However, don't think the metaphor works. As someone has posted already. The paint would be the programming language (like C++ or similar) and the initial painter would be blizzard. Now, the e-sport community would be the those that take the painting and do other amazing creative work with it. In other words, the problem is complex and the solution is probably no less complicated. If I am the supreme ruler of the world, I would suggest each party having the ability to take a FAIR cut of the profit generated from it.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
everyone should get like this guy because this metaphor is crazy inaccurate and you should actually look past how elegantly written it is and look at what it actually means
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
everyone should get like this guy because this metaphor is crazy inaccurate and you should actually look past how elegantly written it is and look at what it actually means
I've read people think it's inaccurate and flimsy but noone explains why.
People who complain about the metaphor and that it's inaccurate etc, should just try to appriciate some good writing tbh. I can agree to some extent, but it doesnt make it bad.
On May 31 2010 08:23 flamewheel wrote: First! No kids, don't do this.
I very much like this. People don't flame in here :<
On May 31 2010 08:31 blabber wrote: I hate Lizzare Atisione
On May 31 2010 08:31 elmizzt wrote: Too vague. Also, you didn't bother to try to make a point with all this fancy metaphor.
You must be fucking kidding me... Why do people choose to post shit without skimming the posts? Nobody cares if you hate the guy or if you want to insult the writer of the post, is it really worth it to chime in and tell us you dislike the man? If you don't like what is being posted just don't post anything at all... It's a time saver.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
everyone should get like this guy because this metaphor is crazy inaccurate and you should actually look past how elegantly written it is and look at what it actually means
I've read people think it's inaccurate and flimsy but noone explains why.
I think it is that some people try to relate objects' physical properties as a metaphor, rather than their function.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
everyone should get like this guy because this metaphor is crazy inaccurate and you should actually look past how elegantly written it is and look at what it actually means
The point of the article was to show that too much control stifles creativity. That there would be no Mona Lisa (great Starcraft for the fans) without letting the artists (the players, coaches, commentators etc.) be free to display their skills. It doesn't have to make perfect analogous sense.
On May 31 2010 22:41 ImSkeptical wrote: A nice metaphor.
Except you forgot the part where Raffaello, Leonardo and Michelangelo actually couldn't paint, and instead owned a dungeon full of talented artists. They would piss all over the majority of these artists, forcing them to paint hours on end under inhumane conditions in this dungeon, except two or three, whom they would give a decent wage. The Raffaello, Leonardo and Michelangelo team, (RLM), also owns all the museums in which the works are displayed, collecting large bags of renaissance dollars from the church who wants to promote their religion to the fans of these artists. Infact some of these church leaders decided to jump aboard and join RLM to help in ensuring art continues to be cranked.
Since RLM owns all the major artists and museums, any independant artists or museums get pushed into having no renaissance dollars and having to move out of art altogether. There were even some artists who attempted to try using a different paint, or a different medium such as sculpture, but RLM pushed them out as well.
So although we acknowledge Lizzare Atisone is an ignorant bumbling baffoon, and with the downfall of RLM we might see the destruction of some beautiful art, as long as Lizzare Atisone gets his act together, impressionism might be right around the corner.
Finally some discussion =)
The artists in the allegory don't represent kespa though, or even the players. They are the entirety of the Korean scene, the enormous number of people who've worked hard for 10 years to get Starcraft where it is now and without whom Starcraft would have been nowhere near where it is now. Sure, I don't particularly like kespa either, but they are part of that group of people that cultured and helped Starcraft grow.
Well if you put it that way thats no fun. Its a perfectly agreeable sentiment xD. A certain level of respect and a certain level of awareness needs to be shown and its not clear that Blizzard at all acknowledges this.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
everyone should get like this guy because this metaphor is crazy inaccurate and you should actually look past how elegantly written it is and look at what it actually means
The point of the article was to show that too much control stifles creativity. That there would be no Mona Lisa (great Starcraft for the fans) without letting the artists (the players, coaches, commentators etc.) be free to display their skills. It doesn't have to make perfect analogous sense.
I liked it.
Thank you. Please, if you took the time to read the OP, don't obsess over the minutiae of the analogy. Focus on what Blizzard-Activision is doing to E-sports.
Blizzard back in 2003 didn't care that Starcraft was being broadcasted, and this was before they were making mega-millions with WoW subscriptions. Blizzard has not been the company I was loyal to for many years... not since the Activision merger.
Think about it. If I give you a seed, and then you cultivate it and let it grow into a tree, I can't very well come back to you later and say "I'll have that tree now, thx". Korea turned Starcraft into something amazing. They balanced the game, they made the maps, the developed the gameplay. They turned it into a spectator sport. Blizzard did none of this.
Activision-Blizzard doesn't care about E-sports, they care about CONTROLLING E-sports to make a profit. Micro-transactions for an RTS? LOL?
It's all absolutely ridiculous. Why am I able to watch Super Street Fighter 4 tournaments and other events? Because those companies aren't pissing all over e-sports, that's why.
Also, my contribution:
Sun-11:13:10 <Pholon> think of a way to make TV sound like an Italian name.. Sun-11:13:31 <Delerium> Televiccini? Sun-11:13:34 <Pholon> Tivo.. Sun-11:13:39 <Pholon> oh Sun-11:13:43 <Pholon> that's good
On May 31 2010 08:50 Slow Motion wrote: This analogy does a good job speaking to the morality of how one should assert their intellectual property rights. However, legally it kinda breaks down. The paint maker has a utility patent on his paint, whereas Blizzard also has a copyright (and that's where it derives the authority to license the transmitting and broadcasting of its product).
Intellectual property has always struck me as fairly thin, as legal concepts go. But that's just my wacky opinion.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
Generally, the painting is purchased or even comissioned by a wealthy patron, who has physical ownership of the painting. Who then keeps it in his gigantic house for quite a while. Eventually a museum may acquire a piece or a few or all of a wealthy art collector's stash of priceless dutch oils.
As I understand the OP's metaphor, the public is the wealthy patron, blizzard the manufacturer of supplies, the whole SC scene is the community of professional artists including the great maestros. But it doesn't have to hold up to your close analysis, it's just a poetic and timely piece of writing.
I don't think this metaphor compares very well because the entire creative process (IP) is essentially in the hands of the painters. The metaphor assumes Starcraft is simply a tool to make creative art. The equivalent would be more like the computers that Blizzard uses to make the game would be the paint. Starcraft is the painting and Blizzard is the painter. KESPA is the art gallery that decided to make a big show/ charge money without contacting the painter to see if that would be okay. (I don't know how the art gallery would've gotten the painting without that though- all analogies eventually break down.)
The point is that the gaming community got good at Blizzard's work of art, but to comparing gamers to painters is analogous to comparing racecar drivers to manufacturers of the F1. Sure a better driver will win more races, but it's still a hell of a car no matter who drives it. The creativeness lies with Blizzard. The gamers use that as platform to be creative within the system that Blizzard already created.
As I see it, the creativity of the painter is greater than that of the person that creates the paint. (Ignoring the fact that painters are often experimenting with paints anyways.) But if you counter that the gaming communities' creativity exceeds that of Blizzard, then I think you are delusional. Yes the community figured out weird micro tricks and things that Blizzard probably didn't consider when they made it. However, it's all using their platform and really the sum of the game is greater than the fact that someone figured out how to stack mutas. It makes the game better, but it doesn't replace or exceed the level of sophistication that makes up the entirety of SCBW.
On May 31 2010 08:50 Slow Motion wrote: This analogy does a good job speaking to the morality of how one should assert their intellectual property rights. However, legally it kinda breaks down. The paint maker has a utility patent on his paint, whereas Blizzard also has a copyright (and that's where it derives the authority to license the transmitting and broadcasting of its product).
Intellectual property has always struck me as fairly thin, as legal concepts go. But that's just my wacky opinion.
On May 31 2010 09:11 Titan48 wrote: Can someone explain how the OP is a metaphor for the Starcraft situation? Do people just see lots of words + shitting on blizzard and automatically think the post is good?
Paint is more like a programming language then the game itself. The artist would be blizzard, and KeSPA would be some gallery that charges money for the public to see the painting.
If I create the Mona Lisa. I then allow an art gallery to display it at their gallery for 3 years, for a nominal fee. After the 3 years, the Mona Lisa is supposed to come back to me possession, but the Art Gallery won't give it back to me. Who's painting is it?
Generally, the painting is purchased or even comissioned by a wealthy patron, who has physical ownership of the painting. Who then keeps it in his gigantic house for quite a while. Eventually a museum may acquire a piece or a few or all of a wealthy art collector's stash of priceless dutch oils.
As I understand the OP's metaphor, the public is the wealthy patron, blizzard the manufacturer of supplies, the whole SC scene is the community of professional artists including the great maestros. But it doesn't have to hold up to your close analysis, it's just a poetic and timely piece of writing.
I actually completely agree that the idea of Intellectual Property is pretty ridiculous... how can you own an idea? That's the secret cyberpunk in me; information just wants to be free.
I know that companies feel the need to push IP very hard because that's how they make their money, but it completely rubs me the wrong way.
On May 31 2010 08:31 elmizzt wrote: Too vague. Also, you didn't bother to try to make a point with all this fancy metaphor.
Seriously?
Anyhow, I really like the metaphor, although there is quite a difference between paint and a game. Since, well, Blizzard isn't selling you the game. They are selling you the right to use the game under a specific set on conditions.
And yeah, everyone still buys it. :|
See, this is the part I don't get. When did this become legitimate? Certainly, when we all bought SC1, we were purchasing a game, and we owned that game. At what point did it become ok to gruesomely mangle that simple concept of ownership and turn it into this "licensing" BS? "Oh, you're not buying a game for $60. You're buying the favor of this company, and in return we will permit you to play our game, but only for as long as we feel like it. We can retract this right at our pleasure."
I still don't feel like that would stand up in a courtroom. I think that if it came down to it, the common understanding is that we're still buying a game, and Blizzard cannot confiscate our properly at a whim. EULA be damned.
EPT
great post. Really had me thinking about things from blizzards side.
