|
On October 13 2011 17:46 Dakkas wrote:Show nested quote +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:On October 13 2011 03:44 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The reason for the paid name change it to keep people from changing their name over and over. It makes it more difficult for other players to report people when they can't do so by simply saying "player X is an ass-hat". It has other benfits as well, but mostly it keeps people locked to one idenity and allows them to address cheating/harrassment. Xbox live does the same thing, for the sole reason that a pay-wall prevents people constently switching their names.
And I don't feel you're are ignorant. I do think people hold Blizzard to an unreasonable standard. They have shown time and time again that they do care about the community, want SC2 to explode and are willing to support tournments all over the world. Esports is huge, people are making a living playing Starcraft and compeating in huge tournments. Everything is amazing and no one is happy. 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.
|
OMFG it's like nike or puma getting royalties for a football match or 100m dash. If players in the tournament play on their own accounts. Blizzard can just eff off. Since they provide nothing more than people already paid for in full. If they however provide a special lan version or local server or whatever they could charge for that.
|
On October 13 2011 22:15 shell wrote:
Don't forget they sold some millions of copies of SC2 and now everyone will buy HoTS and the next expansion and all the knew players that will get into SC2 because of streams, tournaments and events will buy not one but 3 games(even if they in the future will have a nice package and a lower price) it will mean that in the end of the SC2 life they will have sold millions of copies for every version and to that will add the revenue they get from events and tournaments..
I believe people should get a licence and market blizzard/activision brand but for the sake of the "sport" they shouldn't get nothing from the tournaments and events that on the big picture will spread their game and increase it's longevity to the fullest..
Do you guys think that BW would still sell or at least sell for so many years if it wasn't a esport? It's because of BW, that they created this rules, because they knew they would be able to milk the cow even further, but in my opinion this will be another hiccup in the growth of "SC2" and esports.
So yeah for once.. this actually kills esports!
You can choose to look at it that way. I choose to look at it from a "better" angle. Even if Blizzard is greedy by taking ad revenue from events (they're not btw, it's standard business), they make it viable for themselves to keep improving the game. BW didn't see any patches in ages. Not because the game was perfect, but because KeSPA was making the money, not Blizzard. They stopped updating War3 when it dulled down in sales, but was still going strong in the competitive scene.
Do you see where i'm going? There's no point for Blizzard to keep building on something that won't give them anything in return. How can you not understand that Blizzard is a company, and like any other company, their priority is to make money, or they will eventually DIE.
That's like finishing a bottle of water, only to continue drinking when it's empty. It DOESNT work.
Edit; And to those who expect major corporations to continue making them happy without getting anything in return; Life's gonna kick you in the face. Alot.
|
To be fair Riots LoL is a free game to play and you can unlock every single thing in the game aside from character skins for free. The micro transactions are either for lazy people or people who want to style up there champion and it works.
Favebook games make more money than anything. Zynga is the biggest. It make more money than EA or Blizzard and only from free games.
Do you even know why most MMOs had to go the freemium way? Not because their managers though "Oh, it would be nice for our customers" but because that was the only way to survive in this world of free casual games.
|
On October 13 2011 17:52 Chewie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 17:24 Cataphract wrote:
The only source for the 50% number is Totalbiscuit who, if you read his twitter, seems to go out of his way to skew everything Blizzard does negatively. I take anything he says with a grain of salt.
I follow TB alot, and i totally disagree that he skews everything blizz does negatively. Its strange to me how many people have this mentality of "Well its a corporation, why should they ever forgo profit where profit can be obtained?" May I just present the idea that money isnt everything, even if you are a corporation, whose main goal it is to make money. I mean, a few people do weigh every little thing they do with their life in money. But most people, I feel, choose a profession or a certain market because they care about that particular thing that they do. Because they care about the product itself, and the value it has that goes beyond the simple dollar value. In this case, Im sure there are many blizz employees who care alot about having an impact on the future of esports. If your sole, your very only ambition with a product is to make money, then I believe that products only end value will be the profit it makes you. Thats a poor description of Starcraft, the sport.
Well maybe not skews everything, but he often brings up the stuff he things is "bad", aka nerfing raids in WoW, or the real money AH in Diablo 3 and tweets about it sarcastically. And on the same token, he doesn't mention things that could be considered good at all. Such as making the real ID parties in WoW free to use.
Do I think Blizzard wants to make money? Absolutely.
Do I think Blizzard ONLY cares about money? No. They patched Diablo 2 10ish years after it was released. They still reset the ladder seasons.
|
On October 13 2011 22:55 oZe wrote:
OMFG it's like nike or puma getting royalties for a football match or 100m dash. If players in the tournament play on their own accounts. Blizzard can just eff off. Since they provide nothing more than people already paid for in full. If they however provide a special lan version or local server or whatever they could charge for that.
It's hard to draw comparisons to traditional sports but I think the one you made is inaccurate.
It's more similar to the NBA, NFL or MLB (basketball, american football , baseball) getting a cut of the ad revenues.
A vendor like Nike or Puma is more similar to Razr or..whoever makes the monitors. These products are ancillary to the game.
Blizzard controls the actual game, they control the mechanics, they control every new feature and rule that gets implemented in the game...
on top of that they control the servers that host the game.
And yes, you are right - we paid $60 (retail) to purchase the game and to purchase the privilege to play multi-player on their servers.
Do you really think that $60/copy is enough to sustain a team of software engineers, management + other Overhead costs to constantly evaluate the game and provide minor free updates?
Or that the one time cost of $60 is enough for server maintenance?
Also do you think that Blizzard, the creator of the game, is not entitled to a portion of revenues earned through advertising for game events?
Yes tournament organizers deserve compensation. Which is why it's not 100% of ad revenues and which is why smaller tournaments (ostensibly those with a <5k prize pool) are exempted.
But I think Blizzard is entitled to ad revenues generated by THEIR game.
Organizers are compensated through a portion of the ad revenue
Players are compensated through prize pools and individual sponsorships
Blizzard is compensated through ad revenues from major tournaments
Everyone gets paid for their work.
I really don't see a problem with it.
AT ALL.
Every company needs to make money. Some of those do so by selling a product and make non-recurring profits.
Others sell the base product for cheap and rely on ad-revenues for a steady income stream.
Blizzard is doing both. The $60 to offset the development cost (I mean..how long was SC2 in development again? That's a lot of years and a lot of engineers)
The ad-revenue stream is to make that huge risk they took on SC2 worth it..and to make first-class support for their product a profitable decision.
|
On October 12 2011 20:22 NtroP wrote:
Any tournament with a prize pool over a certain amount is required to pay blizz a significant chunk of all add revenue.
*edit
Being unspecific as I don't know if it's public knowledge or not.
You just have to go through blizzard and get a tournament license, which isn't a set cost anyways. I don't think it has anything to do with ad revenue specifically, has to do with how much viewership you plan on getting.
And for the most part, most tournaments don't have them, only the big ones like IEM, MLG, GSL, NASL, IPL, etc. end up going through blizzard. Local LAN's and what have you don't bother, nor do most online tournaments.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
And I guess movie cinemas should make money off films just by buying a DVD and screening it. Forget paying the production company to get the privilege of selling tickets because the movie gets FREE ADVERTISEMENT with that screening.
not
|
it is pretty pathetic... I mean imagine a football manufacturer charging revenue from a football event if the pricepool exceeded a specific amount and their ball was used.
I know Blizzard has a legal right due to Copyright (Copyright sucks anyways) - but it is still pretty dumb, they should be paying the tourneys for the exposure / advert value they get. In any other business it works like that, you use my product and i pay you to do it. ( i know its not the same, as their are not multiple SC's - but maybe there should be lol) - sigh sigh and double sigh 
|
On October 12 2011 22:38 ToguRo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 20:55 ThirdDegree wrote:
Blizz should take some money from each tournament. Sure we all paid for the game, but that's just a one time purchase. If Blizz doesn't continue to generate profits, what incentive do they have to continue to support the game via server upkeep and patches and such. They need to continue to make money off of SC2, and this is a much better alternative than having an annual subscription. look at the crappy interface and features of SC2 ... I would rather pay a monthly fee and them give us the Bnet features PC games in 2011 should have
If people really believe the above then they are beyond help. You would rather a monthly fee? I played Wow for 5 years you know how much money that is? 900 dollars, to pay a sub fee in starcraft 2 that is going to be around for the very least 6 more years if you include expands. I dont actually think i have to say more, use you're brain before you post.
|
On October 14 2011 00:20 TWIX_Heaven wrote:it is pretty pathetic... I mean imagine a football manufacturer charging revenue from a football event if the pricepool exceeded a specific amount and their ball was used. I know Blizzard has a legal right due to Copyright (Copyright sucks anyways) - but it is still pretty dumb, they should be paying the tourneys for the exposure / advert value they get. In any other business it works like that, you use my product and i pay you to do it. ( i know its not the same, as their are not multiple SC's - but maybe there should be lol) - sigh sigh and double sigh
lol let's not be fooling ourselves here, 95% - 99% of people who bought this game didn't buy it because they saw it on MLG or IEM or whatever. Honestly the advertising Blizzard gets at these tournaments is relatively negligible (consider that if 5000 people showed up to watch LoL... and 5 of those people saw SC2 and bought it... that's negligible).
On the other hand, think of how much money MLG or IEM makes from showing SC2.
I'm lol'ing at the crying of people. Blizzard can do what it wants, it has a right to.
By the way, Copyright doesn't suck. That is one of the dumbest things I've heard. If we didn't have copyrights we would never have new drugs because there's no incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest millions of dollars into something that, which succeeds (the probability is already low), won't make them profit. New inventions would be rare because they could be imitated easily. Everything would have to be government-funded for a no-copyright system to work, which is just ridiculous.
You go living in your anti-corporate world, the rest of us will deal with reality and some of the pains that come with it.
|
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
|
On October 14 2011 00:10 Cataphract wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On October 13 2011 23:56 gatorling wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +On October 13 2011 22:55 oZe wrote:
OMFG it's like nike or puma getting royalties for a football match or 100m dash. If players in the tournament play on their own accounts. Blizzard can just eff off. Since they provide nothing more than people already paid for in full. If they however provide a special lan version or local server or whatever they could charge for that.
It's hard to draw comparisons to traditional sports but I think the one you made is inaccurate.
It's more similar to the NBA, NFL or MLB (basketball, american football , baseball) getting a cut of the ad revenues.
Yes it is hard, but it does not mean that it is actually different, the difference lies in the idea of intellectual property, where a football itself is not copyrighted, starcraft 2 is (but other products enabling you to participate in a unique physical activity and sport may yet be invented and thus be able to be copyrighted and to have the same rules as starcraft apply to tournaments)
A vendor like Nike or Puma is more similar to Razr or..whoever makes the monitors. These products are ancillary to the game.
Blizzard controls the actual game, they control the mechanics, they control every new feature and rule that gets implemented in the game...
on top of that they control the servers that host the game.
But, the NBA, NFL ect are more like MLG, GSL, IPL ect no? They actually organize and deliver the content, and thus deserve the revenue, the guy who invented basketball wont get a nickel (because basketball is not a intellectual property - it is too old) In our example the inventor of the game requires money from the organizer, in order for the organizer to be able to hold a tourney of substantial size, which might not be down right wrong, the wrongness lies in the monopoly of decisions towards these issues, "how much money do we take, can we control the content, can we control the event" - this is bad, and they absolutely can.
And yes, you are right - we paid $60 (retail) to purchase the game and to purchase the privilege to play multi-player on their servers.
Do you really think that $60/copy is enough to sustain a team of software engineers, management + other Overhead costs to constantly evaluate the game and provide minor free updates?
Or that the one time cost of $60 is enough for server maintenance?
Really? So what, game companies who don't make e-sport games cant support themselves? Because it requires more money to maintain their game? Then put the price higher! They should not be able to make rules like this based on the assumption that otherwise they cant survive (they can, it's blizzard they have made billions and on games, games that did not have these rules mind you).
You are making a victim of blizzard, which is the wrong way to think about it imo. In fact the only reason they can demand these thing is because you can only play it online, and in loading it from the server you agree to their terms which basically states that you do not own the game you are playing, rather you are "renting" it, which means that if you alter the game or use it in ways not specified in the agreement you are breaking copyright law. Once a point in time, when you bought something, you actually owned it, it was yours - a physical little thing you could call yours that you could do with as you wanted. Now, you are just a consumer of a service. Imagine Blizzard turning the key shutting down B.net, you would never be able to play again, unless you brake the rules.
Also do you think that Blizzard, the creator of the game, is not entitled to a portion of revenues earned through advertising for game events?
Actually it works both ways, the tournaments have something to organize because blizzard made a game, but at the same time, blizzard get huge advertising value in their game being exposed to such a huge degree and in the way it is professionally presented (which hardly can be credited to blizzard no?) A lot of developers actually do the opposite and throw money AT tournaments to create more interest and maybe more players (revenue).
Yes tournament organizers deserve compensation. Which is why it's not 100% of ad revenues and which is why smaller tournaments (ostensibly those with a <5k prize pool) are exempted.
but theoretically the biggest event of the year could be a sub 5k price pool generating more revenue than the 5k+ events (think MLG vs NASL) then maybe one day Blizzard decides they want revenue from ALL events, and there is nothing you can do about it.
But I think Blizzard is entitled to ad revenues generated by THEIR game.
Organizers are compensated through a portion of the ad revenue
Players are compensated through prize pools and individual sponsorships
Blizzard is compensated through ad revenues from major tournaments
Everyone gets paid for their work.
I really don't see a problem with it.
AT ALL.
The problem is, straight up that you have no control or influence on these numbers or decisions, it is as if Blizzard created something which is holy and that we have to pay tribute in gratefulness of their greatness. IF these imposed rules did not exist i could "simply" make a similar game without these rules and reap the benefits, i cant however because of copyright, and that is eating away at creativity and new thinking, and instead creating protectionism and fear of "loosing" value.
think about it.
Every company needs to make money. Some of those do so by selling a product and make non-recurring profits.
Others sell the base product for cheap and rely on ad-revenues for a steady income stream.
Blizzard is doing both. The $60 to offset the development cost (I mean..how long was SC2 in development again? That's a lot of years and a lot of engineers)
The ad-revenue stream is to make that huge risk they took on SC2 worth it..and to make first-class support for their product a profitable decision.
Yeah they do and they.... well do. It is the way they do it that is questionable and in my oppinion bad for everyone except Blizzard ( maybe in the long run also Blizzard i think)
just my "im so tired of f***ing copyright" 2cents
|
14 pages and not one single person has offered up any actual proof or evidence.
And why do people think that corporations have infinite money and never need to protect their product? Hate to say it but people are dicks, and blizzard has to go out of their way to protect themselves from being taken advantage of. It's called life and it's not like the movies at all.
|
On October 14 2011 01:06 Talack wrote:
14 pages and not one single person has offered up any actual proof or evidence.
And why do people think that corporations have infinite money and never need to protect their product? Hate to say it but people are dicks, and blizzard has to go out of their way to protect themselves from being taken advantage of. It's called life and it's not like the movies at all.
And copyright law has it's place. The entire point of the thread is to discuss whether or not this is it's place though. When you're talking about a good with zero marginal cost to produce you're going to have an issue justifying charging not one, but TWO marginal prices.
NOTE: I'm not trying to sound like a snooty econ kid. Just trying to use the correct words so I can be as clear as possible.
|
279 Posts
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.
|
On October 14 2011 00:25 FairForever wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 00:20 TWIX_Heaven wrote:it is pretty pathetic... I mean imagine a football manufacturer charging revenue from a football event if the pricepool exceeded a specific amount and their ball was used. I know Blizzard has a legal right due to Copyright (Copyright sucks anyways) - but it is still pretty dumb, they should be paying the tourneys for the exposure / advert value they get. In any other business it works like that, you use my product and i pay you to do it. ( i know its not the same, as their are not multiple SC's - but maybe there should be lol) - sigh sigh and double sigh lol let's not be fooling ourselves here, 95% - 99% of people who bought this game didn't buy it because they saw it on MLG or IEM or whatever. Honestly the advertising Blizzard gets at these tournaments is relatively negligible (consider that if 5000 people showed up to watch LoL... and 5 of those people saw SC2 and bought it... that's negligible). On the other hand, think of how much money MLG or IEM makes from showing SC2. I'm lol'ing at the crying of people. Blizzard can do what it wants, it has a right to. By the way, Copyright doesn't suck. That is one of the dumbest things I've heard. If we didn't have copyrights we would never have new drugs because there's no incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest millions of dollars into something that, which succeeds (the probability is already low), won't make them profit. New inventions would be rare because they could be imitated easily. Everything would have to be government-funded for a no-copyright system to work, which is just ridiculous. You go living in your anti-corporate world, the rest of us will deal with reality and some of the pains that come with it.
"Blizzard can do what it wants, it has the right to."
yes this is the problem
copyright DOES suck, if there were no Copyright the best /cheapest product would win, not the guy inventing it, copyright creates higher prices and less competition meaning less innovation. No one has copyright on the idea of a car, thus the best one wins, and everyone is happy. Instead we have monopolies created not by reason or by the idea of the best choice, instead they are created by ideas themselves, which hampers development. The example with pharmaceutical industries is straight up stupid, no copyright would mean tough competition and relying on improving and innovating instead of researching and monopolizing.
instead of spending billions on a single research project, people would be forced to improve upon what is already done, and in the process figure out new and better things (drugs fx), especially new drugs are often "discovered" while researching or improving completely different drugs.
just because we have a system in place by no means mean we should be contend.
And no i am not going back anywhere, i am staying in the corporate world, trying to change it bit by bit, inch by inch, post by post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
