|
On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote:
I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back.
Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected.
|
On January 16 2012 09:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:58 Waio wrote:
For those of you wondering why this hurts e-sports, look at this this way. It's a tax, taxes deter investment, witch leads to less "over 5000" tournaments, witch in turn leads to less overall money in the scene, witch translates into less players being able to make a living out of it. If you don't get why taxes discourage investments, I suggest a little economics reading. how about a little business reading? investors invest in games companies because they expect/hope for a large return on their investment. blizzard making as much money as possible on their game means a larger ROI. a larger ROI means more investors in the future. more investment means more projects (i.e., games), which is why we have sc:bw, war3, wow, sc2, etc. from blizzard. blizzard's investors being sad makes blizzard sad; random forum posters and/or players being sad makes blizzard . . . oh wait, blizzard doesn't care. oh, and your post is kind of ridiculous. MLG, IPL, GOM, etc. are making tons of money off their tournaments, and they are expanding, not contracting. so, your whole "taxes deter investment" doesnt really hold water, now does it?
Alright, first of all, I'm talking mostly about the sc2 scene, not the blizzard intention to make more games. You're taking a different approach that I don't think it's true (you are implying that any game that blizzard creates contributes to e-sports, witch I don't think holds true)
Nevertheless, lets go to the other point. I'm NOT talking about big tournaments here, because, let's face it, most of them are played and won by the same people over and over. I'm talking about small-medium tournaments held in different parts of the world, picture, I don't know, my country for instance. We have ONE pro (d.Killer). In order for us to have more, we need a reason for people to try and play in a more serious manner. Small tourneys accomplish that. If fewer people make small-medium tournaments, less people is interested, and talented players are lost. There, if you are going to tell me this isn't true, good, but give me a valid reason why I should think that less small-medium tournaments with the side-effect of putting more money in blizzard's pocket is going to improve the scene. (I'm not saying they shouldn't profit, but not in this way).
|
On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:
This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive.
The difference is that a USB drive is not a creative work protectable by copyright. Different type of intellectual property, different rules. Also, to the extent that the USB drive implements various patents, it would be possible for patent holders to charge you, the user, a fee. Generally they waive this so that people will adopt the technology, but unlike a game there are functionally equivalent alternatives.
|
Theoretically, the more money Blizzard has the more resources they can put into developing StarCraft II into a better game. I fail to understand how this is bad.
|
On January 16 2012 11:15 mki wrote:
Theoretically, the more money Blizzard has the more resources they can put into developing StarCraft II into a better game. I fail to understand how this is bad.
Well it's not so much that blizzard makes money. It's about how they do it.
|
On January 16 2012 11:07 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:
This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. The difference is that a USB drive is not a creative work protectable by copyright. Different type of intellectual property, different rules. Also, to the extent that the USB drive implements various patents, it would be possible for patent holders to charge you, the user, a fee. Generally they waive this so that people will adopt the technology, but unlike a game there are functionally equivalent alternatives.
Completely arbitrary rules.
|
On January 16 2012 11:30 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:07 Lysenko wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:
This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. The difference is that a USB drive is not a creative work protectable by copyright. Different type of intellectual property, different rules. Also, to the extent that the USB drive implements various patents, it would be possible for patent holders to charge you, the user, a fee. Generally they waive this so that people will adopt the technology, but unlike a game there are functionally equivalent alternatives. Completely arbitrary rules.
Arbitrary perhaps, but nevertheless they're the law, and over the last 50 years they've been largely standardized internationally by treaty.
|
United States5162 Posts
Starcraft 2 is Blizzard's intellectual property, and as a result, have the right to some of the profits that others make while utilizing their property. In a more general sense, they have the right to stipulate the terms and conditions of use. That's why some software, such as CAD programs, don't require you to pay royalties on profits made using the product, because it's explicitly meant to be used that way.
Starcraft 2 is in a strange middle ground between personal entertainment, such as a movie, and commercial product creator, like AutoCAD. As a game, it's not really meant to be used to create a commercial product, but a commercial industry has built up around it.
I really can't think of a way to conclude this post, maybe a good way is to compare SC2 to a restaurant franchise. You are the one doing all the work ensuring that the restaurant runs well with good food and happy customers, but you have to buy the rights to use the name, as well as pay some of the profits to the parent company. It's a win-win situation though because the new restaurant has a head up over competition with a well-established name, and the parent company makes money without having to invest as much time or money. Not a perfect analogy, but hopefully a bit helpful.
|
On January 16 2012 11:33 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:30 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 11:07 Lysenko wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:
This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. The difference is that a USB drive is not a creative work protectable by copyright. Different type of intellectual property, different rules. Also, to the extent that the USB drive implements various patents, it would be possible for patent holders to charge you, the user, a fee. Generally they waive this so that people will adopt the technology, but unlike a game there are functionally equivalent alternatives. Completely arbitrary rules. Arbitrary perhaps, but nevertheless they're the law, and over the last 50 years they've been largely standardized internationally by treaty.
You mean corporate lobbying?
|
On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote:
I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected.
Of course it has to do with protecting intellectual property. May it be the SC2 Logo (and other Logos in general), graphical design (and yeah, here in germany Mercedes scrapped an imported car from china for looking somewhat like a smart - it got smashed to pieces by a forklift as soon as it landed in the harbor, meaning just by the looks of it) etc.
The license isnt btw separated from the game. Its just not the license you need to broadcast SC2. How is that different from Windows-Licenses? Or Office, or even Anti-Virus-Programs? They all have different licenses. Hell, even in Reallife (scrapping Software-Examples), i cant just open a USB-Stick, and re-engineer it. I have to watch out for patented or copyrighted stuff. And thats a good thing, lets see it this way: if i wouldve "made" Starcraft 2, i want to know its protected. I dont want anyone to just take the engine etc, create some new skins and resell it as a different game (and actually that would be possible in "your world"). How is that better than, well, making money from what you created?
You mean corporate lobbying?
Well, i would call it "common sense". But meh.
|
On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote:
I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected.
They're legal to prevent people from buying a game and creating their own version based on the one they purchased. If I buy SC2, make some modifications, and sell it as a new game, this is illegal under current law as I don't own SC2 to begin with. If the law was changed how you wanted, this would change and the game industry would become a cesspool of people copying eachother with slight changes. Tired of the CoD engine being reused every year? Imagine if every FPS by every company used it.
And of course this ignores the fact that no company will ever want to invest the money into building a new engine or original game ever again since it would cost them millions of dollars at which point everyone would just steal their work.
All software follows this plan and has always followed this plan unless it's open source, in which case you can take whatever you want.
|
On January 16 2012 11:38 rotegirte wrote:
You mean corporate lobbying?
Not if you're referring to the treaties, since it takes multiple nations to come together to make a treaty and corporate lobbying is pretty removed from that process. Corporate lobbying certainly influences the law, but that doesn't make it any less the law.
Regardless, copyright, trademark, and patents have been around for centuries, and are explicitly provided for in the original text of the U.S. Constitution which was written 229 years ago. This is not a new development.
|
On January 16 2012 11:42 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote:
I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected. They're legal to prevent people from buying a game and creating their own version based on the one they purchased. If I buy SC2, make some modifications, and sell it as a new game, this is illegal under current law as I don't own SC2 to begin with. If the law was changed how you wanted, this would change and the game industry would become a cesspool of people copying eachother with slight changes. Tired of the CoD engine being reused every year? Imagine if every FPS by every company used it. And of course this ignores the fact that no company will ever want to invest the money into building a new engine or original game ever again since it would cost them millions of dollars at which point everyone would just steal their work. All software follows this plan and has always followed this plan unless it's open source, in which case you can take whatever you want.
Where have I advocated stealing products and selling them? I'm merely advocating broadcasting myself playing a game which I legally purchased and own. I have made no modifications; the license is mine before and after the broadcast; I am using the game completely legally. If I wish to offer a prize for whomever beats me, Blizzard has essentially no business asking for a cut.
|
On January 16 2012 11:57 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:42 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote:
I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected. They're legal to prevent people from buying a game and creating their own version based on the one they purchased. If I buy SC2, make some modifications, and sell it as a new game, this is illegal under current law as I don't own SC2 to begin with. If the law was changed how you wanted, this would change and the game industry would become a cesspool of people copying eachother with slight changes. Tired of the CoD engine being reused every year? Imagine if every FPS by every company used it. And of course this ignores the fact that no company will ever want to invest the money into building a new engine or original game ever again since it would cost them millions of dollars at which point everyone would just steal their work. All software follows this plan and has always followed this plan unless it's open source, in which case you can take whatever you want. Where have I advocated stealing products and selling them? I'm merely advocating broadcasting myself playing a game which I legally purchased and own. I have made no modifications; the license is mine before and after the broadcast; I am using the game completely legally. If I wish to offer a prize for whomever beats me, Blizzard has essentially no business asking for a cut.
I was simply stating the legal basis. In both cases you're making money largely off the work Blizzard did, so they can outright prohibit you from doing so or they can allow you to do what you want. Blizzard has chosen to allow it, provided they get a cut.
This is completely fine as far as I'm concerned.
|
On January 16 2012 11:02 Waio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 09:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 16 2012 08:58 Waio wrote:
For those of you wondering why this hurts e-sports, look at this this way. It's a tax, taxes deter investment, witch leads to less "over 5000" tournaments, witch in turn leads to less overall money in the scene, witch translates into less players being able to make a living out of it. If you don't get why taxes discourage investments, I suggest a little economics reading. how about a little business reading? investors invest in games companies because they expect/hope for a large return on their investment. blizzard making as much money as possible on their game means a larger ROI. a larger ROI means more investors in the future. more investment means more projects (i.e., games), which is why we have sc:bw, war3, wow, sc2, etc. from blizzard. blizzard's investors being sad makes blizzard sad; random forum posters and/or players being sad makes blizzard . . . oh wait, blizzard doesn't care. oh, and your post is kind of ridiculous. MLG, IPL, GOM, etc. are making tons of money off their tournaments, and they are expanding, not contracting. so, your whole "taxes deter investment" doesnt really hold water, now does it? Alright, first of all, I'm talking mostly about the sc2 scene, not the blizzard intention to make more games. You're taking a different approach that I don't think it's true (you are implying that any game that blizzard creates contributes to e-sports, witch I don't think holds true) Nevertheless, lets go to the other point. I'm NOT talking about big tournaments here, because, let's face it, most of them are played and won by the same people over and over. I'm talking about small-medium tournaments held in different parts of the world, picture, I don't know, my country for instance. We have ONE pro (d.Killer). In order for us to have more, we need a reason for people to try and play in a more serious manner. Small tourneys accomplish that. If fewer people make small-medium tournaments, less people is interested, and talented players are lost. There, if you are going to tell me this isn't true, good, but give me a valid reason why I should think that less small-medium tournaments with the side-effect of putting more money in blizzard's pocket is going to improve the scene. (I'm not saying they shouldn't profit, but not in this way).
any tournament that is less than $5000 i would classify as a small-mid sized tournaments. there are very few tournaments over $5000. so, i dont see this as a problem in your scenario.
|
You people complaining about this sicken me. Blizzard made the freaking game for crying out loud, they own all rights to the game and can do whatever they want with it. They are continuously providing you with servers to play on and constant updates to fix bugs and balance issues, and all that without requiring a monthly fee. They can only sell you the game once, so for them to keep putting in the effort to maintain the game, obviously they should expect to see some form of profit. Would you rather pay a monthly fee?
|
On January 16 2012 11:15 mki wrote:
Theoretically, the more money Blizzard has the more resources they can put into developing StarCraft II into a better game. I fail to understand how this is bad.
The main problem on that argument is that you "Expect" blizzard to do a good job by getting some "ad-revenue" with this "$5k+ Rule", the only main thing it'll do is make blizzard wait for new big tournaments just to keep earning money, why is this logical?
Money =/= Development, it sure helps a game on it's development but it's nowhere near to have good comprehension of the game itself, you can develop a game constantly but not having any clue on how to balance it (I.E. Crusiers), money did help blizzard to make HotS but they didn't fix the "Protoss lategame air phase" (was there ever one?).
|
They made the game, seems reasonable to me.
|
On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote:
If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make
How much of a cut? Would you mind giving a range. Yes, it is a pity that Blizzard is concerned with making money more than growing the scene, especially compared to Riot Games and their $5 million infusion of cash into the LoL scene. But at least Blizzard is doing things such as patching to keep the game balanced, and allowing tournaments to operate. It could be better, but it could be worse.
That said, we should try to get the message through to Blizzard that they could probably benefit from the long run if they worked more actively to helped develop competitive SC2, whether it be from increased gamesales, or increased publicity. Rather than hate on them, we should try to send out a reasoned message on why we think they should change their current policy.
|
Do E-sport community felt wronged when tournaments have to pay a fee to blizzard to get a permission i think the answer is a resounding yes.
But do blizzard have the right to do so? yes there is such thing as intellectual property and yes what they are doing is legal under the law
.
Does this help E-sport in general? i do believe so if companies sees that there are money/royalties to be made from competition not just the selling of the game itself, they might consider creating games that has potential for E-sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
