|
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.
Spalding is also not maintaining the courts, the players or incharge of managing the league (i.e: b.net ladder). they are not incharge of maintaining anything other than producing a basketball. there is no comparison between those two. One is a piece of rubber that requires nothing more than a player, the other is an insanely complicated video game/online set up so that you may accomplish what the basketball players are doing which is entertaining.
Also:
I may be wrong here but I do believe that basketball/sports in general are public property and therefor you cannot charge anything just for playing the game. The NBA charges you for watching "their players" play the game at a high-skill level. They are not charging you to watch basketball, they're charging you to watch their players.
SC is not public property and therefor blizzard may charge for people using their product to make money. If they didn't at least show their presence and manage these tournaments with licensing fees and advertisement cuts then there is a chance that we'd have alot of crappy tournaments ruining the game to. I'm sure that blizzard isn't making hand-over-fist money off of tournaments/licensing fees and they probably even contribute more to the promotion/set-up of the tournaments than most other companies do.
|
On October 14 2011 02:06 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +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 $60 dollars for their game and I wouldn't arguably paid more so it would be silly of me to say that they're charging too much. It's the way they're charging that's nonsensical to me. I'm saying that by making their game a copyright rather than a trademark, they're generating money by rent seeking.
They created value in creating starcraft.
If you say that they are extracting rents from the tournament organizers; the tournaments are the ones doing rent seeking: profiting from the value created by blizzard. It's not rent seeking when you are charging them for profiting from your property; in this case its just charging them a % of their revenues for the service of using your property.
|
I think this is really cheap by Blizzard. They decided that they'd go with the "always-online-BNET2" thing (which was absolutely not required, at all, they're still maintaining the Diablo, Warcraft and Starcraft servers without this kind of bullshit), then it's kinda meh to say that "b-but we have to get back something for providing you a server!", yeah you got 60$. And patching the game requires little to no manpower compared to the making of the game. This is exactly like when I decide to buy a product, pay once for it, I can use it for "personal needs" but has to pay AGAIN if I want to move to larger scales. But I guess this is the trend nowadays, Diablo 3 will cut 3-4 times before you get your IRL money.
|
279 Posts
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. Clearly that's not what's happening in Basketball today, so this is purely an example... but Starcraft II was released last year. Just sayin. 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.
I don't think I'm getting my point thru to you. this isn't just copyright law. This is also general intellectual property law, licensing with some applications from patent law. Say Spalding invented the basketball 5 years ago. They would hold the rights to license out the basketball (Starcraft II). They would, most likely, charge royalties for the use of that basketball they invented.
So yes, you could say that they're being paid twice, but it's all part of the same deal. Spalding gets the upfront for selling the basketball to the NBA and then a royalty percentage on every time the NBA makes money using their basketball.
The guy who invented the BARCODE was supposedly making some obscene number of millions of dollars EVERY MONTH for 25 years (lifetime of his patent). And he was getting a fraction of a cent of every product sold that had a barcode on it as royalty.
|
On October 14 2011 02:24 Nuzoybot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 02:06 Klondikebar wrote: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. They created value in creating starcraft. If you say that they are extracting rents from the tournament organizers; the tournaments are the ones doing rent seeking: profiting from the value created by blizzard. It's not rent seeking when you are charging them for profiting from your property; in this case its just charging them a % of their revenues for the service of using your property.
But Blizzard created $60 worth of value; the game. The additional value is created by the tournament organizers, the players, the casters, and the sponsors. The only reason Blizzard is getting that additional value is because there's a law saying they get it.
Maybe they should have charged more than $60 for the game.
|
On October 14 2011 02:25 MLG_Lee 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. I don't think I'm getting my point thru to you. this isn't just copyright law. This is also general intellectual property law, licensing with some applications from patent law. Say Spalding invented the basketball 5 years ago. They would hold the rights to license out the basketball (Starcraft II). They would, most likely, charge royalties for the use of that basketball they invented. So yes, you could say that they're being paid twice, but it's all part of the same deal. Spalding gets the upfront for selling the basketball to the NBA and then a royalty percentage on every time the NBA makes money using their basketball. The guy who invented the BARCODE was supposedly making some obscene number of millions of dollars EVERY MONTH for 25 years (lifetime of his patent). And he was getting a fraction of a cent of every product sold that had a barcode on it as royalty.
I think most people don't question that Blizzard gets to get their share but the alleged percentage they get (which you obviously can't speak about, but which is sort of out in the public anyways) seems to be obscenely high - as in higher than film distributors get from the cinema tickets, especially considering that cinemas don't add any original content to the film, while tournament organisers and the players do. Don't you think it is unfair that the players don't get a share (even have to pay entrance fee), when it is them delivering the actual entertainment the audience wants to see? I think you brought up the NFL earlier, yes they and and all major sports leagues get a lot of money from the TV channels, but a part of that is redistributed to the teams/players - something which Blizzard doesn't do.
|
On October 14 2011 02:25 MLG_Lee 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. Clearly that's not what's happening in Basketball today, so this is purely an example... but Starcraft II was released last year. Just sayin. 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. I don't think I'm getting my point thru to you. this isn't just copyright law. This is also general intellectual property law, licensing with some applications from patent law. Say Spalding invented the basketball 5 years ago. They would hold the rights to license out the basketball (Starcraft II). They would, most likely, charge royalties for the use of that basketball they invented. So yes, you could say that they're being paid twice, but it's all part of the same deal. Spalding gets the upfront for selling the basketball to the NBA and then a royalty percentage on every time the NBA makes money using their basketball. The guy who invented the BARCODE was supposedly making some obscene number of millions of dollars EVERY MONTH for 25 years (lifetime of his patent). And he was getting a fraction of a cent of every product sold that had a barcode on it as royalty.
Now I see what you're saying. I see your logic. Blizzard is still technically making basketballs but they also invented basketballs. I actually had a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that Starcraft 2 is a unique KIND of good and not just one of a kind...if that makes sense.
goddammit I hate being wrong...I hate it so hard. Oh well, at least I'm more informed for it.
but srsly goddammit
|
On October 14 2011 02:25 valaki wrote:
I think this is really cheap by Blizzard. They decided that they'd go with the "always-online-BNET2" thing (which was absolutely not required, at all, they're still maintaining the Diablo, Warcraft and Starcraft servers without this kind of bullshit), then it's kinda meh to say that "b-but we have to get back something for providing you a server!", yeah you got 60$. And patching the game requires little to no manpower compared to the making of the game. This is exactly like when I decide to buy a product, pay once for it, I can use it for "personal needs" but has to pay AGAIN if I want to move to larger scales. But I guess this is the trend nowadays, Diablo 3 will cut 3-4 times before you get your IRL money.
All three of the games you named are 7-10 years old. We were on dial up then and I don't think they are going to back patch their games to make sure they need to be online all the time.
They upkeep battle.net and the match making system(one of the main and overlooked reasons we love starcraft), continue the patch the game and provide updates. They have a full time balance and esports team who's sole purpose is to support starcraft 2 and balance the game. If you think those guys are working for $22k a year with no health or dental, you are mistaken. And if you think patching takes no effort, you are also incorrect. Relic was very open about the balance and patch process with Company of Heroes. The most difficult part of patching(for them) was getting the patch to install without any issues. Not picking the values of the patch or what would be changed, but getting it to the game and applying the patch.
|
On October 14 2011 02:30 TBO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 02:25 MLG_Lee wrote: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. I don't think I'm getting my point thru to you. this isn't just copyright law. This is also general intellectual property law, licensing with some applications from patent law. Say Spalding invented the basketball 5 years ago. They would hold the rights to license out the basketball (Starcraft II). They would, most likely, charge royalties for the use of that basketball they invented. So yes, you could say that they're being paid twice, but it's all part of the same deal. Spalding gets the upfront for selling the basketball to the NBA and then a royalty percentage on every time the NBA makes money using their basketball. The guy who invented the BARCODE was supposedly making some obscene number of millions of dollars EVERY MONTH for 25 years (lifetime of his patent). And he was getting a fraction of a cent of every product sold that had a barcode on it as royalty. I think most people don't question that Blizzard gets to get their share but the alleged percentage they get (which you obviously can't speak about, but which is sort of out in the public anyways) seems to be obscenely high - as in higher than film distributors get from the cinema tickets, especially considering that cinemas don't add any original content to the film, while tournament organisers and the players do. Don't you think it is unfair that the players don't get a share (even have to pay entrance fee), when it is them delivering the actual entertainment the audience wants to see? I think you brought up the NFL earlier, yes they and and all major sports leagues get a lot of money from the TV channels, but a part of that is redistributed to the teams/players - something which Blizzard doesn't do.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe movie studios get 90% of ticket sale price on opening weekend. If Blizzard is getting more than 90% of tournament revenue than I have a hard time believing we'd even have the MLG...
|
On October 14 2011 02:39 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 02:30 TBO wrote:On October 14 2011 02:25 MLG_Lee wrote: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. I don't think I'm getting my point thru to you. this isn't just copyright law. This is also general intellectual property law, licensing with some applications from patent law. Say Spalding invented the basketball 5 years ago. They would hold the rights to license out the basketball (Starcraft II). They would, most likely, charge royalties for the use of that basketball they invented. So yes, you could say that they're being paid twice, but it's all part of the same deal. Spalding gets the upfront for selling the basketball to the NBA and then a royalty percentage on every time the NBA makes money using their basketball. The guy who invented the BARCODE was supposedly making some obscene number of millions of dollars EVERY MONTH for 25 years (lifetime of his patent). And he was getting a fraction of a cent of every product sold that had a barcode on it as royalty. I think most people don't question that Blizzard gets to get their share but the alleged percentage they get (which you obviously can't speak about, but which is sort of out in the public anyways) seems to be obscenely high - as in higher than film distributors get from the cinema tickets, especially considering that cinemas don't add any original content to the film, while tournament organisers and the players do. Don't you think it is unfair that the players don't get a share (even have to pay entrance fee), when it is them delivering the actual entertainment the audience wants to see? I think you brought up the NFL earlier, yes they and and all major sports leagues get a lot of money from the TV channels, but a part of that is redistributed to the teams/players - something which Blizzard doesn't do. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe movie studios get 90% of ticket sale price on opening weekend. If Blizzard is getting more than 90% of tournament revenue than I have a hard time believing we'd even have the MLG...
hm not sure how it is the USA, but in Germany it averages at ~45% of ticket price.
|
I cannot believe the amount of people here bitching at the rates Blizzard is charging. If you are so upset, go out, develop your own AAA-grade RTS, charge the public less and let the market decide whether it's your game or Starcraft 2 that deserve long-term popularity and survival.
|
On October 14 2011 02:30 TBO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 02:25 MLG_Lee wrote: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. I don't think I'm getting my point thru to you. this isn't just copyright law. This is also general intellectual property law, licensing with some applications from patent law. Say Spalding invented the basketball 5 years ago. They would hold the rights to license out the basketball (Starcraft II). They would, most likely, charge royalties for the use of that basketball they invented. So yes, you could say that they're being paid twice, but it's all part of the same deal. Spalding gets the upfront for selling the basketball to the NBA and then a royalty percentage on every time the NBA makes money using their basketball. The guy who invented the BARCODE was supposedly making some obscene number of millions of dollars EVERY MONTH for 25 years (lifetime of his patent). And he was getting a fraction of a cent of every product sold that had a barcode on it as royalty. I think most people don't question that Blizzard gets to get their share but the alleged percentage they get (which you obviously can't speak about, but which is sort of out in the public anyways) seems to be obscenely high - as in higher than film distributors get from the cinema tickets, especially considering that cinemas don't add any original content to the film, while tournament organisers and the players do. Don't you think it is unfair that the players don't get a share (even have to pay entrance fee), when it is them delivering the actual entertainment the audience wants to see? I think you brought up the NFL earlier, yes they and and all major sports leagues get a lot of money from the TV channels, but a part of that is redistributed to the teams/players - something which Blizzard doesn't do.
Again, you mention giving parts of the money back to the players/teams and while I'm not against the idea, how do you suggest they would do that? I can't see a feasable way
|
On October 14 2011 02:42 TBO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 02:39 Klondikebar wrote:On October 14 2011 02:30 TBO wrote:On October 14 2011 02:25 MLG_Lee wrote: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. I don't think I'm getting my point thru to you. this isn't just copyright law. This is also general intellectual property law, licensing with some applications from patent law. Say Spalding invented the basketball 5 years ago. They would hold the rights to license out the basketball (Starcraft II). They would, most likely, charge royalties for the use of that basketball they invented. So yes, you could say that they're being paid twice, but it's all part of the same deal. Spalding gets the upfront for selling the basketball to the NBA and then a royalty percentage on every time the NBA makes money using their basketball. The guy who invented the BARCODE was supposedly making some obscene number of millions of dollars EVERY MONTH for 25 years (lifetime of his patent). And he was getting a fraction of a cent of every product sold that had a barcode on it as royalty. I think most people don't question that Blizzard gets to get their share but the alleged percentage they get (which you obviously can't speak about, but which is sort of out in the public anyways) seems to be obscenely high - as in higher than film distributors get from the cinema tickets, especially considering that cinemas don't add any original content to the film, while tournament organisers and the players do. Don't you think it is unfair that the players don't get a share (even have to pay entrance fee), when it is them delivering the actual entertainment the audience wants to see? I think you brought up the NFL earlier, yes they and and all major sports leagues get a lot of money from the TV channels, but a part of that is redistributed to the teams/players - something which Blizzard doesn't do. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe movie studios get 90% of ticket sale price on opening weekend. If Blizzard is getting more than 90% of tournament revenue than I have a hard time believing we'd even have the MLG... hm not sure how it is the USA, but in Germany it averages at ~45% of ticket price.
Just double checked my source, it was Star Wars Episode 1 that notoriously demanded 90% on opening weekend. I believe ~75% is more standard. And it decreases every weekend.
|
I'm excited to see everybody here arguing that Blizzard made all of its money when they sold the copy of the game go to every thread demanding patch/BNet changes, and say: Blizzard doesn't owe you anything, you knew what you got when you paid $60 for it.
-Cross
|
On October 14 2011 02:47 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 02:30 TBO wrote:On October 14 2011 02:25 MLG_Lee wrote: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. I don't think I'm getting my point thru to you. this isn't just copyright law. This is also general intellectual property law, licensing with some applications from patent law. Say Spalding invented the basketball 5 years ago. They would hold the rights to license out the basketball (Starcraft II). They would, most likely, charge royalties for the use of that basketball they invented. So yes, you could say that they're being paid twice, but it's all part of the same deal. Spalding gets the upfront for selling the basketball to the NBA and then a royalty percentage on every time the NBA makes money using their basketball. The guy who invented the BARCODE was supposedly making some obscene number of millions of dollars EVERY MONTH for 25 years (lifetime of his patent). And he was getting a fraction of a cent of every product sold that had a barcode on it as royalty. I think most people don't question that Blizzard gets to get their share but the alleged percentage they get (which you obviously can't speak about, but which is sort of out in the public anyways) seems to be obscenely high - as in higher than film distributors get from the cinema tickets, especially considering that cinemas don't add any original content to the film, while tournament organisers and the players do. Don't you think it is unfair that the players don't get a share (even have to pay entrance fee), when it is them delivering the actual entertainment the audience wants to see? I think you brought up the NFL earlier, yes they and and all major sports leagues get a lot of money from the TV channels, but a part of that is redistributed to the teams/players - something which Blizzard doesn't do. Again, you mention giving parts of the money back to the players/teams and while I'm not against the idea, how do you suggest they would do that? I can't see a feasable way
Well the same way as they do it in traditional sports, depending on results you get a share (which is way less lopsided than the prize money distribution), additionally matches played on stage/streamed on main stream give a bonus, it's really not that hard.
|
Taking it away from the what's correct and legal, it's a shame because in a sense MLG and these bigger events are growing SC2 through advertising sc2, surely blizzard makes a ton off the people that watch the big crowds and hours of content then decide to buy or play the game. Doesn't seem fair.
|
I would like their cut to be performance related. If you see something like IPL3 where lack of LAN does its best to destroy the tournament, they shouldn't be getting anything.
We can dream, right?
|
So I guess I paid $60.00 for an unbalanced piece of shit (reapers for fucking ever), and then the money I want to give to Sundance for actually producing content is given to Blizzard to fix their fuck-ups (patching and balancing, how novel).
I gotta say though, Sunny being smart enough to implement a Membership program. No ad revenue = no money for Blizzard, kudos to Sunny. Unless they somehow figure out a way to fuck that up too.
|
It's really sad to see so many Blizzard apologists scrambling to justify their actions. Blizzard are not integral to the functioning of the esports scene, the BW scene in Korea is a clear example that esports can function quite well without (and in some cases, despite) Blizzard's intervention. There is no way to justify taking half the ad revenue of every large tournament for having two people on salary making balance changes.
Hopefully privately held companies like Valve will take the long term approach and help generate self-sustaining sport based on their IPs instead of prematurely trying to milk the life out of them. So far, they seem to be doing much better job than Blizzard, let's hope the next step is to create some direct competitor to SC, otherwise Blizzard will never change given how spineless their customers are.
|
either way blizzard are making a mint from sc and wow 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
