|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On June 01 2010 07:44 Titan48 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 07:17 Pholon wrote: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.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Canada11607 Posts
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.
No we understand your analogy perfectly well. We just disagree that it makes any meaningful comparison. You seem to be mixing up tools and products.
As someone else has said, Starcraft is itself a product. Not a tool. Applying your analogy to any other creative work would make the comparison non-nonsensical. Applied to Shakespeare or JRR Tolkien we would call their work the ink and paper and completely ignore the content which makes up the product. In the case of Tolkien, people have been inspired to create other works would be the artists and their own work based on the inspiration of LotR be the painting. But Tolkien's own work would be considered only ink and paper. Just tools of the trade. (Stratovarius' Lord of the Rings song, Peter Jackson's movie adaptation, Alan Lee's paintings, DnD, Blizzard's Warcraft universe. They have all contributed to creating a phenomenon far greater than the author could have managed. However, none of these people or organizations have the right to sell licenses or copies of the original Lord of the Rings books. If they use his universe, they must acknowledge it and gain the right to do so. Because the books are a product.)
In the same way Starcraft is a product. Any time it is used for commercial, financial, or advertisement purposes, Blizzard has a say. Doesn't matter what the game inspired or the great skill that people have developed playing their game. It is still Blizzard's game. It's a product. And you are still playing in Blizzard's universe. So yes, the art gallery or the music reviewers are a far better comparison then to say progamers are the artists.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On June 01 2010 08:54 Falling wrote:
In the same way Starcraft is a product. Any time it is used for commercial, financial, or advertisement purposes, Blizzard has a say. Doesn't matter what the game inspired or the great skill that people have developed playing their game. It is still Blizzard's game. It's a product. And you are still playing in Blizzard's universe.
This is where I don't agree, if you allow people to take of with your product and make it something more (like how Tolkien's one book inspired a whole universe around it) you can not claim property to the whole of it like they do. That's how I feel at least.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On June 01 2010 09:01 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 08:54 Falling wrote:
In the same way Starcraft is a product. Any time it is used for commercial, financial, or advertisement purposes, Blizzard has a say. Doesn't matter what the game inspired or the great skill that people have developed playing their game. It is still Blizzard's game. It's a product. And you are still playing in Blizzard's universe. This is where I don't agree, if you allow people to take of with your product and make it something more (like how Tolkien's one book inspired a whole universe around it) you can not claim property to the whole of like they do. That's how I feel at least.
I was very careful on how I worded that. I don't think that the Tolkien estates should have control of DnD or the Warcraft universe. Those were merely inspired by it, but do not contain Tolkien's characters or storyline in it. However, those same companies cannot take Tolkien's story and make their own movie out of it, or sell off the rights to do so. That's what the problem with Kespa is. They use the actual Blizzard product in their advertisements (Using a Dark Templar vs using Frodo in an advertisement- that's IP whether you agree with it or not.) They are selling off the rights to broadcast Starcraft, not an inspiration of Starcraft (or a clone- Sudden Attack) but the actual game of Starcraft with all it's graphics, characters, music, and video. It would be the same as starting your own sequel to LotR (or in actual lawsuit territory- Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger vs "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye" by JD California.
Being inspired by something is one thing (Beowulf and several other old stories inspires LotR's, LotR's inspires a slew of fantasy books- but they are all in their separate universes.) Using some one else's universe without permission for commercial or advertisement purposes is entirely something else- lawsuit territory.
|
|
|
That was fantastic, Pholon. I totally agree.
|
On May 31 2010 09:58 flamewheel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 09:33 jackofclubs81 wrote:
IMO this is almost as good (if not better) than the MSL finals hype article that copied 300. Very well written. I'd agree with you, but I didn't copy 300. Only the pictures did :<
Yeah this is true. Your work on the Hype thread was waaay better than 300 as well. Keep up the nice writing flamewheel.
On June 01 2010 09:01 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 08:54 Falling wrote:
In the same way Starcraft is a product. Any time it is used for commercial, financial, or advertisement purposes, Blizzard has a say. Doesn't matter what the game inspired or the great skill that people have developed playing their game. It is still Blizzard's game. It's a product. And you are still playing in Blizzard's universe. This is where I don't agree, if you allow people to take of with your product and make it something more (like how Tolkien's one book inspired a whole universe around it) you can not claim property to the whole of it like they do. That's how I feel at least.
Agree here too. Your metaphor works fine Pholon. If people don't like it they can write their own metaphor/thread and stop crapping on your good work 
|
very nice read man, i really enjoyed this
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On June 01 2010 09:12 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 09:01 Pholon wrote:On June 01 2010 08:54 Falling wrote:
In the same way Starcraft is a product. Any time it is used for commercial, financial, or advertisement purposes, Blizzard has a say. Doesn't matter what the game inspired or the great skill that people have developed playing their game. It is still Blizzard's game. It's a product. And you are still playing in Blizzard's universe. This is where I don't agree, if you allow people to take of with your product and make it something more (like how Tolkien's one book inspired a whole universe around it) you can not claim property to the whole of like they do. That's how I feel at least. I was very careful on how I worded that. I don't think that the Tolkien estates should have control of DnD or the Warcraft universe. Those were merely inspired by it, but do not contain Tolkien's characters or storyline in it. However, those same companies cannot take Tolkien's story and make their own movie out of it, or sell off the rights to do so. That's what the problem with Kespa is. They use the actual Blizzard product in their advertisements (Using a Dark Templar vs using Frodo in an advertisement- that's IP whether you agree with it or not.) They are selling off the rights to broadcast Starcraft, not an inspiration of Starcraft (or a clone- Sudden Attack) but the actual game of Starcraft with all it's graphics, characters, music, and video. It would be the same as starting your own sequel to LotR (or in actual lawsuit territory- Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger vs "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye" by JD California. Being inspired by something is one thing (Beowulf and several other old stories inspires LotR's, LotR's inspires a slew of fantasy books- but they are all in their separate universes.) Using some one else's universe without permission for commercial or advertisement purposes is entirely something else- lawsuit territory.
Well okay, I can't just make a movie out of the Tolkien book, but it's exactly what Blizzard -let- the Koreans do. Blizzard was like "hey, here's some paint" and the Koreans went "oh okay, you mind if we make some awesome paintings with it? People will come to love your paint and you'll make a bundle because of it." and Blizzard said yes. In that scenario, you can't afterwards claim you own the paintings.
|
Canada11607 Posts
Well I'll just have to agree to disagree- I still don't think Starcraft is simply a tool (paint) and the creative work/ product was mainly by the Koreans (painting), but whatever.
I do agree that Blizzard's protest timing was strange (or not strange- it was timed to the selling of broadcast rights and when SC2 was in the foreseeable future.)
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On June 01 2010 18:16 Falling wrote:
Well I'll just have to agree to disagree- I still don't think Starcraft is simply a tool (paint) and the creative work/ product was mainly by the Koreans (painting), but whatever.
I do agree that Blizzard's protest timing was strange (or not strange- it was timed to the selling of broadcast rights and when SC2 was in the foreseeable future.)
Fair enough, but even if you don't feel Korea took the Game and made it Art (or at least More), don't you at least agree that they are for a massive part responsible for the success of SC1 and doesn't, consequently, the argument still hold?
|
A nice read, thanks for posting it.
IP laws should be abolished and rebuild from scratch but there's no way this is going to happen with all the government support the corporations are getting.
|
There is still a difference of selling off the broadcasting rights which KESPA shouldn't have done since the source material is Blizzard's property.
The rights of any reproduction of any kind belong to Blizzard.
|
This comparison has very wrong relations.
It's more like Blizzard has created a very beautiful set of paintings.
If you just put them randomly in a room, they're not that meaningful. But some Koreans have mastered the art of arranging and rearranging them.
Still, those pictures belong to Blizzard and if those Koreans arranged them without permission, Blizzard has all rights to stop them!
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On June 01 2010 22:11 shin ken wrote:
This comparison has very wrong relations.
It's more like Blizzard has created a very beautiful set of paintings.
If you just put them randomly in a room, they're not that meaningful. But some Koreans have mastered the art of arranging and rearranging them.
Still, those pictures belong to Blizzard and if those Koreans arranged them without permission, Blizzard has all rights to stop them!
They didn't tell them not too. The allowed the arranging of the paintings, even encourage it (why not - more sales right?). It is only now that after the paintings are arranged that they claim ownership of the whole arrangement. Also this analogy doesn't do the Korean's work justice imo.
Also, from now on maybe we can focus on how you'd disagree with the original analogy and not go "no it's like this" and then have some other paint-related metaphor?
|
The metaphor works very well, it's well written and constructively comments on the topic. Thank
you, I hope Blizzard reads it and take note. =)
This comparison has very wrong relations.
It's more like Blizzard has created a very beautiful set of paintings.
If you just put them randomly in a room, they're not that meaningful. But some Koreans have mastered the art of arranging and rearranging them.
Still, those pictures belong to Blizzard and if those Koreans arranged them without permission, Blizzard has all rights to stop them!
I'm sorry but that's just plain wrong.
The korean gamers took this engine with little 2D animations that kill each other based on maths and turned it into an art form that could be innovated within and, to a degree, perfected.
The game is the paint.
If Blizzard made the game (paint), then played the games we wanted to watch (painted), then they could say exactly what becomes of them.
I need not say any more (Honestly I need not even say what I did) because the story summed it up beautifully.
|
I'm sorry for being alittle blunt after such a great metaphor. It might not be 100% accurate, but it perfectly describes the greedy mindset of Activision (Blizzard).
The point is, KespA and the korean e-sports community is probably responsible for the better part of any Starcraft1 sales after the first hype of SC and BW calmed down. Also, by keeping the game alive for 12 years, they have contributed in raising the expectation and hype around the release of Starcraft 2. Hence, more or less directly spitting money into the greedy entity that is Activision Blizzard.
How do they respond? Out of the blue they want more money from the non-profit organization KespA for something they have been doing for years without any objections.
Uh, back on topic: Great analogy, not 100% accurate, but very descriptive and beatifully written. 6/6.
|
Fun read, although the metaphor isn't all that accurate.
I'd say the computers used to make SC are the paint, Blizzard are the painters and KespA are the guys who put the paintings on show and collect fees.
|
I enjoyed reading this but the metaphor isn't based in reality. Blizzard did not create a tool like paint, they created a product like paintings. Innovative people took those paintings and made galleries out of them and added value through exposure but the painter has the right at any time can dictate how the paintings are displayed in a gallery and the right to move said paintings to another location and give control to a gallery director that better represents their interests, period.
|
The korean gamers took this engine with little 2D animations that kill each other based on maths and turned it into an art form that could be innovated within and, to a degree, perfected.
The game is the paint.
If Blizzard made the game (paint), then played the games we wanted to watch (painted), then they could say exactly what becomes of them.
To those who might disagree, this makes it abundantly clear.
The game itself is just a set of textures and rules governing how those textures interact. No doubt they took a lot of work and Blizzard is rightfully compensated for having worked on them when people buy their game.
If you want to consider computer games an 'e-sport' then you have to play by the rules of all other sports. Every sport is just a set of rules defining player interaction. The creator of those rules have no rights over the people who play the sport. The rights to televised matches are owned by a variety of different organizations. Sometimes, they are owned by the body representing the players, eg the Football Association of England owns the rights to English Premiere League games. Sometimes, they are owned by the tournament organizers, eg FIFA owns the rights to the World Cup. The equivalent in the Korean scene would be Kespa which represent players, or OGN/MBC which organize tournaments.
The people who made up the rules of the sport have NO claim over matches played unless they happen to also do either of the other 2 functions, eg International Automobile Federation for F1 racing.
It's fashionable to hate Kespa but they represent players and I believe they have the right to claim ownership of games played by their members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
