent set by SC, WC3, and a host of more violent and bloody games since then all point to SC2 not being anywhere close to the borderline for an AO game. Also, the "Mature" rating on games in the US is not analogous to the rating that SCII is getting in Korea. The proper analogous rating is AO, which almost never gets sold on store shelves here.
I don't know how ratings work in Korea, but the AO rating from the ESRB does not sound like the same thing as what SC2 is getting.
The ESRB MA rating says that the games should not be sold to anyone less than 17 years old, unless a parent is present. That sounds about like what is being asked here; the equivalent of an R rating for a movie. The AO rating from the ESRB is problematic because stores actively refuse to stock them (and in the console world, the 3 console makers simply don't allow you to make games for their platform that carry AO).
Unless you are claiming that Korean stores do not sell games with the same rating as SC2, I don't see the problem.
|
Well, I am extremely annoyed at this decision - which will become furious if the evidence that KeSPA tempered with this decision comes out - but hopefully delay at Korean market caused by this controversy will give excellent opportunity for foreign community to establish some sort of superiority over South Korea gamers for once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
