|
On October 14 2011 00:28 ThirdDegree wrote:
How is this debate still going on? All of the examples given comparing Blizzard to sports manufacturers do not make sense. When Nike sells a shoe, it's a one time purchase, and then the shoe is out of their hand. Blizzard continues to patch and support the game after release. If they have no financial incentive to do that, they won't. The $60 will only go so far, and if you want to keep playing the game with NO EXTRA CHARGE online for the next 10 years, you better hope Blizzard makes some money off of it. They aren't going to take a financial loss out of the goodness of their hearts
Exactly all the comparisons to steam and valve are ridiculous. We may of waited a long time for SC2 but blizzard never promised it and gave a release date until they were sure it could be met they never gave us a balance patch without telling us when it was going to be there. Even if their are 1 or 2 examples of it happening its nothing like Valve.
Starcraft: Ghost for console what....
Valve Time
Valve games run on steam so how do they get their money? Not by charging you the loyal purchaser of Valve games but by charging other game makers to advertize on steam or getting revenue from them selling something on steam. Hmmm sounds familiar. Bizzard could of set up a monthly fee like they did with WOW which the pro players would have paid.
I think it is kind of sleezy to take that much money from tournaments. But that is blizzard's right. If you don't like it like I've already said boycott their game go on amazon.com sell your copy. Find people to boycott it with you. Chances are you won't find enough people here to boycott it.
+ Show Spoiler +I double spoilered this because this thread has become stupid enough already of people bitching about random things that just don't matter. Read at your own risk. + Show Spoiler +On October 13 2011 16:55 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 14:00 familyguy123 wrote:On October 13 2011 12:15 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 12 2011 20:41 roymarthyup wrote:
sigh thinking more and more about this makes me so sad at how blizzard is turning into this gigantic soulless corporation. i know not everything is soulless, but this one concept is just insane how they take the money that comes from other peoples hard work of creating and running a tournament
im high masters practicing alot cuz i wanna compete in tournamants for fun but i dunno how i feel about supporting such a concept... i just dont feel its fair for blizzard to take cuts from tournaments that they didnt create and build
i hope some company comes around and designs a super good esports game and doesnt charge money for tournaments to use it
or heck, blizzard with its billions of dollars should simply buy-out MLG and gomtv and every other tournament and simply run it themselves, and by that i mean blizzard would also be buying out all the employees of those other companies and having them run it for them.
I could actually support such a concept. If blizzard is running its own tournament, then sure, it gets all the money from it. I find that fair. And if blizzard buys out all the tournaments then it would make sense for them to get all the revenue from it. I see no problem with that.
But what blizzard is doing is taking cuts of tournament profits without buying out those tournaments... They are getting a cut of other peoples hard work... Sigh this concept i dont know if i can bring myself to support it So it's totally ok for someone to make money off of a product you made and continue to pay to support and balance without throwing you some of the revenue? They had no hand in making it, they don't pay teams of people to balance it, they don't pay for battle.net to keep running, they aren't funding Heart of the Swarm etc. Why should they make money off of YOUR product and then not give any of it to you? Starcraft 2 belongs to Blizzard. It doesn't belong to the tournaments. Blizzard has every right to demand a cut of profits other people are making off their product. this guy is right. why is everyone here a hippie lol and they are they taking breaks from their occupy wall street protest Actually. I'm a supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement, because the people being protested DON'T actually contribute anything meaningful to society and yet demand money from the masses. I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote my posts and then politicize them. Thank you. I'm no supporter of Wall Street either but to argue that Wall Street has made no contribution to society... tell that to the thousands that still have a job because of Wall Street in ~9.1 unemployment. I respect their right to protest but IMO they are protesting the wrong place. The problem is not corporations are evil but it is that certain corporations are allowed to make money but when it comes time for them to take a loss Uncle Sam bails them out with your tax dollars (assuming you actually pay the federal income tax that is) it is not Wall Street and capitalism they should be mad at. It is crony capitalism or corporatism that you should be made at which means DC is where they would want to be
|
On October 13 2011 22:38 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 17:46 Dakkas wrote:On October 13 2011 09:32 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2011 09:00 jinorazi wrote:On October 13 2011 08:19 aksfjh wrote:On October 13 2011 07:53 jinorazi wrote:On October 13 2011 07:45 Kipsate wrote:On October 13 2011 07:36 jinorazi wrote:On October 13 2011 06:11 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2011 04:07 jinorazi wrote:
[quote]
blizzard's claim (and advocates) regarding paid name change along with lack of LAN and no cross region play has been debunked by the community by providing better alternatives and more reasonable motive behind why blizzard did what they did with sc2. (id like to keep this short, explaining those will create a long post, pm if you'd like to hear those)
Wait, I am confused. You stay that their claims have been debunked by the community providing alternatives. So the community has said "It would be better THIS way" and that makes Blizzards reasoning invalid. How the hell does that work exactly? I go into buy milk and they say it is $2 and I inform them "Look, Ive done the math and I know why our charging $2. Let me provide the reasonable alternative of $1, because what you are looking for isn't acceptable". That doesn't sound like something that would fly in the real world. I would never argue that they don't want money and I am sure there is a bit of "Yeah, well we know they want this to be free, but we are charging for it." But still, I want money, so do they. They arn't charging me monthly or expecting me to pay per game. as you've said, people will abuse the system if it were allowed, however there is absolutely no need to charge money for name change. allow one free name change per month or per season, a reasonable timeframe. people will BM, pretend to be other players, hack/cheat, whatever and all that will be done by the minority. why should everyone else pay for name change when it should be free (as it always has been pre-wow)? unlimited name change did no harm in the past, why all of a sudden does it cause harm now? blizzard will do what they want and no ordinary person have control over it. i'm just sayin, why try to have the cake and eat it too? thats how i see it in my eyes and i'm just stating my opinion(shared with others) that it shouldn't be that way. From a business point of view, if there is demand for a name change and people are willing to pay for it.. Then why should you have it be free? exactly. thats my point, i dislike the fact that people are willing to pay extra for things that i feel, should be included as it has in the past. and its a little glimpse of hope from me that blizzard will look past such thing and give something back to the community. Millions of people play SC2 literally dozens of hours a month. They paid a 1 time fee of $50-60 for that HUGE chunk of time, and for an experience that is always being worked on by a design team. To contrast, people spent $50-60 on Portal 2, a game that people likely never even played for more than 20 hours. You can argue that things like name changes should be free, but you're already getting a LOT out of a game that you paid very little for considering how much time is invested. Don't get mad when they try to capitalize on the great deal you're getting. i'm not sure where you're getting at, since starcraft is "more bang for the buck", its ok to pay more for extra features? might as well charge monthly fee to maintain their servers, right? you talk as if they had no idea they would continue to work on the game long after its release, and they forgot to include that extra cost with the final retail cost of the game. sc2 isn't complete, game wise and battle.net wise. there's still flaws and more features to be introduced. while you might be happy with the current state, i see a lot more room to grow and i expect to see them in the upcoming future. in the end (last expansion), getting a sc2 account will be close to $100(original + 2 expansions) unless some new rates are introduced (battlechest). but for those of us right now, we've spent 60 for original game and spend $20-$30(no idea how much they'll be, not free obviously) for each expansion. It is unreasonable to expect a modern company to support a game after launch without some way for them to continue to receive income. People who do are, frankly, insane. My firm commonly refuses to offer legal advice pasted after a case is resolved. Our clients do not like it and expect to receive support after the case is over, but that is not how our firm works. Also $100 is a small price to pay for the amount of support and entertainment I have and will received through SC2. It is the best $60 I have spent in about 5 years. And they aren't nickle and dimeing us as much as they could. They could charge for maps or per season. I am sure there a bunch of suits at Activision who are pushing for this all the time and Blizzard just won't do it. Once again, we got a great game, massive support for Esports. We have people flying all over the world to play SC2 in front of huge, screaming crowds. Everything is amazing and no one is happy because Blizzard is making money and won't give us the ability to pirate their game...I mean LAN. This is a good post. The only people in here that are anti-Blizzard are the naive children that have real sense of the real corporate world and how businesses run. Heck these kids don't have any real concept of running because they're simply too narrow-minded to look at everything from someone else's perspective Blizzard have done things wrong but they've done much more right. Yes, because "real businesses" in the "real corporate world" are always ethical and run their businesses the best way.... right? You are the only one who sounds like a naive child.
That has nothing to do with the reality of intellectual property/patents and running businesses. That is exactly the type of silly 'argument' he is talking about.
|
On October 14 2011 01:15 MLG_Lee wrote:
Starcraft 2 is the sport, the game.
You could make the case that Starcraft is the ball, not the sport. Starcraft isn't basketball, it's the basketball.
|
279 Posts
On October 14 2011 01:21 Klondikebar wrote:You could make the case that Starcraft is the ball, not the sport. Starcraft isn't basketball, it's the basketball.
Sure and in 25yrs if Blizzard doesn't renew its' IP, then it would be free to use.
If there was a new version of BasketSPIKEBALL came out, and that became a new sport, then it would be subject to copyright, trademark and patent law for the duration of those laws. Your example reinforces this point, not takes away from it.
Namean?
|
On October 14 2011 00:28 ThirdDegree wrote:
How is this debate still going on? All of the examples given comparing Blizzard to sports manufacturers do not make sense. When Nike sells a shoe, it's a one time purchase, and then the shoe is out of their hand. Blizzard continues to patch and support the game after release. If they have no financial incentive to do that, they won't. The $60 will only go so far, and if you want to keep playing the game with NO EXTRA CHARGE online for the next 10 years, you better hope Blizzard makes some money off of it. They aren't going to take a financial loss out of the goodness of their hearts
I agree with this. If blizzard didn't get any money after the $60 for selling the game; there would be no reason for them to patch the game.
Imagine esports if it didn't get patched at all from release. Would sc2 be as big in esports as it is right now?
I for one am not a fan of watching TvZ where it rarely gets past the early game with 5rr and bunker rushes, nor am i a fan of 4 gates every single game there is a protoss.
The only thing that the intial $60 pays for is the development of the game (if even that.) Everything else is the cost of maintaining the game itself (bnet servers, patches, community support, etc.) I for one don't know anyone that will work for free, if you are one of these ppl, give me a pm.
|
Also the football argument is not very good.
How many companies can legally make a football if they wanted to?
Lots
How many companies can legally make SC2 if they wanted to?
1
If Company A starts charging money for players and teams to use their footballs after they have it. The teams and NFL will just go to Company B
+ Show Spoiler +On October 14 2011 01:19 oxxo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 22:38 SupLilSon wrote:On October 13 2011 17:46 Dakkas wrote:On October 13 2011 09:32 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2011 09:00 jinorazi wrote:On October 13 2011 08:19 aksfjh wrote:On October 13 2011 07:53 jinorazi wrote:On October 13 2011 07:45 Kipsate wrote:On October 13 2011 07:36 jinorazi wrote:On October 13 2011 06:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Wait, I am confused. You stay that their claims have been debunked by the community providing alternatives. So the community has said "It would be better THIS way" and that makes Blizzards reasoning invalid.
How the hell does that work exactly? I go into buy milk and they say it is $2 and I inform them "Look, Ive done the math and I know why our charging $2. Let me provide the reasonable alternative of $1, because what you are looking for isn't acceptable". That doesn't sound like something that would fly in the real world.
I would never argue that they don't want money and I am sure there is a bit of "Yeah, well we know they want this to be free, but we are charging for it." But still, I want money, so do they. They arn't charging me monthly or expecting me to pay per game.
as you've said, people will abuse the system if it were allowed, however there is absolutely no need to charge money for name change. allow one free name change per month or per season, a reasonable timeframe. people will BM, pretend to be other players, hack/cheat, whatever and all that will be done by the minority. why should everyone else pay for name change when it should be free (as it always has been pre-wow)? unlimited name change did no harm in the past, why all of a sudden does it cause harm now? blizzard will do what they want and no ordinary person have control over it. i'm just sayin, why try to have the cake and eat it too? thats how i see it in my eyes and i'm just stating my opinion(shared with others) that it shouldn't be that way. From a business point of view, if there is demand for a name change and people are willing to pay for it.. Then why should you have it be free? exactly. thats my point, i dislike the fact that people are willing to pay extra for things that i feel, should be included as it has in the past. and its a little glimpse of hope from me that blizzard will look past such thing and give something back to the community. Millions of people play SC2 literally dozens of hours a month. They paid a 1 time fee of $50-60 for that HUGE chunk of time, and for an experience that is always being worked on by a design team. To contrast, people spent $50-60 on Portal 2, a game that people likely never even played for more than 20 hours. You can argue that things like name changes should be free, but you're already getting a LOT out of a game that you paid very little for considering how much time is invested. Don't get mad when they try to capitalize on the great deal you're getting. i'm not sure where you're getting at, since starcraft is "more bang for the buck", its ok to pay more for extra features? might as well charge monthly fee to maintain their servers, right? you talk as if they had no idea they would continue to work on the game long after its release, and they forgot to include that extra cost with the final retail cost of the game. sc2 isn't complete, game wise and battle.net wise. there's still flaws and more features to be introduced. while you might be happy with the current state, i see a lot more room to grow and i expect to see them in the upcoming future. in the end (last expansion), getting a sc2 account will be close to $100(original + 2 expansions) unless some new rates are introduced (battlechest). but for those of us right now, we've spent 60 for original game and spend $20-$30(no idea how much they'll be, not free obviously) for each expansion. It is unreasonable to expect a modern company to support a game after launch without some way for them to continue to receive income. People who do are, frankly, insane. My firm commonly refuses to offer legal advice pasted after a case is resolved. Our clients do not like it and expect to receive support after the case is over, but that is not how our firm works. Also $100 is a small price to pay for the amount of support and entertainment I have and will received through SC2. It is the best $60 I have spent in about 5 years. And they aren't nickle and dimeing us as much as they could. They could charge for maps or per season. I am sure there a bunch of suits at Activision who are pushing for this all the time and Blizzard just won't do it. Once again, we got a great game, massive support for Esports. We have people flying all over the world to play SC2 in front of huge, screaming crowds. Everything is amazing and no one is happy because Blizzard is making money and won't give us the ability to pirate their game...I mean LAN. This is a good post. The only people in here that are anti-Blizzard are the naive children that have real sense of the real corporate world and how businesses run. Heck these kids don't have any real concept of running because they're simply too narrow-minded to look at everything from someone else's perspective Blizzard have done things wrong but they've done much more right. Yes, because "real businesses" in the "real corporate world" are always ethical and run their businesses the best way.... right? You are the only one who sounds like a naive child. That has nothing to do with the reality of intellectual property/patents and running businesses. That is exactly the type of silly 'argument' he is talking about.
|
On October 14 2011 01:24 MLG_Lee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 01:21 Klondikebar wrote:On October 14 2011 01:15 MLG_Lee wrote:
Starcraft 2 is the sport, the game. You could make the case that Starcraft is the ball, not the sport. Starcraft isn't basketball, it's the basketball. Sure and in 25yrs if Blizzard doesn't renew its' IP, then it would be free to use. If there was a new version of BasketSPIKEBALL came out, and that became a new sport, then it would be subject to copyright, trademark and patent law for the duration of those laws. Your example reinforces this point, not takes away from it. Namean?
Well my point is that copyright law is being improperly used here. Spalding is paid every time the NBA buys a basketball, they are not paid again just because those basketballs are used in a tournament.
Spalding has trademarked their ball and they own the rights to it but they still don't get to charge twice for the same ball.
And I'm going to say it again because I want to be clear about my position; I know that Blizzard is a profit maximizing firm and they should be rewarded for their work. I just don't think that extorting and bullying with copyright law is the way to do it.
I think that if Blizzard wants a continual revenue stream they need to charge a subscription fee. Subscription fees make more sense to an economist anyway. A copy of Starcraft 2 has zero additional production cost so it doesn't make sense to charge for it. But providing an additional hour of server time and an additional hour of development time does have a non-zero marginal cost so it makes sense to charge for time.
|
On October 14 2011 01:29 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 01:24 MLG_Lee wrote:On October 14 2011 01:21 Klondikebar wrote:On October 14 2011 01:15 MLG_Lee wrote:
Starcraft 2 is the sport, the game. You could make the case that Starcraft is the ball, not the sport. Starcraft isn't basketball, it's the basketball. Sure and in 25yrs if Blizzard doesn't renew its' IP, then it would be free to use. If there was a new version of BasketSPIKEBALL came out, and that became a new sport, then it would be subject to copyright, trademark and patent law for the duration of those laws. Your example reinforces this point, not takes away from it. Namean? Well my point is that copyright law is being improperly used here. Spalding is paid every time the NBA buys a basketball, they are not paid again just because those basketballs are used in a tournament.Spalding has trademarked their ball and they own the rights to it but they still don't get to charge twice for the same ball. And I'm going to say it again because I want to be clear about my position; I know that Blizzard is a profit maximizing firm and they should be rewarded for their work. I just don't think that extorting and bullying with copyright law is the way to do it. I think that if Blizzard wants a continual revenue stream they need to charge a subscription fee. Subscription fees make more sense to an economist anyway. A copy of Starcraft 2 has zero additional production cost so it doesn't make sense to charge for it. But providing an additional hour of server time and an additional hour of development time does have a non-zero marginal cost so it makes sense to charge for time.
They could be and if they decided to do so its their right to do so as long as they make you aware of it before hand. I knew about blizzard taking tournament revenue back in the beta I don't know how many people didn't.
|
On October 14 2011 01:35 terranghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 01:29 Klondikebar wrote:On October 14 2011 01:24 MLG_Lee wrote:On October 14 2011 01:21 Klondikebar wrote:On October 14 2011 01:15 MLG_Lee wrote:
Starcraft 2 is the sport, the game. You could make the case that Starcraft is the ball, not the sport. Starcraft isn't basketball, it's the basketball. Sure and in 25yrs if Blizzard doesn't renew its' IP, then it would be free to use. If there was a new version of BasketSPIKEBALL came out, and that became a new sport, then it would be subject to copyright, trademark and patent law for the duration of those laws. Your example reinforces this point, not takes away from it. Namean? Well my point is that copyright law is being improperly used here. Spalding is paid every time the NBA buys a basketball, they are not paid again just because those basketballs are used in a tournament.Spalding has trademarked their ball and they own the rights to it but they still don't get to charge twice for the same ball. And I'm going to say it again because I want to be clear about my position; I know that Blizzard is a profit maximizing firm and they should be rewarded for their work. I just don't think that extorting and bullying with copyright law is the way to do it. I think that if Blizzard wants a continual revenue stream they need to charge a subscription fee. Subscription fees make more sense to an economist anyway. A copy of Starcraft 2 has zero additional production cost so it doesn't make sense to charge for it. But providing an additional hour of server time and an additional hour of development time does have a non-zero marginal cost so it makes sense to charge for time. They could be and if they decided to do so its their right to do so as long as they make you aware of it before hand. I knew about blizzard taking tournament revenue back in the beta I don't know how many people didn't.
But they couldn't because they don't have copyright law protecting the use of their product. Trademarks and copyrights aren't protected in the same way. A trademark just means I can't make a basketball and stick the Spalding logo on it. A copyright would mean I could only use a Spalding basketball in the way they wanted and would have to pay them to use it in certain ways.
Blizzard has a copyright which means that even though they may only be making basketballs, they get to determine how those basketballs are used and they get to charge you multiple times for the same basketball.
|
On October 14 2011 01:15 MLG_Lee wrote:
I've resisted posting in this thread because it does tread a thin line for me on a confidentiality/NDA level. So, NO, I can't and won't give out specific details of any of the deals between Blizzard or any publisher and organizers.
That said, 2 points:
1) You can't compare Nike or Adidas or Dr Pepper as SPONSORS of a sporting event to the actual Sport. Starcraft 2 is the sport, the game. Blizzard makes that. They own that intellectual property and, under any international, national, state/province or local law are entitled to do what they want with their IP. The NFL is exactly the same (_in_this_example_). If ESPN runs NFL footage, you damn well better bet that the NFL is getting a cut of the profits from that run, advertising or otherwise. FIFA, WSoP, NBA, MLB, hell even cricket, same thing. That's the way the "real" world is set up.
If we all want eSports to get big, to get more big dollar sponsorships and be a real viable business for all the organizers, the teams, the players and YOU as fans and the community, we have to, to some extent, conform to and work with how the rest of the world and traditional models are set up. That's just reality.
2) Blizzard, like the NFL, continues to INVEST in the betterment of its sport. It has a DEDICATED team of people who work on eSports in house. It has a DEDICATED team of people focused on competitive balance led by our favorite guy David Kim. You might disagree with what some of his/their decisions are, but respect the fact that he and the rest of those guys (esports and balance) work their asses off to balance the game. There's a panel at blizzcon about it. Watch it. And they do TONS of stuff behind the scenes that they will never publically talk about because they do NOT want the credit for it. They want organizers to get the credit. Community to get the credit because that's what moves this ball forward. All of these activities are not cheap. It's not just money either, It's time and effort, which in this day and age, is more valuable than money.
Saying that Blizzard should not get a cut of tournament profits (not prize money, PROFITS) is just not realistic. Not recognizing their efforts (no matter if you agree or disagree with them) is unappreciative. Flame the patch notes or nerfs all you want. But don't say they don't give back to you. Blizzard is one of a handful of publishers who actively focuses on what happens in eSports.
Very informative post. I wonder if this can get spotlighted in the op, since other than this there hasn't been any official stance on blizzard's profits?
With that said, looks like we won't be getting any specific details, but it's good to know tournament organizers aren't against Blizzard making some profits from the e-sports scene.
|
Despite all the arguments for or against Blizzard profiting from gaming events the fact remains that Blizzard owns the IP for StarCraft2.
They can do whatever they want. But I trust them to make the best business decision and carefully balance profits with community and organizer sentiment. It is in Blizzard's best interest for E-Sports to grow and even more so for SC2 to be the quintessential E-sports game.
..but at the same time they want to profit from it.
That is the motivation for most businesses, to make money..to make profit....and a portion of that gets reinvested in the product (okay so maybe investment banks are an exception..since they don't seem to make much of anything besides international crisis)
Again, E-sports is a unique evolution in the sports area..there really isn't a perfect analogy for it.
It's a sport that is based around a game which is entirely controlled by a single corporation - which means that corporation has a lot of power when it comes to collecting its dues.
My advice?
Monitor E-sports and SC2's prominence as an E-sport and buy some ActiVision stock.
Blizzard is onto something here, make a great game and generate revenues from gamers purchasing the game AND from ad-revenues generated by the game.
That's an amazing growth area..
In fact I think I'll pick up a couple of shares now.
|
So many butthurt idiots here throwing false shit around cause it's cool to hate on blizz these days.
If you don't have anything to back your arguments up, personal reasoning and opinion don't apply, keep your mouth shut! "I think, I heard, It's probably like this" is just going to make you loot silly nor is it helping anyone.
And then there's all the fail exampels, but there's enough people picking them apart..
|
Look at it this way. If it weren't for Blizzard, there would be no Starcraft tournaments held at all because the game would never have existed. When you run an SC2 tournament, you use software that was designed by the Blizzard company for your own profit, so it makes sense for Blizzard takes a cut since they helped you make that profit. As far as I know, this has not been an issue for any tournament organizers. So, I think they're getting their fair share for making everything possible.
|
On October 14 2011 00:53 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 00:10 Cataphract wrote:On October 14 2011 00:07 Klondikebar wrote:
I'm probably in the minority here but I firmly believe that Blizzard should get 0% of revenue for tournaments so, to me, whether it's 1% or 100% it's too much.
Blizzard made the game. Their reward for making the game is the $60 they get when we purchase the game.
Everyone else made esports. Kespa, IGN, MLG, the casters, the players, the fans should get the reward for that. Blizzard has done little to help esports (in my opinion) and in a lot of cases has even gotten in the way. None of those would exist without the game. And we reward them for making the game by paying them 60$ every time we buy it. Maybe they should be charging more for the game. Maybe that 60$ isn't enough of a reward. But I believe their reward comes when we actually buy the game. It should not come from tournament revenues. If they want tournament revenues then they need to front money for tournaments. They shouldn't just get to sit back and collect money for zero additional work. Don't get me wrong, I believe Blizzard is a profit maximizing corporation and I don't blame them for making every penny they can. But I think that squeezing money out of copyright law is rent seeking, not free market work. Blizzard is essentially increasing it's revenues by crying to the government for protection.
There would be no tournament without the game. There would be no profit without the game.
Plus, you have NO idea what Blizzard is doing to help the GSL or MLG or any other large tournament. NONE. Neither do I. You can't just say Blizzard is putting in zero effort after they released the game and are just cashing checks sent to them because you don't know what kind of stuff they are doing behind the scenes.
|
Copyright trademark it doesn't matter if they want to charge a basketball competion for the use of that ball they can do so. But to do so they must either tell you in advance or give you a contract to sign that offers you your money back after not having agreed with said contract.
And if copyrights and trademarks are different as you say they are then you have negated your own argument.
http://www.lawmart.com/searches/difference.htm
Patents are more similar to copyrights.
Trademarks in short are a way to identify your product but that doesn't mean you can't charge what you want for it. It just means it would be stupid to do so because their are enough people that could produce a Substitute Good and by one group charging extra for the product they have trademarked would be suicidal because people will just switch products. On the other hand if Blizzard charges too much and demands to much out of those who use their product people can't just switch to say Valve's version or EA game's version of SC2. Blizzard has the exclusive right to make sc2 and therefore to demand what they want from its use by the EULA. If you don't like it stop playing sell your game and boycott its continued use.
|
On October 14 2011 01:54 Cataphract wrote:
There would be no tournament without the game. There would be no profit without the game.
Plus, you have NO idea what Blizzard is doing to help the GSL or MLG or any other large tournament. NONE. Neither do I. You can't just say Blizzard is putting in zero effort after they released the game and are just cashing checks sent to them because you don't know what kind of stuff they are doing behind the scenes.
The former is not necessarily true. Although I'll admit I don't really like the idea of an esports scene without startcraft.
The latter is half true. You're right that I don't know what Blizzard is doing in the background. But then, is it fair to ask me to reward them when I have no idea what they're doing?
I'm going to maintain that a subscription fee is the best way to reward them for constant efforts (behind the scenes or not).
|
On October 14 2011 01:15 MLG_Lee wrote:
Saying that Blizzard should not get a cut of tournament profits (not prize money, PROFITS) is just not realistic. Not recognizing their efforts (no matter if you agree or disagree with them) is unappreciative. Flame the patch notes or nerfs all you want. But don't say they don't give back to you. Blizzard is one of a handful of publishers who actively focuses on what happens in eSports.
Is it really profits? Or rather revenue?
|
On October 14 2011 01:58 terranghost wrote:Trademarks in short are a way to identify your product but that doesn't mean you can't charge what you want for it. It just means it would be stupid to do so because their are enough people that could produce a Substitute Good and by one group charging extra for the product they have trademarked would be suicidal because people will just switch products. On the other hand if Blizzard charges too much and demands to much out of those who use their product people can't just switch to say Valve's version or EA game's version of SC2. Blizzard has the exclusive right to make sc2 and therefore to demand what they want from its use by the EULA. If you don't like it stop playing sell your game and boycott its continued use.
That's why copyright matters. Because it's a copyright there is no substitute good for Starcraft. I'm not saying that Blizzard is charging too much. I paid $60 dollars for their game and I wouldn't arguably paid more so it would be silly of me to say that they're charging too much. It's the way they're charging that's nonsensical to me.
I'm saying that by making their game a copyright rather than a trademark, they're generating money by rent seeking.
|
If you don't know what they do in the background google it. Blizzard income statement, Blizzard cash flows.
Activision-Blizzard is a corporation if you want to know what the money is spent on you can find out.
|
On October 14 2011 02:07 terranghost wrote:
If you don't know what they do in the background google it. Blizzard income statement, Blizzard cash flows.
Activision-Blizzard is a corporation if you want to know what the money is spent on you can find out.
OMG THAT'S COOL! I had no idea it was that easy to get!! Still doesn't hurt my argument but I'm gonna be gone for a while reading this thing...so cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
