|
Canada11607 Posts
On June 01 2010 02:29 jdschw wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 08:40 QualmSC wrote:On May 31 2010 08:26 LunarDestiny wrote:
I am totally confused. Nice article but I can't find any starcraft 2 reference in it. 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.
No, you own the game, but you cannot do whatever the hell you want with it.
The concept is not particularly new- the same goes with song artists, book writers, inventors. People cannot simply start writing sequels to someone else's book. (Imagine the amount of Harry Potter and Twilight rip-offs that would flood the market.) You cannot show films in large public settings and charge money without permission. If you write a film, you need permission to use an artists song in your movie. Compensation for creative work.
It's great that people are people are so dead set against IP, but very rarely have I seen very much creative output from said people. (And yes there is the occasional eccentric artist, but that's their choice. I'm just not sure about making that choice for the artists.) People want to rebel against the system? Create your own art and give away the copyrights and IP on it.
|
Despite this just being a complaint that we've heard before, unless i missed something, i did enjoy it.
|
On June 01 2010 02:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 02:29 jdschw wrote:On May 31 2010 08:40 QualmSC wrote:On May 31 2010 08:26 LunarDestiny wrote:
I am totally confused. Nice article but I can't find any starcraft 2 reference in it. 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. No, you own the game, but you cannot do whatever the hell you want with it. The concept is not particularly new- the same goes with song artists, book writers, inventors. People cannot simply start writing sequels to someone else's book. (Imagine the amount of Harry Potter and Twilight rip-offs that would flood the market.) You cannot show films in large public settings and charge money without permission. If you write a film, you need permission to use an artists song in your movie. Compensation for creative work. It's great that people are people are so dead set against IP, but very rarely have I seen very much creative output from said people. (And yes there is the occasional eccentric artist, but that's their choice. I'm just not sure about making that choice for the artists.) People want to rebel against the system? Create your own art and give away the copyrights and IP on it.
Maybe I can't do whatever the hell I want with it, but I'm pretty confident that I can play it. I think that's part of the deal. I don't really see where you're going with your analogy about Harry Potter sequels. I wasn't arguing that KESPA should be able to hold tournaments without paying licensing fees. I was arguing that Blizzard shouldn't (and I believe, doesn't) have the right to simply retract my right to play the game whenever it feels like it.
|
On June 01 2010 03:00 jdschw wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 02:38 Falling wrote:On June 01 2010 02:29 jdschw wrote:On May 31 2010 08:40 QualmSC wrote:On May 31 2010 08:26 LunarDestiny wrote:
I am totally confused. Nice article but I can't find any starcraft 2 reference in it. 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. No, you own the game, but you cannot do whatever the hell you want with it. The concept is not particularly new- the same goes with song artists, book writers, inventors. People cannot simply start writing sequels to someone else's book. (Imagine the amount of Harry Potter and Twilight rip-offs that would flood the market.) You cannot show films in large public settings and charge money without permission. If you write a film, you need permission to use an artists song in your movie. Compensation for creative work. It's great that people are people are so dead set against IP, but very rarely have I seen very much creative output from said people. (And yes there is the occasional eccentric artist, but that's their choice. I'm just not sure about making that choice for the artists.) People want to rebel against the system? Create your own art and give away the copyrights and IP on it. Maybe I can't do whatever the hell I want with it, but I'm pretty confident that I can play it. I think that's part of the deal. I don't really see where you're going with your analogy about Harry Potter sequels. I wasn't arguing that KESPA should be able to hold tournaments without paying licensing fees. I was arguing that Blizzard shouldn't (and I believe, doesn't) have the right to simply retract my right to play the game whenever it feels like it.
Do you know what EULA stands for? End User LICENSE Agreement. You're buying a license to use the game, nothing more. You don't buy the game itself.
Now I don't know what's written in the EULA exactly, but normally those things handle all broadcast rights and other stuff in a way that you can't just make profit out of it. I'm quite sure you can play it, but I don't think there's a lot other things that Blizzard cannot take away if they want.
As for the original post, as many said, nice writing but not so good metaphor. I can't think of the perfect metaphor myself though, so respect for your intense writeup.
|
On June 01 2010 02:29 jdschw wrote:
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.
Starcraft\License.html
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote:
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.
See this is where I disagree. Blizzard only made a game. Not just any game, it's a great game. But they didn't make "art". That's what the Korean community did. We have 12 years of continuous gameplay development behind us. The strategies are so intricate and the game is so so much more than Blizzard could realistically have hoped for. I don't feel this is delusional at all.
Also, I want to focus on Blizzard's actions, not Kespa's. I don't care much about the legal side of things. To use Delerium's analogy - if you sell someone a seed and he cultivates it without you telling him not to, you can't just claim the tree after 12 years. I don't care about it being legal or not, it's damn well immoral.
|
mind =
![[image loading]](http://a-m-p.gr/media/image/large/EGConsidermymindblown.jpg)
|
Except that you didn't mention the second paint was just inferior in every way except graphics.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
I like this is a lot, cool read.
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".
One of the reasons people think of the corn conglomerates as evil is because they do exactly this. I know you said you don't care about the legal side Pholon but this isn't the most apt analogy because the law is pretty clear with agriculture and this kind of lawsuit is common.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On June 01 2010 04:46 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote:
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. See this is where I disagree. Blizzard only made a game. Not just any game, it's a great game. But they didn't make "art". That's what the Korean community did. We have 12 years of continuous gameplay development behind us. The strategies are so intricate and the game is so so much more than Blizzard could realistically have hoped for. I don't feel this is delusional at all. Also, I want to focus on Blizzard's actions, not Kespa's. I don't care much about the legal side of things. To use Delerium's analogy - if you sell someone a seed and he cultivates it without you telling him not to, you can't just claim the tree after 12 years. I don't care about it being legal or not, it's damn well immoral.
But all those intricate strategies are dependent on there being a good gaming platform. If all that is required is 12 years of gamer innovation, then we should have seem the same out of C&C, Age of Empires, and any other of the RTS (Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on them. I'm a RTS junky.) The intricacy and level of play never matched SCBW because the capability was never there to begin with.
Sudden Attack should have been viable, but it was not. I agree 12 years of gaming brough SCBW far beyond what Blizzard could have hoped. But if all you think SCBW was is a seed, then we have a fundamental disagreement.The creativity of the gamers is limited to utilizing the existant game to it's fullest capabilities. But with no game, you have nothing. Or a game with little room for creativity (A move strats), you've got very little room for innovation. Even looking at the mapmakers- I acknowledge they have gone a long ways to making the game what it is today. However, if we had boring gameplay- no amount of map changes will fix an inherently boring design.
Furthermore, SCBW if not art, contains art- graphics, music, storyline, video- cutscenes. Video games are a strange mish-mash of the arts (though will probably never be considered high art.) If any one of these things- video, story, music, pictures was a separate entity and just as popular and KESPA tried to do the same thing (sell broadcasting rights without permission) then we'd have lawsuits all over the place.
Maybe I can't do whatever the hell I want with it, but I'm pretty confident that I can play it. I think that's part of the deal. I don't really see where you're going with your analogy about Harry Potter sequels. I wasn't arguing that KESPA should be able to hold tournaments without paying licensing fees. I was arguing that Blizzard shouldn't (and I believe, doesn't) have the right to simply retract my right to play the game whenever it feels like it.
Thing is you can play the game. Blizzard is not looking to stop that and I'm not sure why you would think Blizzard would retract the game whenever it feels like it. (Is there a particular interview you are thinking of?)
|
proof that everyone on the liquipedia staff is AWESOME
|
Falling, the paint was analogous to the game. The paint was a very good paint that everyone wanted to paint with. Much like Broodwar was a very good game that everyone wanted to play.
When you're comparing Starcraft to a piece of art and saying that's why the analogy is bad, you're looking too deeply into the metaphor.
|
For the record, though I posted the seed/tree analogy, it was also Pholon's.
What's at issue here is the corporate mentality. Even Google has lost sight of their old motto, "don't be evil." It's a simple motto and easy enough to follow, but Google of today is not the same Google I was enthralled with when they hit the IT scene. I posted a similar statement earlier in this thread about Blizzard.
From now on, I'm going to stop calling them Blizzard. I prefer the pejorative "Activision," because that was the company everybody bad-mouthed when I was growing up. Nobody discerning liked Activision or its games. I said to a friend, how did Activision get so big and powerful? He replied: "by focusing on the profit margin."
Now we are all wrapped up in this cosmic joke where Activision is trying to claim ownership over all of E-sports. Here's what I am trying to say: Activision needs to get with the times and realize that something amazing was created by Korea. People like it. It brings people together. They want to destroy it? Really? Or they want to make it into an ugly, disabled cash cow that they can milk, like WoW.
Activision needs to wake up. The reason you work for a company should not be to please shareholders, get a bonus, get a pat on the back, get rich. It should have something to do with what your company actually DOES. You should care about that. Activision is breaking stuff, and it's not doing anybody any favors. They'll lose on this deal, period. And so will the rest of us.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On June 01 2010 06:24 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 04:46 Pholon wrote:On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote:
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. See this is where I disagree. Blizzard only made a game. Not just any game, it's a great game. But they didn't make "art". That's what the Korean community did. We have 12 years of continuous gameplay development behind us. The strategies are so intricate and the game is so so much more than Blizzard could realistically have hoped for. I don't feel this is delusional at all. Also, I want to focus on Blizzard's actions, not Kespa's. I don't care much about the legal side of things. To use Delerium's analogy - if you sell someone a seed and he cultivates it without you telling him not to, you can't just claim the tree after 12 years. I don't care about it being legal or not, it's damn well immoral. But all those intricate strategies are dependent on there being a good gaming platform. If all that is required is 12 years of gamer innovation, then we should have seen the same out of C&C, Age of Empires, and any other of the RTS (Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on them. I'm a RTS junky.) The intricacy and level of play never matched SCBW because the capability was never there to begin with.
Agreed with this point, but although we can discuss the relative sizes of the part that the game itself contributed and the part that the community contributed to the overall success of the game, it doesn't take away that the Korean part has been huge.
|
On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote:
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.
Agreed here. OP makes for a rather cute and flowery attempt at satire, but doesn't quite hit it on the nail with the analogy and the heart of the matter. Heck, I would even modify your analogy further the transcribing it within the realm of music - with Blizzard being the composer, Starcraft the composition, and the Korean progamer scene as the most virtuosic and interpretive performers of the composition. And there have certainly been many situations where the great acclaim/popularity were due more to the efforts of the key performers than the composer.
But still, would that entitle the performer to have more rights over the piece than composer?
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On June 01 2010 07:06 Alphaes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote:
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. Agreed here. OP makes for a rather cute and flowery attempt at satire, but doesn't quite hit it on the nail with the analogy and the heart of the matter. Heck, I would even modify your analogy further the transcribing it within the realm of music - with Blizzard being the composer, Starcraft the composition, and the Korean progamer scene as the most virtuosic and interpretive performers of the composition. And there have certainly been many situations where the great acclaim/popularity were due more to the efforts of the key performers than the composer. But still, would that entitle the performer to have more rights over the piece than composer?
Don't tell me the analogy is weak if you don't understand it. The paint is not computers or whatever. I don't want to have to stoop down and explain what I mean, figure it out yourself.
If I need to extend my metaphor to music, Blizzard would be the guys making the instruments. Awesome instruments, but only instruments.
|
|
|
On May 31 2010 23:46 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +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 :< Show nested quote +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. EDIT: Great post.
What? I don't see any personal attacks here. I think you misinterpreted these posts.
On June 01 2010 01:47 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
Sorry man, Jimmy Raynor ain't a metaphor fan. Direct approach, alright?
lmao <3
|
On June 01 2010 07:17 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 07:06 Alphaes wrote:On June 01 2010 01:57 Falling wrote:
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. Agreed here. OP makes for a rather cute and flowery attempt at satire, but doesn't quite hit it on the nail with the analogy and the heart of the matter. Heck, I would even modify your analogy further the transcribing it within the realm of music - with Blizzard being the composer, Starcraft the composition, and the Korean progamer scene as the most virtuosic and interpretive performers of the composition. And there have certainly been many situations where the great acclaim/popularity were due more to the efforts of the key performers than the composer. But still, would that entitle the performer to have more rights over the piece than composer? Don't tell me the analogy is weak if you don't understand it. The paint is not computers or whatever. I don't want to have to stoop down and explain what I mean, figure it out yourself. If I need to extend my metaphor to music, Blizzard would be the guys making the instruments. Awesome instruments, but only instruments.
I don't think theres a :smug: face big enough in the world for this post. KeSPA failed to secure a license extension with blizzard. The Mona Lisa is no longer being displayed at KeSPA's art gallery, its now at the famous GOMTV Gallery instead. The work of art still exists, its just moving. The only reason there is any issue is because some teams are owned by the current broadcasters.
|
Loved the article. Great writing, clever, well thought out. I couldn't ask for more
People complaining about the metaphor are complaining for the wrong reasons. It's just an analogy. I hate posting things from dictionaries, so I won't. A metaphor doesn't have to be absolutely correct to work out. When we call iloveoov a Gorilla its not because he is literally a Gorilla, but because the way he plays resembles one.
If Pholon's article was simply a recap of the events with some noun's changed it would have been a boring article with little to no insight and not nearly as enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://friendsoftheprogram.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/its-a-trap.jpg)
