KeSPA Agrees to Participate in GSL Season 5 - Page 25

On August 25 2012 05:50 JiPrime wrote:

Calling it now, BoxeR went back to KT so he can "rescue" dissenting KeSPA players and bring them under SlayerS team. :D

On August 25 2012 05:51 ElephantBaby wrote:


Why KT?

On August 25 2012 05:49 Salazarz wrote:
Eh, I can't find any statements saying KeSPA would never participate in GSL, other than them saying they weren't going to play in Season 4 (which by the way, I still think is completely reasonable).

On August 25 2012 05:51 lord_nibbler wrote:

What the ...?
KeSPA is practically the "Sponsors Union".
They might officially be an independent organization but just like OGN they will always do what the Sponsors (Samsung, SKT, CJ and so on) want.

Their 'good intentions', as you call it, are basically to protect their Sponsor's investment. Now sometimes that coincides with the fan's will but a lot of times it does not.

On August 25 2012 05:52 achan1058 wrote:

I think he meant SKT1

On August 25 2012 05:57 fearpLug wrote:
dunno this whole kespa thing just makes me angry man... why so much douching around.. i kinda still have the feeling, kespa thinks they are king in esports and can do what they like and id totally not surprised if kespa players will actually NOT be playing gsl 5 in the end..

On August 24 2012 22:13 Disengaged wrote:


For now.

It never ends with Kespa.

On August 25 2012 06:04 LimeNade wrote:


Agreed but tbh this is kind of a good thing. When two companies ( well in this case two groups kespa/non kespa) compete we can only expect talent to rise faster as things will be less stagnant. Also this will call for the scene to grow as one will want to one up the other in terms of quality whether its talent or production and so on. Drama is a good thing as long as it can be resolved at some point

On August 25 2012 06:05 achan1058 wrote:

I disagree. KeSPA is making anti-competitive moves, and that is never a good thing. Healthy competition is good. Illegal law-breaking action is bad.

On August 25 2012 06:07 ElephantBaby wrote:


How is that illegal law-breaking action?

On August 25 2012 06:08 achan1058 wrote:

No matter how you sugar coat it, KeSPA's action is anti-trust.

On August 25 2012 06:09 ElephantBaby wrote:


What trust do they have on each other before? At least show some oral agreement.

On August 25 2012 06:09 ElephantBaby wrote:


What trust do they have on each other before? At least show some oral agreement.

On August 25 2012 06:06 Wpgstevo wrote:
Law-breaking is by definition illegal, so that was a kind of redundant way of phrasing it.

What about this is illegal?

On August 25 2012 06:15 Wpgstevo wrote:
So you are quoting united states law for a korean company? Wow.