|
Hey guys, I was watching ShoutCRAFT and I was saying to myself... wow 50k people watching and only 5k$ for prizes ? This atention , I guess would generate more revenue hmmm... and then I went on day9tv mirc channel and wrote this :
[22:13] <bOne7> lol guys 50k people watching shoutcraft invitational [22:13] * antinova (~whyme101@c-87-251-222-185.cust.bredband2.com) has joined #day9tv [22:13] <bOne7> a tournament with that atention would totally deserve more than 5k$ :D [22:13] <Jingwa_Nyanda> the prizepool is a blizz restriction [22:14] <Jingwa_Nyanda> I think it's Blizz gets half of all profits for pools over 5K
Is this true? Does blizzard actually restricts it ? Because if it is true, Blizzard's gone from no respect ( on my side ) , to total loathing.( until at least some one explains me how this would help the community )
|
|
Yep, this is true, any online tourney that wants to have a <$5000 prize pool has to pay a fee to blizzard...
|
|
On January 16 2012 05:38 ASNheat wrote: I really don't understand this as it doesn't make sense for them to stop their own games' development. :| Money Money Money. Blizzard's own motto.
|
ok so I'm focusing all my hate towards Blizzard right now....I'm getting dizzy actually :-/ .... Instead of actually supporting the esports community you want to .... oh ... I'm rather sad...
|
Stream chat's are not often a reliable source of info.
|
On January 16 2012 05:43 bOneSeven wrote: ok so I'm focusing all my hate towards Blizzard right now....I'm getting dizzy actually :-/ .... Instead of actually supporting the esports community you want to .... oh ... I'm rather sad... It isn't that big of a deal o.o.
|
juicyjames
United States3815 Posts
Blizzard doesn't get half of all profits for prize pools over $5K.
"Not sure how much it is in the states. Polish tournament organizers told me it's 10-15% from the entire prize pool IF it's over 5,000 USD." - mki
"This is what I know. Yes, you can go over $5k with special dispensation from Blizzard. However, it is policy for them to then require 50% of your ad revenue. I know of several large tournaments that have had to do this. If SHOUTcraft Invitational were to do this, it would mean less money getting into the hands of players, which is completely against what the tournament is all about. It makes no sense for SCI to do this, rather than just run more than one event." - TotalBiscuit
"This isn't entirely accurate, and as far as i'm aware most tournament organizers are under NDA once they go over 5K so you won't get a proper explanation....its not as money grubbing as the OP makes it out to be. Closing, unless TB actually isn't under NDA (you can PM me)." - Kennigit
|
If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make
|
On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make
Is right!
|
On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make
Lame!!
|
I guess that's Blizzards way to make money beside selling the game. In WoW they have a monthly fee to support and earn money. So I guess this is better? For us (Players)
|
I was saying that Blizzard were a rather vicious corporation after the merge with Activision ... but I was not aware of this then ... now I can only say .... IDK , why would people even support Blizzard anyways ? What they have done in SC2 to make the esports scene better ? Anything at all ? I'm sure that patching costs really not that much money.
Nvm about the NDA just googled it :D .... Anyways ... Horrible Horrible Blizzard ... The ones who own it are rather horrible people ...
As IdrA said ... they probably won't help balance to game so it get more competitively ... They won't do anything to make it better for competition because they are BLIZZARD ... GG IdrA I'm ure fan for ever for saying what no1 else really said being in his position.
|
On January 16 2012 05:52 JoeAWESOME wrote: I guess that's Blizzards way to make money beside selling the game. In WoW they have a monthly fee to support and earn money. So I guess this is better? For us (Players) If it gets to the point where sc2 is mainstream, then no, it is not better for us (players)
|
On January 16 2012 05:53 bOneSeven wrote: What they have done in SC2 to make the esports scene better ?
Made BW and SC2. There's that
|
On January 16 2012 05:56 Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 05:53 bOneSeven wrote: What they have done in SC2 to make the esports scene better ? Made BW and SC2. There's that How does this entitle them to a stake in everything arising from the broadcast of said games, though? Yes, I'm aware that the US has some really retarded copyright laws that make it legal to retain indefinite rights to basically everything you do with any product, but from a straightforward point of view, how could this really be thought of as logical?
|
blizzard runs all the bnet servers and continues to patch the game and release new maps. Tournaments are the only continuing source of income for them since the game is only sold once. Whether they make a shit ton of money or not is no reason to loath them. Its a much better way for them to have a strong relationship with tournament organizers and continue to make money without subscriptions from players. Imo, it would also be unfair for tourney organizer to make money off their servers and hard work for no fee.
|
On January 16 2012 05:56 Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 05:53 bOneSeven wrote: What they have done in SC2 to make the esports scene better ? Made BW and SC2. There's that
They made that for money. They got their money, now what have they done after that ? You wanna tell me they made SC2 to help the esports scene ? No, they would help the esports scene if they would remove this unreasonable restriction , lower the price to the game ( expansion set appears in less than 6 months so it's perfectly reasonable ) to maybe 10-15$ so it gets more players-> more spectators for the game . and spend some resources to try and balance the game to make it more competitively. "There's that"
|
Since there are so many tournaments with a larger prizepool than 5k, the blizzard tournament fee cant be that bad.
|
On January 16 2012 05:58 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 05:56 Diamond wrote:On January 16 2012 05:53 bOneSeven wrote: What they have done in SC2 to make the esports scene better ? Made BW and SC2. There's that How does this entitle them to a stake in everything arising from the broadcast of said games, though? Yes, I'm aware that the US has some really retarded copyright laws that make it legal to retain indefinite rights to basically everything you do with any product, but from a straightforward point of view, how could this really be thought of as logical?
they host every server and protect from hackers/cheaters. plus they continue to patch and balance the game to continue growth.
|
On January 16 2012 06:00 radiantshadow92 wrote: blizzard runs all the bnet servers and continues to patch the game and release new maps. Tournaments are the only continuing source of income for them since the game is only sold once. Whether they make a shit ton of money or not is no reason to loath them. Its a much better way for them to have a strong relationship with tournament organizers and continue to make money without subscriptions from players. Imo, it would also be unfair for tourney organizer to make money off their servers and hard work for no fee.
You didn't need to use "THEIR" servers if they implemented LAN for offline tournaments. And you make money from games from selling them or having a legitimate strategy that only involves the casual player. They are so vicious that they went out of their way, making it impossible to play on different realms unless if you buy MORE copies of SC2 . I'm feeling rather bad for actually buying SC2 now.
And no they don't balance it. They change it because if they wouldn't people would abuse certain things, make game dead => no1 will continue buying the game or playing it.
|
I like this game because of the brilliant community attached to it, Blizzard are very very evil :p
But there isn't really an alternative.
|
On January 16 2012 06:01 radiantshadow92 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 05:58 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 05:56 Diamond wrote:On January 16 2012 05:53 bOneSeven wrote: What they have done in SC2 to make the esports scene better ? Made BW and SC2. There's that How does this entitle them to a stake in everything arising from the broadcast of said games, though? Yes, I'm aware that the US has some really retarded copyright laws that make it legal to retain indefinite rights to basically everything you do with any product, but from a straightforward point of view, how could this really be thought of as logical? they host every server and protect from hackers/cheaters. plus they continue to patch and balance the game to continue growth. Doesn't really make sense. As far as Blizzard can tell from their services, hosting an MLG is essentially no different from hosting some kids playing Bunker Wars.
|
If your not creating tournaments with prize pools greater than 5k, I don't see why you should care. Most of those tournaments are massive events. The money that goes to Blizzard is minimal compared to the money the event organizers make. Honestly, Blizzard made the game, they have the right to do whatever they want with it.
|
You actually dont respect blizzard? They deserve more respect than any of the other major players in gaming. As the law stands, this is their copywrited product and I think that this is perfectly reasonable. They could have set the bar a lot lower than 5k.
|
On January 16 2012 06:03 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:00 radiantshadow92 wrote: blizzard runs all the bnet servers and continues to patch the game and release new maps. Tournaments are the only continuing source of income for them since the game is only sold once. Whether they make a shit ton of money or not is no reason to loath them. Its a much better way for them to have a strong relationship with tournament organizers and continue to make money without subscriptions from players. Imo, it would also be unfair for tourney organizer to make money off their servers and hard work for no fee. You didn't need to use "THEIR" servers if they implemented LAN for offline tournaments. And you make money from games from selling them or having a legitimate strategy that only involves the casual player. They are so vicious that they went out of their way, making it impossible to play on different realms unless if you buy MORE copies of SC2 . I'm feeling rather bad for actually buying SC2 now. And no they don't balance it. They change it because if they wouldn't people would abuse certain things, make game dead => no1 will continue buying the game or playing it.
there is no point in trying to change your mind, it seems you already have your opinion about blizzard and anything i say probably wont change that. so we are gonna have to agree to disagree. We are both looking at the same cup only you see it half empty.
|
i loathe blizzard for trying to make money off a game they developed (including all the expenses of development). evil capitalistic corporations only looking out for their stockholders' interests. EVIL!!
|
On January 16 2012 06:12 radiantshadow92 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:03 bOneSeven wrote:On January 16 2012 06:00 radiantshadow92 wrote: blizzard runs all the bnet servers and continues to patch the game and release new maps. Tournaments are the only continuing source of income for them since the game is only sold once. Whether they make a shit ton of money or not is no reason to loath them. Its a much better way for them to have a strong relationship with tournament organizers and continue to make money without subscriptions from players. Imo, it would also be unfair for tourney organizer to make money off their servers and hard work for no fee. You didn't need to use "THEIR" servers if they implemented LAN for offline tournaments. And you make money from games from selling them or having a legitimate strategy that only involves the casual player. They are so vicious that they went out of their way, making it impossible to play on different realms unless if you buy MORE copies of SC2 . I'm feeling rather bad for actually buying SC2 now. And no they don't balance it. They change it because if they wouldn't people would abuse certain things, make game dead => no1 will continue buying the game or playing it. there is no point in trying to change your mind, it seems you already have your opinion about blizzard and anything i say probably wont change that. so we are gonna have to agree to disagree. We are both looking at the same cup only you see it half empty.
you can totally change my mind if you can come with an appealing argument . But my idea is pretty legitimate of what a really supporting corporation would do. Try to balance it as much as possible, don't get revenue unless there some massive tournament, make it really cheap so more people will buy-> spectator pool will rise ( making it cheaper after the sales are gone done dramatically , since the expansion set will soon be released ) . Am I really that unreasonable ?
If anything, the most compelling peace of evidence of their complete viciousness is the fact that you have to buy several copies of SC2 if you want to play on different servers.
"i loathe blizzard for trying to make money off a game they developed (including all the expenses of development). evil capitalistic corporations only looking out for their stockholders' interests. EVIL!!" - Told you, make money off of non-pro players. As much as you can, but if you wanna get in the way of helping the pro players...it makes me sick.
|
Thank you again, Blizz ......
|
Another of these threads? 5k is the limit before you have to arrange things with Blizzard, why is this a thread.
EDIT: It has been this way for a very very very long time.
|
On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make
While other organizations actually push esport and make million dollar tournaments (hi@valve), Blizzard restricts esports with silly stuff like this or no LAN (no save, no reconnect)... great.
|
On January 16 2012 06:20 Ragoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make While other organizations actually push esport and make million dollar tournaments (hi@valve), Blizzard restricts esports with silly stuff like this or no LAN (no save, no reconnect)... great. Blizzcon, and they sponsor GSL as well. Blizzard does not make good money from boxes and expansions. Look at their three big titles right now, WoW has a subscription, SC2 has tournament revenue, D3 has the real money auction house.
Progressive income means that they have maximum encouragement to constantly improve and patch the game between release cycles.
|
On January 16 2012 05:43 bOneSeven wrote: ok so I'm focusing all my hate towards Blizzard right now....I'm getting dizzy actually :-/ .... Instead of actually supporting the esports community you want to .... oh ... I'm rather sad... it's pretty normal..
|
On January 16 2012 06:20 Ragoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make While other organizations actually push esport and make million dollar tournaments (hi@valve), Blizzard restricts esports with silly stuff like this or no LAN (no save, no reconnect)... great.
Hah you think the million dollar dota tourney was "pushing esport" and not an expensive ad? What do you think of Riot and their constant money injection
|
On January 16 2012 06:20 Ragoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make While other organizations actually push esport and make million dollar tournaments (hi@valve), Blizzard restricts esports with silly stuff like this or no LAN (no save, no reconnect)... great.
And yet Starcraft has proved itself to be the only long term self-sustaining E-Sport. While other companies are pooling millions into their games, Starcraft II is competing with Blizzard dropping a cent. Blizzard's model is much superior in that aspect because it does not require a massive marketing budget.
Make no mistake the 1.6 million tournament was an advertisement, nothing more.
And don't say "hi valve" when they have done like one thing in the last forever to support E-Sports. Valve has turned a blind eye to E-Sports for a long long long long long time.
|
at the end of the day, its a business. If they're expecting SC2 to be anywher near as big as broodwar was, its good sense to add in some clause like this.
it just makes sense
|
Well, since it is at least somewhat related I am just gonna ask another question here and see if anybody can tell me something about it because I have been wondering about it for a quite a while.
What about people making money off their YouTube channels with SC2 videos? There are famous people like Artosis, Husky, TB or HD but also less famous ones who still made it to a YouTube partner account with SC2 content (you can recognize partner accounts by their custom header on top of the channel page).
According to the YouTube terms people should need a written permission from Blizzard if they are making money off SC2 videos because the game is copyrighted content not owned by the video makers.
Does Blizzard take some money off these guys as well? And how do you even get such a permission to monetize SC2 videos on YouTube because I wouldn't even know how to contact Blizzard in that regard (don't tell me anything like "you don't have enough views anyway", it is just a general question and I know that I personally won't make money with SC2 vids but maybe with other gaming videos which would be a similar situation, so I am just curious).
|
i don't understand why some people think blizzard is not entitled to part of revenue people make by broadcasting game blizzard created.
|
the following statement is my opinion, no it might not be like your and no im not asking you to agree with me:
at this point with over 50k viewers TB can take a lost to his OWN ad revenue to raise the prize pool. after a certain point in ads he is already making way more than the 5k needed for the next tournament. it just my opinion that he doesnt want to raise it because he rather take the huge amount of ad revenue he is getting from 50k people himself...which is way more than the 5k he is giving to players
|
On January 16 2012 06:20 Ragoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make While other organizations actually push esport and make million dollar tournaments (hi@valve), Blizzard restricts esports with silly stuff like this or no LAN (no save, no reconnect)... great. They actually ran that tournament themselves with their own money. It was an ad. Compare that to Blizzcon, not Shoutcraft or whatever.
|
On January 16 2012 06:24 Zeroxk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:20 Ragoo wrote:On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make While other organizations actually push esport and make million dollar tournaments (hi@valve), Blizzard restricts esports with silly stuff like this or no LAN (no save, no reconnect)... great. Hah you think the million dollar dota tourney was "pushing esport" and not an expensive ad? What do you think of Riot and their constant money injection
There will be more of these from Valve... edit: And it was an ad for esport if anything.
On January 16 2012 06:00 radiantshadow92 wrote: blizzard runs all the bnet servers and continues to patch the game and release new maps. Tournaments are the only continuing source of income for them since the game is only sold once. Whether they make a shit ton of money or not is no reason to loath them. Its a much better way for them to have a strong relationship with tournament organizers and continue to make money without subscriptions from players. Imo, it would also be unfair for tourney organizer to make money off their servers and hard work for no fee.
They make millions and millions of dollars , the money in esport is VERY small compared to the profit Blizzard makes. How is it even remotely cool if they charge esport tournaments like this and slow down esport's growth. Also new maps isn't rly an achievement, it's more of an annoyance since the community is way better at making maps...
|
On January 16 2012 06:18 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:12 radiantshadow92 wrote:On January 16 2012 06:03 bOneSeven wrote:On January 16 2012 06:00 radiantshadow92 wrote: blizzard runs all the bnet servers and continues to patch the game and release new maps. Tournaments are the only continuing source of income for them since the game is only sold once. Whether they make a shit ton of money or not is no reason to loath them. Its a much better way for them to have a strong relationship with tournament organizers and continue to make money without subscriptions from players. Imo, it would also be unfair for tourney organizer to make money off their servers and hard work for no fee. You didn't need to use "THEIR" servers if they implemented LAN for offline tournaments. And you make money from games from selling them or having a legitimate strategy that only involves the casual player. They are so vicious that they went out of their way, making it impossible to play on different realms unless if you buy MORE copies of SC2 . I'm feeling rather bad for actually buying SC2 now. And no they don't balance it. They change it because if they wouldn't people would abuse certain things, make game dead => no1 will continue buying the game or playing it. there is no point in trying to change your mind, it seems you already have your opinion about blizzard and anything i say probably wont change that. so we are gonna have to agree to disagree. We are both looking at the same cup only you see it half empty. you can totally change my mind if you can come with an appealing argument . But my idea is pretty legitimate of what a really supporting corporation would do. Try to balance it as much as possible, don't get revenue unless there some massive tournament, make it really cheap so more people will buy-> spectator pool will rise ( making it cheaper after the sales are gone done dramatically , since the expansion set will soon be released ) . Am I really that unreasonable ? If anything, the most compelling peace of evidence of their complete viciousness is the fact that you have to buy several copies of SC2 if you want to play on different servers.
there is no not really an argument to make that you dont already know. You know why blizzard has said no to LAN mode. it gave them headaches with BW. the whole kespa thing, the hackings, and you know why blizzard split up the regions. the 60 dollar price pales in comparison to what you get and there is no subscription for the safest, best, and most competitive online community in pc history.
If you think that the business model you suggested is better, then by all means, send an email to blizzards business department or something lol. But unless you have a PHD in business and have all the data to support your claims and somehow own a mutimillion dollar game company, i would leave the business decisions to them.
|
Blizzard is not the dream company that some people seem to think it is. Its owned by Activision, enough said.
|
On January 16 2012 06:22 Ruscour wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:20 Ragoo wrote:On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make While other organizations actually push esport and make million dollar tournaments (hi@valve), Blizzard restricts esports with silly stuff like this or no LAN (no save, no reconnect)... great. Progressive income means that they have maximum encouragement to constantly improve and patch the game between release cycles. whatever happens to we make it because we have professionalism and gives a shit about our customers anymore?
I'm sure the traditional business model still works extremely well, I mean most games still do it. tournament fees are just icing on the top, but won't since Activision is running everything now I'm not surprised they're trying to squeeze money out of everything they touched
|
On January 16 2012 06:25 Paragleiber wrote: Well, since it is at least somewhat related I am just gonna ask another question here and see if anybody can tell me something about it because I have been wondering about it for a quite a while.
What about people making money off their YouTube channels with SC2 videos? There are famous people like Artosis, Husky, TB or HD but also less famous ones who still made it to a YouTube partner account with SC2 content (you can recognize partner accounts by their custom header on top of the channel page).
According to the YouTube terms people should need a written permission from Blizzard if they are making money off SC2 videos because the game is copyrighted content not owned by the video makers.
Does Blizzard take some money off these guys as well? And how do you even get such a permission to monetize SC2 videos on YouTube because I wouldn't even know how to contact Blizzard in that regard (don't tell me anything like "you don't have enough views anyway", it is just a general question and I know that I personally won't make money with SC2 vids but maybe with other gaming videos which would be a similar situation, so I am just curious). In all likelihood the channel operators have some deal worked out with Blizzard or Youtube has a deal worked out. I wouldn't be surprised if YT keeps a %, sends a % to Blizz, and the remainder goes to the channel owner. SC2 is Blizzard's property and they're entitled to a cut if someone is profiting off the game.
|
On January 16 2012 06:28 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:22 Ruscour wrote:On January 16 2012 06:20 Ragoo wrote:On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make While other organizations actually push esport and make million dollar tournaments (hi@valve), Blizzard restricts esports with silly stuff like this or no LAN (no save, no reconnect)... great. Progressive income means that they have maximum encouragement to constantly improve and patch the game between release cycles. whatever happens to we make it because we have professionalism and gives a shit about our customers anymore? I'm sure the traditional business model still works extremely well, I mean most games still do it. tournament fees are just icing on the top its a business. they make the game to make money. they only use "professionalism" and "give a shit about their customers" when it increases their money. if it doesnt make them money in the long run, they dont do it.
i would love to see people hating on blizzard trying to run a legitimate business.
|
On January 16 2012 06:18 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:12 radiantshadow92 wrote:On January 16 2012 06:03 bOneSeven wrote:On January 16 2012 06:00 radiantshadow92 wrote: blizzard runs all the bnet servers and continues to patch the game and release new maps. Tournaments are the only continuing source of income for them since the game is only sold once. Whether they make a shit ton of money or not is no reason to loath them. Its a much better way for them to have a strong relationship with tournament organizers and continue to make money without subscriptions from players. Imo, it would also be unfair for tourney organizer to make money off their servers and hard work for no fee. You didn't need to use "THEIR" servers if they implemented LAN for offline tournaments. And you make money from games from selling them or having a legitimate strategy that only involves the casual player. They are so vicious that they went out of their way, making it impossible to play on different realms unless if you buy MORE copies of SC2 . I'm feeling rather bad for actually buying SC2 now. And no they don't balance it. They change it because if they wouldn't people would abuse certain things, make game dead => no1 will continue buying the game or playing it. there is no point in trying to change your mind, it seems you already have your opinion about blizzard and anything i say probably wont change that. so we are gonna have to agree to disagree. We are both looking at the same cup only you see it half empty. you can totally change my mind if you can come with an appealing argument . But my idea is pretty legitimate of what a really supporting corporation would do. Try to balance it as much as possible, don't get revenue unless there some massive tournament, make it really cheap so more people will buy-> spectator pool will rise ( making it cheaper after the sales are gone done dramatically , since the expansion set will soon be released ) . Am I really that unreasonable ? If anything, the most compelling peace of evidence of their complete viciousness is the fact that you have to buy several copies of SC2 if you want to play on different servers. "i loathe blizzard for trying to make money off a game they developed (including all the expenses of development). evil capitalistic corporations only looking out for their stockholders' interests. EVIL!!" - Told you, make money off of non-pro players. As much as you can, but if you wanna get in the way of helping the pro players...it makes me sick.
They do try and balance the game, the problem is that people will whine, moan, and bitch about everything. The game could literally be 100% balanced and people would still bitch about balance somehow. Not only that, but balance doesn't just pop out of thin air - BW hasn't changed yet there have been multiple shifts in balance, all due to the players finding out new timings/strategies/counters/etc.
As for the second one, $5,000 is a bigger prize pool than 99% of tournaments; they could raise it, sure, but it's still pretty good the way it is. The last one is more of a design flaw than anything, but Blizzard really should fix it (and implement LAN mode) at some point in time.
With all that being said they still support SC2 more than 99% of other companies do for their games. They are FAR from perfect, but they're definitely one of the better companies when it comes to listening to the competitive scene and helping it thrive.
|
On January 16 2012 06:26 Ragoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:24 Zeroxk wrote:On January 16 2012 06:20 Ragoo wrote:On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make While other organizations actually push esport and make million dollar tournaments (hi@valve), Blizzard restricts esports with silly stuff like this or no LAN (no save, no reconnect)... great. Hah you think the million dollar dota tourney was "pushing esport" and not an expensive ad? What do you think of Riot and their constant money injection There will be more of these from Valve... edit: And it was an ad for esport if anything. Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:00 radiantshadow92 wrote: blizzard runs all the bnet servers and continues to patch the game and release new maps. Tournaments are the only continuing source of income for them since the game is only sold once. Whether they make a shit ton of money or not is no reason to loath them. Its a much better way for them to have a strong relationship with tournament organizers and continue to make money without subscriptions from players. Imo, it would also be unfair for tourney organizer to make money off their servers and hard work for no fee. They make millions and millions of dollars , the money in esport is VERY small compared to the profit Blizzard makes. How is it even remotely cool if they charge esport tournaments like this and slow down esport's growth. Also new maps isn't rly an achievement, it's more of an annoyance since the community is way better at making maps...
do you know how much is injected into esports? do you even know how much money blizzard makes off sc2 and tourney revenue? i doubt you do. unless you have proof, this post means absolutely nothing.
|
On January 16 2012 06:26 integrity wrote: the following statement is my opinion, no it might not be like your and no im not asking you to agree with me:
at this point with over 50k viewers TB can take a lost to his OWN ad revenue to raise the prize pool. after a certain point in ads he is already making way more than the 5k needed for the next tournament. it just my opinion that he doesnt want to raise it because he rather take the huge amount of ad revenue he is getting from 50k people himself...which is way more than the 5k he is giving to players
No matter how much of an opinion it is, you can't blindly accuse people of things like that.
|
On January 16 2012 06:27 Jusba wrote: Blizzard is not the dream company that some people seem to think it is. Its owned by Activision, enough said. Also they're a company and their sole objective is to earn money. It doesn't matter who their owner is or how nice they seem, their goal is to make a profit. That's the entire point of capitalism and it's the only reason games like SC exist. Sure companies have varying public images, but they only cultivate those images to establish customer loyalty and consequently take said customers' money.
Welcome to the world. Most of the products we use and the technologies we have are the result of people trying to earn money for themselves.
If you guys really have a problem with this concept, your issue isn't with Blizzard, it's with the idea of capitalism and business. I can't really help you on that one though, pretty much the entire world now knows this system is ideal.
|
"they're just making money" is getting old. I'm sure we all know that, but don't expect us to sympathize with their greed and thinks its not ok to criticize their practice
Also capitalism is not ideal, whatever gave you that idea?
|
On January 16 2012 06:31 hmunkey wrote: If you guys really have a problem with this concept, your issue isn't with Blizzard, it's with the idea of capitalism and business. I can't really help you on that one though, pretty much the entire world now knows this system is ideal.
You can't be serious.
|
On January 16 2012 06:31 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:26 integrity wrote: the following statement is my opinion, no it might not be like your and no im not asking you to agree with me:
at this point with over 50k viewers TB can take a lost to his OWN ad revenue to raise the prize pool. after a certain point in ads he is already making way more than the 5k needed for the next tournament. it just my opinion that he doesnt want to raise it because he rather take the huge amount of ad revenue he is getting from 50k people himself...which is way more than the 5k he is giving to players No matter how much of an opinion it is, you can't blindly accuse people of things like that.
the statment came out a little acutory(sp?) but my point is
ad revenue from 50k viewers is way more than 5k to pay players.
|
On January 16 2012 06:16 dAPhREAk wrote: i loathe blizzard for trying to make money off a game they developed (including all the expenses of development). evil capitalistic corporations only looking out for their stockholders' interests. EVIL!! I second that ! Thou shall not make money from your work!
|
On January 16 2012 06:34 iky43210 wrote: "they're just making money" is getting old. I'm sure we all know that, but don't expect us to sympathize with their greed and thinks its not ok to criticize their practice
Also capitalism is not ideal, whatever gave you that idea? Don't sympathize with it, but understand it. Their goal, like that of every game company you love, is to make money. That's why your favorite games exist to begin with.
They didn't create SC2 because they were bored and felt like it. They created it to make money.
|
On January 16 2012 06:26 integrity wrote: the following statement is my opinion, no it might not be like your and no im not asking you to agree with me:
at this point with over 50k viewers TB can take a lost to his OWN ad revenue to raise the prize pool. after a certain point in ads he is already making way more than the 5k needed for the next tournament. it just my opinion that he doesnt want to raise it because he rather take the huge amount of ad revenue he is getting from 50k people himself...which is way more than the 5k he is giving to players
This is quite an accusation to make without any evidence. Other events can be organized with that money. Just because it's limited to 5k because of the Blizzard deal doesn't mean you can make more events as TB said himself.
|
i was recently thinking about how blizzard is able able to run all the server + update and balance the game, now i know that, i mean blizzard hav somehow to get money to continuing support sc2, i mean its not like 10 years ago, to be able to maintain server cost really much money nowadays~
|
On January 16 2012 06:36 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:34 iky43210 wrote: "they're just making money" is getting old. I'm sure we all know that, but don't expect us to sympathize with their greed and thinks its not ok to criticize their practice
Also capitalism is not ideal, whatever gave you that idea? Don't sympathize with it, but understand it. Their goal, like that of every game company you love, is to make money. That's why your favorite games exist to begin with. They didn't create SC2 because they were bored and felt like it. They created it to make money.
are you saying people who made these posts don't understand they made it for the money? That is obvious.
I understand the oil company are just trying to "make money", but i'm still going to complain about their exploit through lobbies and monopoly on the market
Just because they're in it for the money doesn't mean its not right for us to criticize them for their practice.
|
On January 16 2012 06:27 Jusba wrote: Blizzard is not the dream company that some people seem to think it is. Its owned by Activision, enough said. No, Blizzard was NEVER owned by Activison. Vivendi owns them both and has owned Blizzard since forever. I'm disappointed that people still believe this.
|
On January 16 2012 06:37 JOJOsc2news wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:26 integrity wrote: the following statement is my opinion, no it might not be like your and no im not asking you to agree with me:
at this point with over 50k viewers TB can take a lost to his OWN ad revenue to raise the prize pool. after a certain point in ads he is already making way more than the 5k needed for the next tournament. it just my opinion that he doesnt want to raise it because he rather take the huge amount of ad revenue he is getting from 50k people himself...which is way more than the 5k he is giving to players This is quite an accusation to make without any evidence. Other events can be organized with that money. Just because it's limited to 5k because of the Blizzard deal doesn't mean you can make more events as TB said himself. Plus, why does it matter if he makes a buck for himself on the tournament? If the players agreed to play for a 5k prize pool and he held his end of the deal, there really isn't any problem here. If you don't like the idea of him profiting, don't watch. It's pretty simple.
|
On January 16 2012 06:30 radiantshadow92 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:26 Ragoo wrote:On January 16 2012 06:24 Zeroxk wrote:On January 16 2012 06:20 Ragoo wrote:On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make While other organizations actually push esport and make million dollar tournaments (hi@valve), Blizzard restricts esports with silly stuff like this or no LAN (no save, no reconnect)... great. Hah you think the million dollar dota tourney was "pushing esport" and not an expensive ad? What do you think of Riot and their constant money injection There will be more of these from Valve... edit: And it was an ad for esport if anything. On January 16 2012 06:00 radiantshadow92 wrote: blizzard runs all the bnet servers and continues to patch the game and release new maps. Tournaments are the only continuing source of income for them since the game is only sold once. Whether they make a shit ton of money or not is no reason to loath them. Its a much better way for them to have a strong relationship with tournament organizers and continue to make money without subscriptions from players. Imo, it would also be unfair for tourney organizer to make money off their servers and hard work for no fee. They make millions and millions of dollars , the money in esport is VERY small compared to the profit Blizzard makes. How is it even remotely cool if they charge esport tournaments like this and slow down esport's growth. Also new maps isn't rly an achievement, it's more of an annoyance since the community is way better at making maps... do you know how much is injected into esports? do you even know how much money blizzard makes off sc2 and tourney revenue? i doubt you do. unless you have proof, this post means absolutely nothing.
Yeah you're right. I should check some numbers before I write something stupid like this. Probably the esport money comes pretty close to the 4,4 billion revenue and 400+ income Blizzard had in 2010 for example. They are probably totally dependent on this tournament money!
|
On January 16 2012 06:34 iky43210 wrote: "they're just making money" is getting old. I'm sure we all know that, but don't expect us to sympathize with their greed and thinks its not ok to criticize their practice
Also capitalism is not ideal, whatever gave you that idea? how about this instead: "if they dont make enough money off of it to justify it, there will never be any more expansions for starcraft, and it will die as other more intelligent companies (who make money off their projects) develop newer games."
also, for all of those who think blizzard making money off the game is somehow wrong, wouldnt it be better for blizzard to just keep developing (and spending their resources) on WoW? they make a shitton more money off that game. they could just leave starcraft to stagnate as it hasn't made them nearly as much money.
|
On January 16 2012 06:35 integrity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:31 Talin wrote:On January 16 2012 06:26 integrity wrote: the following statement is my opinion, no it might not be like your and no im not asking you to agree with me:
at this point with over 50k viewers TB can take a lost to his OWN ad revenue to raise the prize pool. after a certain point in ads he is already making way more than the 5k needed for the next tournament. it just my opinion that he doesnt want to raise it because he rather take the huge amount of ad revenue he is getting from 50k people himself...which is way more than the 5k he is giving to players No matter how much of an opinion it is, you can't blindly accuse people of things like that. the statment came out a little acutory(sp?) but my point is ad revenue from 50k viewers is way more than 5k to pay players.
Proof? Also, would you (theoretically speaking) be seriously complaing if they'd actually be earning money for their work? Really?
|
On January 16 2012 06:38 Ragoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:30 radiantshadow92 wrote:On January 16 2012 06:26 Ragoo wrote:On January 16 2012 06:24 Zeroxk wrote:On January 16 2012 06:20 Ragoo wrote:On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make While other organizations actually push esport and make million dollar tournaments (hi@valve), Blizzard restricts esports with silly stuff like this or no LAN (no save, no reconnect)... great. Hah you think the million dollar dota tourney was "pushing esport" and not an expensive ad? What do you think of Riot and their constant money injection There will be more of these from Valve... edit: And it was an ad for esport if anything. On January 16 2012 06:00 radiantshadow92 wrote: blizzard runs all the bnet servers and continues to patch the game and release new maps. Tournaments are the only continuing source of income for them since the game is only sold once. Whether they make a shit ton of money or not is no reason to loath them. Its a much better way for them to have a strong relationship with tournament organizers and continue to make money without subscriptions from players. Imo, it would also be unfair for tourney organizer to make money off their servers and hard work for no fee. They make millions and millions of dollars , the money in esport is VERY small compared to the profit Blizzard makes. How is it even remotely cool if they charge esport tournaments like this and slow down esport's growth. Also new maps isn't rly an achievement, it's more of an annoyance since the community is way better at making maps... do you know how much is injected into esports? do you even know how much money blizzard makes off sc2 and tourney revenue? i doubt you do. unless you have proof, this post means absolutely nothing. Yeah you're right. I should check some numbers before I write something stupid like this. Probably the esport money comes pretty close to the 4,4 billion revenue and 400+ income Blizzard had in 2010 for example. They are probably totally dependent on this tournament money! Profit is profit. Just because it isn't as much money doesn't mean they should ignore if. Blizzard answers to shareholders who expect them to try their hardest to maximize profits. This is a pretty simple concept that every company follows.
If Blizzard thinks leaving tournaments alone will cause them to grow, thus earning Blizzard more money in future sales, they will do just that. However, it seems that they don't think this and we can't really judge because we're operating on incomplete information. The fact is Blizzard exists to make money and they're doing what they do to fulfill that goal.
This isn't a charity.
|
I thought it wasn't a fixed percentage, but scales depending on the amount your prize pool would have? Otherwise, lower money prize pools would totally get fucked over.
|
Somebody on Reddit explained it a couple of days ago. I'll try to summarize it:
Blizzard wants to have control over their game which is totally understandable. They created this game, they support it, I think it's just normal that they want to have a small part of the money of a big price pool.
Partially the LAN modus has something to do with this as well. Everybody is screaming for a LAN modus but trust me, this wouldn't really benefit the game as you might think. I do agree they should release something like a tournament client for the big Offline tournaments. Blizzard made the mistake with SCBW once and gave the power over their game and the industry out of their hands to KeSPA. As the developer of the game Blizzard wanted to have a part of the money KeSPA got out of their new industry around SCBW. KeSPA said now, they advised Blizzard that they are "only" the developer and didn't build the industry. It came to this big clash, now KeSPA pays fees to Blizzard.
For me this totally makes sense.
|
On January 16 2012 06:39 Broodwurst wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:35 integrity wrote:On January 16 2012 06:31 Talin wrote:On January 16 2012 06:26 integrity wrote: the following statement is my opinion, no it might not be like your and no im not asking you to agree with me:
at this point with over 50k viewers TB can take a lost to his OWN ad revenue to raise the prize pool. after a certain point in ads he is already making way more than the 5k needed for the next tournament. it just my opinion that he doesnt want to raise it because he rather take the huge amount of ad revenue he is getting from 50k people himself...which is way more than the 5k he is giving to players No matter how much of an opinion it is, you can't blindly accuse people of things like that. the statment came out a little acutory(sp?) but my point is ad revenue from 50k viewers is way more than 5k to pay players. Proof? Also, would you (theoretically speaking) be seriously complaing if they'd actually be earning money for they work? Really?
Exactly. It is outrageous that someone would make money with their job. Ridiculous. Shame on you. /sarcasm
|
On January 16 2012 06:44 JOJOsc2news wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:39 Broodwurst wrote:On January 16 2012 06:35 integrity wrote:On January 16 2012 06:31 Talin wrote:On January 16 2012 06:26 integrity wrote: the following statement is my opinion, no it might not be like your and no im not asking you to agree with me:
at this point with over 50k viewers TB can take a lost to his OWN ad revenue to raise the prize pool. after a certain point in ads he is already making way more than the 5k needed for the next tournament. it just my opinion that he doesnt want to raise it because he rather take the huge amount of ad revenue he is getting from 50k people himself...which is way more than the 5k he is giving to players No matter how much of an opinion it is, you can't blindly accuse people of things like that. the statment came out a little acutory(sp?) but my point is ad revenue from 50k viewers is way more than 5k to pay players. Proof? Also, would you (theoretically speaking) be seriously complaing if they'd actually be earning money for they work? Really? Exactly. It is outrageous that someone would make money with their job. Ridiculous. Shame on you. /sarcasm Plus the very act of making money is what encourages him and others to put on future tournaments, which is good for everyone involved.
If TB makes money, the players make money, Twitch makes money, and the viewers get entertainment, what's the problem here? Is this guy against the idea of movie studios making money too?
|
Companies that want to make money are killing esports!! Thank goodness Razer, ASUS, intel, XMG, twitch.tv etc etc etc are giving money to esports hoping for nothing in return! We should support them with our ♥ (but not $) and continue to H8 blizzard (but keep buying SC2 accounts, expansions and watch every possible tournament!).
Haven't we already seen this thread?
|
I don't find this all that surprising. Blizzard is a business in the business of making money.
|
On January 16 2012 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:34 iky43210 wrote: "they're just making money" is getting old. I'm sure we all know that, but don't expect us to sympathize with their greed and thinks its not ok to criticize their practice
Also capitalism is not ideal, whatever gave you that idea? how about this instead: "if they dont make enough money off of it to justify it, there will never be any more expansions for starcraft, and it will die as other more intelligent companies (who make money off their projects) develop newer games." also, for all of those who think blizzard making money off the game is somehow wrong, wouldnt it be better for blizzard to just keep developing (and spending their resources) on WoW? they make a shitton more money off that game. they could just leave starcraft to stagnate as it hasn't made them nearly as much money.
quite a slippery slope there.
Nobody said it was wrong for Blizzard to make money, but I believe it is wrong for the way Blizzard is trying to make money.
|
On January 16 2012 06:00 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 05:56 Diamond wrote:On January 16 2012 05:53 bOneSeven wrote: What they have done in SC2 to make the esports scene better ? Made BW and SC2. There's that They made that for money. They got their money, now what have they done after that ? You wanna tell me they made SC2 to help the esports scene ? No, they would help the esports scene if they would remove this unreasonable restriction , lower the price to the game ( expansion set appears in less than 6 months so it's perfectly reasonable ) to maybe 10-15$ so it gets more players-> more spectators for the game . and spend some resources to try and balance the game to make it more competitively. "There's that"
Blizzcon? Balance patches? "What have they done for e-sports?" are you kidding? This restriction isn't even that ridiculous. Making 10% of a tournaments PROFIT is completely reasonable. Do you have any idea what people charge for things that are copy righted?
Blizzard looks the other way on all sorts of streamers who make tons of money with their game, even though they could push copyright issues involving streaming. The fact that they want to make SOME money off of a game they made sounds more then reasonable to me. What is even with this post
|
On January 16 2012 06:48 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 16 2012 06:34 iky43210 wrote: "they're just making money" is getting old. I'm sure we all know that, but don't expect us to sympathize with their greed and thinks its not ok to criticize their practice
Also capitalism is not ideal, whatever gave you that idea? how about this instead: "if they dont make enough money off of it to justify it, there will never be any more expansions for starcraft, and it will die as other more intelligent companies (who make money off their projects) develop newer games." also, for all of those who think blizzard making money off the game is somehow wrong, wouldnt it be better for blizzard to just keep developing (and spending their resources) on WoW? they make a shitton more money off that game. they could just leave starcraft to stagnate as it hasn't made them nearly as much money. quite a slippery slope there. Nobody said it was wrong for Blizzard to make money, but I believe it is wrong for the way Blizzard is trying to make money. whats slippery about it? i doubt blizzard waited all this time to develop sc2 because of something other than money. if they had felt that starcraft was a gold mine they would have developed it earlier. rather, they were making a ton of money off of WoW and didn't need starcraft.
|
On January 16 2012 06:48 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 16 2012 06:34 iky43210 wrote: "they're just making money" is getting old. I'm sure we all know that, but don't expect us to sympathize with their greed and thinks its not ok to criticize their practice
Also capitalism is not ideal, whatever gave you that idea? how about this instead: "if they dont make enough money off of it to justify it, there will never be any more expansions for starcraft, and it will die as other more intelligent companies (who make money off their projects) develop newer games." also, for all of those who think blizzard making money off the game is somehow wrong, wouldnt it be better for blizzard to just keep developing (and spending their resources) on WoW? they make a shitton more money off that game. they could just leave starcraft to stagnate as it hasn't made them nearly as much money. quite a slippery slope there. Nobody said it was wrong for Blizzard to make money, but I believe it is wrong for the way Blizzard is trying to make money. Ok, but the fact that it works means they will continue to do so. Now if people start making a fuss about it to the point that it hurts Blizzard's image and they feel like it's beginning to hurt their profits, they will stop. Otherwise, they'll keep doing it.
A similar example is Facebook's privacy issue -- they would love to take everyone's personal information and sell it to advertisers, because it would earn them huge profits. However, doing so will cause a significant backlash that would hurt their bottom line. That's the only thing keeping them from doing it.
|
On January 16 2012 06:50 Bonkarooni wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:00 bOneSeven wrote:On January 16 2012 05:56 Diamond wrote:On January 16 2012 05:53 bOneSeven wrote: What they have done in SC2 to make the esports scene better ? Made BW and SC2. There's that They made that for money. They got their money, now what have they done after that ? You wanna tell me they made SC2 to help the esports scene ? No, they would help the esports scene if they would remove this unreasonable restriction , lower the price to the game ( expansion set appears in less than 6 months so it's perfectly reasonable ) to maybe 10-15$ so it gets more players-> more spectators for the game . and spend some resources to try and balance the game to make it more competitively. "There's that" Blizzcon? Balance patches? "What have they done for e-sports?" are you kidding? This restriction isn't even that ridiculous. Making 10% of a tournaments PROFIT is completely reasonable. Do you have any idea what people charge for things that are copy righted? Blizzard looks the other way on all sorts of streamers who make tons of money with their game, even though they could push copyright issues involving streaming. The fact that they want to make SOME money off of a game they made sounds more then reasonable to me. What is even with this post
I couldn't agree more. Blizzard is not some magical all good company but the way they handle their SC2 franchise and the community around it is quite unique I think. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical, which we constantly are. That is good.
Arguments like "They should use the money from the initial sale to actually balance the sale" however aren't critical - they are narrow-minded, accusatory and quite frankly ridiculous.
|
On January 16 2012 06:50 Bonkarooni wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:00 bOneSeven wrote:On January 16 2012 05:56 Diamond wrote:On January 16 2012 05:53 bOneSeven wrote: What they have done in SC2 to make the esports scene better ? Made BW and SC2. There's that They made that for money. They got their money, now what have they done after that ? You wanna tell me they made SC2 to help the esports scene ? No, they would help the esports scene if they would remove this unreasonable restriction , lower the price to the game ( expansion set appears in less than 6 months so it's perfectly reasonable ) to maybe 10-15$ so it gets more players-> more spectators for the game . and spend some resources to try and balance the game to make it more competitively. "There's that" Blizzcon? Balance patches? "What have they done for e-sports?" are you kidding? This restriction isn't even that ridiculous. Making 10% of a tournaments PROFIT is completely reasonable. Do you have any idea what people charge for things that are copy righted? Blizzard looks the other way on all sorts of streamers who make tons of money with their game, even though they could push copyright issues involving streaming. The fact that they want to make SOME money off of a game they made sounds more then reasonable to me. What is even with this post To be fair, it's very possible they do take a share of the money streamers make through SC2. Of course if they do, it's through the streaming services rather than through the streamers, but it would be completely reasonable for them to do so.
For example if I was Blizzard, I'd tell Twitch to give me 10% of the money they make off SC2 streaming, at which point they could split the remainder between themselves and the streamer.
But even if they did this, it would be 100% justified and fine. I'd actually hope they did something like this to be honest, because it would mean SC2 is worth more to Blizzard and would mean they can invest more resources into the game.
|
I was raging over a massive 50% fee , for a 10% fee I'm totally ok . The idea was simple .
There must be a reasonable ratio between how much the pro players earn and how much blizzard/casters/organizers earn.
Say if Stephano won this tournament and got 3k$ and TB gets 10k$ , how would that be fair ( I have no idea how much he got I'm just throwing out a random number ). Now , it would be rather interesting if some1 came with some real facts from real sources about proffits.
And my philosophy is rather simple . Restrict the pro scene as a game developper = you are a vicious company. I'm sure if they wouldn't patch the game, some programmers who love the game would patch the game for free so the community gets stronger ( if they had the permission from Blizzard ) .
I'm just stating these facts because, everyone who knows how hard is to be an actual pro BW/SC2 player would share my thoughts on this..
|
On January 16 2012 06:58 bOneSeven wrote: Say if Stephano won this tournament and got 3k$ and TB gets 10k$ , how would that be fair ( I have no idea how much he got I'm just throwing out a random number ). Now , it would be rather interesting if some1 came with some real facts from real sources about proffits.
It would be fair because Stephano would have agreed to play in a tournament for $3k. If Stephano agreed to play for 5k and only received $3k, that would be unfair (and illegal). However, if he agreed to $3k and received it, any other money made is not a concern of his.
If I agree to work for a software developer for $80k/yr and they make $50m in profits, I can't reasonably expect them to give me that money (or even part of it). If they choose to share some of it, it's called a bonus because it's completely bonus and unrequired. What's fair is the fact that they pay me the promised 80k though.
|
I feel like this topic has been beaten to death. Blizzard is a company, and deserves to make money. Money made on tournaments allows for future support for sc via patches, improved interface, balance, etc. Also, why do people hear about making money and immediately think its distasteful. Businesses work on money. Would you rather income for sc support comes from a subscription fee to bnet?
|
On January 16 2012 06:26 integrity wrote: the following statement is my opinion, no it might not be like your and no im not asking you to agree with me:
at this point with over 50k viewers TB can take a lost to his OWN ad revenue to raise the prize pool. after a certain point in ads he is already making way more than the 5k needed for the next tournament. it just my opinion that he doesnt want to raise it because he rather take the huge amount of ad revenue he is getting from 50k people himself...which is way more than the 5k he is giving to players
Wow, quite an ironic username you have there. Do a bit of research before you accuse people of being deceitful. TB has been quite upfront about how much money the previous tournaments have received from ad revenue take a look at the post mortems he wrote for the previous SCIs. He has also stated if there is money left over he will do some showmatches. Ideally he would love to continue to grow the prize pool but it makes no sense to do so with Blizzards restrictions.
Regardless of this he makes a lot of money from his main youtube channel (400k video views a day). I don't think he needs to steal from his own tournament somehow.
|
On January 16 2012 06:55 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:48 iky43210 wrote:On January 16 2012 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 16 2012 06:34 iky43210 wrote: "they're just making money" is getting old. I'm sure we all know that, but don't expect us to sympathize with their greed and thinks its not ok to criticize their practice
Also capitalism is not ideal, whatever gave you that idea? how about this instead: "if they dont make enough money off of it to justify it, there will never be any more expansions for starcraft, and it will die as other more intelligent companies (who make money off their projects) develop newer games." also, for all of those who think blizzard making money off the game is somehow wrong, wouldnt it be better for blizzard to just keep developing (and spending their resources) on WoW? they make a shitton more money off that game. they could just leave starcraft to stagnate as it hasn't made them nearly as much money. quite a slippery slope there. Nobody said it was wrong for Blizzard to make money, but I believe it is wrong for the way Blizzard is trying to make money. Ok, but the fact that it works means they will continue to do so. Now if people start making a fuss about it to the point that it hurts Blizzard's image and they feel like it's beginning to hurt their profits, they will stop. Otherwise, they'll keep doing it. A similar example is Facebook's privacy issue -- they would love to take everyone's personal information and sell it to advertisers, because it would earn them huge profits. However, doing so will cause a significant backlash that would hurt their bottom line. That's the only thing keeping them from doing it. I think we're getting somewhere.
Then again I personally don't have any feelings for this subject right now cause there is no source about how much is being paid.
|
On January 16 2012 06:58 bOneSeven wrote: And my philosophy is rather simple . Restrict the pro scene as a game developper = you are a vicious company. I'm sure if they wouldn't patch the game, some programmers who love the game would patch the game for free so the community gets stronger ( if they had the permission from Blizzard ) .
But shouldn't pro-gamers also "love the game"? So if programmers can patch for free they could play for less.
|
On January 16 2012 07:03 Broodwurst wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:58 bOneSeven wrote: And my philosophy is rather simple . Restrict the pro scene as a game developper = you are a vicious company. I'm sure if they wouldn't patch the game, some programmers who love the game would patch the game for free so the community gets stronger ( if they had the permission from Blizzard ) .
But shouldn't pro-gamers also "love the game"? So if programmers can patch for free they could play for less.
Ok I'm to dumb to understand what you just said o_O pls restate :D
|
I wasn't aware that the end of something being money exculpates it from any moral judgment. Blizzard's method of profiting from Sc2 tournaments is damaging to the eSports scene. I don't care if it's expected that they would do such a thing. I don't even care if every business started doing it. The point is that it's disgusting and limits humanity for the sake of short-term gain. It shouldn't actually be legal for Blizzard to sell an Sc2 license rather than, you know, the actual game, but because of moronic US copyright laws, it is. This intellectual property digital stuff has really gotten out of hand, and to see people defending it by appealing to shareholders is flat-out hilarious. Yes, we get it: people want to make money. Does that mean someone should be able to stab you and take your wallet? No, because that's immoral and infringes on all kinds of rights. The question is: does Blizzard really have any right to be in the pockets of tournament holders? The answer is a resounding "No" in every arena except the legal one.
|
What's so wrong about this? I'm sick of people who feel entitled, that somehow they should get everything for free.
These tournaments are profiting off of sc2, making money off of advertisements and viewers. For what reason should blizzard NOT charge a fee?
|
On January 16 2012 06:24 Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:20 Ragoo wrote:On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make While other organizations actually push esport and make million dollar tournaments (hi@valve), Blizzard restricts esports with silly stuff like this or no LAN (no save, no reconnect)... great. And yet Starcraft has proved itself to be the only long term self-sustaining E-Sport. While other companies are pooling millions into their games, Starcraft II is competing with Blizzard dropping a cent. Blizzard's model is much superior in that aspect because it does not require a massive marketing budget. Make no mistake the 1.6 million tournament was an advertisement, nothing more. And don't say "hi valve" when they have done like one thing in the last forever to support E-Sports. Valve has turned a blind eye to E-Sports for a long long long long long time.
Blizzard turned a blind eye for just as long what did they do for broodwar or dota besides starting once a year blizzcon tournaments in 2005? Also starcraft 2 has not yet proved itself to be a long term self sustaining E-sport and broodwar is dieing in Korea. Are you guys sure this is a good business model?
Blizzard doesn't charge them outside of some relatively small license fee. The problem is that these leagues don't make money. No esport league makes money. MLG is MAYBE the only league to make money in 2011, and I'm even dubious about that... but luckily they had $10 million in VC money to play with on the year, and I'm sure they have more long term plans so it doesn't matter if they don't make money this year...
GOMTV doesn't seem to have that kind of backing, which means that their league is not being very successful (financially)... hence cutting about 1/2 million from their expenses. Seems like overall, Korea is having a very rough time leveraging SC2's popularity and their players' skill with sponsors the way Western companies / organizations / players are able to do.
said by xeris about GOM
No esport league is making money! How long will they last if they don't make money? And then blizzard won't get any fees or advertisement from tournaments at all.
Maybe that inferior business model where game companies don't tax unprofitable companies that want to advertise their game with massive attention getting events will last longer.
What's so wrong about this? I'm sick of people who feel entitled, that somehow they should get everything for free.
These tournaments are profiting off of sc2, making money off of advertisements and viewers. For what reason should blizzard NOT charge a fee?
So you agree that every caster, player, team, stream and sc2 website including teamliquid should pay blizzard a percent of their revenue right? Day9 and tastosis are definitely making money right now for what reason should blizzard not charge them a large fee?
But what tournaments are you talking about that are profiting off of sc2? Kespa? If you trust what milkies says then nope!
also to anyone who says "BW is on life support" -- esports as a whole is on life support. Why do you think blizzard dropped the stance on trying to extort money from the scene in korea? They finally discovered that no one in korean esports (except maybe OGN/MBC Game but that's arguable) makes any sort of money and that kespa literally lives off sponsors.
source
|
Its makes sense for Blizzard to this. Its somewhat arbitrary of a cut, but I suppose Blizzard figures $5,000 and under classifies the tournament as a small stage, possibly a semi-local affair. They wouldn't want to stifle that or deal with any administrative costs that goes along with what relatively amounts to pennies.
Over $5,000 would be a large tournament, and one that probably can afford things like noticeable advertising and revenue generation. This organization would then in some facet be making money off of Blizzards investments into their own game on a scale that warrants any administrative costs needed to obtain Blizzards share. Also, Blizzards is putting in quite a bit of money into the upkeep and development of their game and if another business is milking profits from their game without any kind of nod to the company that made it possible, it would be seen as bleeding potential profit for Blizzard.
Blizzard isn't talking about the difference between a $4999 and $5000 prize pool either, the divide is gunning for the $200 weekly tournaments versus the $50,000 mega tournaments.
Also, as has been said before, its a percentage, not all or even half. There is also probably some negotiation room for say running Blizzard ads or hosting other promotional blizzard content instead of giving money outright.
It doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
|
$5000 is pretty good for a couple of days work.
|
Blizzard's method of profiting from Sc2 tournaments is damaging to the eSports scene.
Why and how is it damaging the eSports scene?
I don't care if it's expected that they would do such a thing. I don't even care if every business started doing it. The point is that it's disgusting and limits humanity for the sake of short-term gain
Somehow I don't see Blizzard taking 10% of the profit made from tournaments with a >$5K prize pool limiting humanity....
It shouldn't actually be legal for Blizzard to sell an Sc2 license rather than, you know, the actual game, but because of moronic US copyright laws, it is. This intellectual property digital stuff has really gotten out of hand, and to see people defending it by appealing to shareholders is flat-out hilarious. Yes, we get it: people want to make money. Does that mean someone should be able to stab you and take your wallet? No, because that's immoral and infringes on all kinds of rights.
...I don't even know where to begin trying to respond to this.
|
On January 16 2012 07:33 TheButtonmen wrote:Show nested quote +Blizzard's method of profiting from Sc2 tournaments is damaging to the eSports scene. Forces tournaments to allocate more funds to paying Blizzard and away from the community for no really justifiable reason. Show nested quote +I don't care if it's expected that they would do such a thing. I don't even care if every business started doing it. The point is that it's disgusting and limits humanity for the sake of short-term gain Show nested quote +Somehow I don't see Blizzard taking 10% of the profit made from tournaments with a >$5K prize pool limiting humanity.... Is it a crisis like outright extortion? No, but it's essentially contempt for the consumer. It's by definition a limit on the growth of the scene since it's an overhead fee which must always be paid. Show nested quote +It shouldn't actually be legal for Blizzard to sell an Sc2 license rather than, you know, the actual game, but because of moronic US copyright laws, it is. This intellectual property digital stuff has really gotten out of hand, and to see people defending it by appealing to shareholders is flat-out hilarious. Yes, we get it: people want to make money. Does that mean someone should be able to stab you and take your wallet? No, because that's immoral and infringes on all kinds of rights. ...I don't even know where to begin trying to respond to this. Perhaps you should google hyperbole before you attempt to.
|
Hey guys, what would you prefer, having to pay for patches, them releasing a new SC2 each year with major patches and selling it for $60, having to pay $15 or so a month to play, or have a % of the profits of tournaments be paid to Blizzard? The latter makes the most sense to me, since the work Blizzard spends outside of developing the game (balancing, fixing bugs, etc. etc.) contributes to the esports side of things by making it a competitive game, so by having part of the profits of tournaments go to Blizzard, it's as if we're paying for their extra efforts instead of just giving up on SC2 after patching for only a couple months.
|
On January 16 2012 06:58 bOneSeven wrote: I was raging over a massive 50% fee , for a 10% fee I'm totally ok . The idea was simple .
There must be a reasonable ratio between how much the pro players earn and how much blizzard/casters/organizers earn.
You're getting awfully worked up over a figure some random guy in a chat room gives you. Life on internet must be exhausting if you believes everything people say without critical thinking.
|
On January 16 2012 07:21 StRyKeR wrote: What's so wrong about this? I'm sick of people who feel entitled, that somehow they should get everything for free.
These tournaments are profiting off of sc2, making money off of advertisements and viewers. For what reason should blizzard NOT charge a fee? thank god someone said it. blizzard continue to support their games long after launch, the more money they can continue to make, the better SC2 will be. OP if you really hate blizzard that much just f*** off, i don't understand why someone who 'loathes' blizzard would be watching tournaments for their game and then visiting a forum for their game.
|
On January 16 2012 06:39 Broodwurst wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:35 integrity wrote:On January 16 2012 06:31 Talin wrote:On January 16 2012 06:26 integrity wrote: the following statement is my opinion, no it might not be like your and no im not asking you to agree with me:
at this point with over 50k viewers TB can take a lost to his OWN ad revenue to raise the prize pool. after a certain point in ads he is already making way more than the 5k needed for the next tournament. it just my opinion that he doesnt want to raise it because he rather take the huge amount of ad revenue he is getting from 50k people himself...which is way more than the 5k he is giving to players No matter how much of an opinion it is, you can't blindly accuse people of things like that. the statment came out a little acutory(sp?) but my point is ad revenue from 50k viewers is way more than 5k to pay players. Proof? Also, would you (theoretically speaking) be seriously complaing if they'd actually be earning money for their work? Really?
Let me guess, the same wouldnt work for Blizzard, right? They dont need to get paid for their work, correct? Because the battle.net sustaines itself, the time and effort which go into balance-patches etc (which dont come from thin air, but people working on it - and want to get paid for it).. Screw it, how dare they?
I actually think they should just sit aside and watch others make money with their game. That sounds really smart.
Not saying btw that TB and others shouldnt make money for their efforts - what im saying is, calling Blizzard a "evil company" because they want a fair share off of what others are making with their game, is not only ridiculous, but pretty stupid.
|
On January 16 2012 07:39 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:58 bOneSeven wrote: I was raging over a massive 50% fee , for a 10% fee I'm totally ok . The idea was simple .
There must be a reasonable ratio between how much the pro players earn and how much blizzard/casters/organizers earn.
You're getting awfully worked up over a figure some random guy in a chat room gives you. Life on internet must be exhausting if you believes everything people say without critical thinking.
Yes I do believe until I've been shown the contrary. I'm rather cool right now but right then I was totally raging , like wtf blizzard!?!?!?
Still the arguments remain the same . Why guys even say pay for patch ? That is completely retarded. As I said , programmers who love the game will provide the patches with fixes and balanced for free ( this happened in DotA/ Diablo2MedianXL ). Paying a monthly fee is a vicious model of business . I'm betting they made like a tremendous amount of money compared to how much they invested in it. I'm for sure that how much the actual people who WORKED to make the game are getting like a insignificant portion of what the company owner makes from it, who made nothing but just "invstested" in it. And now the same people who did ZERO work to make the game want more money from the game... come on son.
|
On January 16 2012 07:50 akaname wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:21 StRyKeR wrote: What's so wrong about this? I'm sick of people who feel entitled, that somehow they should get everything for free.
These tournaments are profiting off of sc2, making money off of advertisements and viewers. For what reason should blizzard NOT charge a fee? thank god someone said it. blizzard continue to support their games long after launch, the more money they can continue to make, the better SC2 will be. OP if you really hate blizzard that much just f*** off, i don't understand why someone who 'loathes' blizzard would be watching tournaments for their game and then visiting a forum for their game. That fact that Blizzard supports a game does not have any relation to them being entitled to a cut of profits that other people make from broadcasting people with already paid-for licenses playing it. MLG/GSL/whatever aren't selling Sc2. They're selling an event. They've already bought copies of Sc2. They shouldn't have to pay again.
|
lol this shit is so stupid. everyone hating on blizzard. if you hate them so much go play some other RTS, oh fucking wait, there are none. At their very worst, blizzard is a god-company for making everything this site is about.
|
On January 16 2012 07:50 akaname wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:21 StRyKeR wrote: What's so wrong about this? I'm sick of people who feel entitled, that somehow they should get everything for free.
These tournaments are profiting off of sc2, making money off of advertisements and viewers. For what reason should blizzard NOT charge a fee? thank god someone said it. blizzard continue to support their games long after launch, the more money they can continue to make, the better SC2 will be. OP if you really hate blizzard that much just f*** off, i don't understand why someone who 'loathes' blizzard would be watching tournaments for their game and then visiting a forum for their game.
Let's be serious, without TeamLiquid or the pro BW scene in Korea SC2 wouldn't have happened.
You should thank TeamLiquid mostly , not Blizzard.
|
On January 16 2012 07:54 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:50 akaname wrote:On January 16 2012 07:21 StRyKeR wrote: What's so wrong about this? I'm sick of people who feel entitled, that somehow they should get everything for free.
These tournaments are profiting off of sc2, making money off of advertisements and viewers. For what reason should blizzard NOT charge a fee? thank god someone said it. blizzard continue to support their games long after launch, the more money they can continue to make, the better SC2 will be. OP if you really hate blizzard that much just f*** off, i don't understand why someone who 'loathes' blizzard would be watching tournaments for their game and then visiting a forum for their game. Let's be serious, without TeamLiquid or the pro BW scene in Korea SC2 wouldn't have happened. You should thank TeamLiquid mostly , not Blizzard. errr... what has that got to do with what i said? edit: ah i see, you're at teamliquid even though you hate SC2 nm i sort of get it.
|
On January 16 2012 07:53 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:50 akaname wrote:On January 16 2012 07:21 StRyKeR wrote: What's so wrong about this? I'm sick of people who feel entitled, that somehow they should get everything for free.
These tournaments are profiting off of sc2, making money off of advertisements and viewers. For what reason should blizzard NOT charge a fee? thank god someone said it. blizzard continue to support their games long after launch, the more money they can continue to make, the better SC2 will be. OP if you really hate blizzard that much just f*** off, i don't understand why someone who 'loathes' blizzard would be watching tournaments for their game and then visiting a forum for their game. That fact that Blizzard supports a game does not have any relation to them being entitled to a cut of profits that other people make from broadcasting people with already paid-for licenses playing it. MLG/GSL/whatever aren't selling Sc2. They're selling an event. They've already bought copies of Sc2. They shouldn't have to pay again.
how would the other people make profits without their game on their servers?
the point (that other people made better than me in this thread) is, licensing tournaments gives them money. money helps them support SC2. I honestly cannot think of another company that provides such impressive ongoing support for a game than Blizzard does, so if they're making money through a way that doesnt cost me ANYTHING AT ALL then i'm not going to complain.
|
On January 16 2012 07:57 akaname wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:54 bOneSeven wrote:On January 16 2012 07:50 akaname wrote:On January 16 2012 07:21 StRyKeR wrote: What's so wrong about this? I'm sick of people who feel entitled, that somehow they should get everything for free.
These tournaments are profiting off of sc2, making money off of advertisements and viewers. For what reason should blizzard NOT charge a fee? thank god someone said it. blizzard continue to support their games long after launch, the more money they can continue to make, the better SC2 will be. OP if you really hate blizzard that much just f*** off, i don't understand why someone who 'loathes' blizzard would be watching tournaments for their game and then visiting a forum for their game. Let's be serious, without TeamLiquid or the pro BW scene in Korea SC2 wouldn't have happened. You should thank TeamLiquid mostly , not Blizzard. errr... what has that got to do with what i said? edit: ah i see, you're at teamliquid even though you hate SC2 nm i sort of get it.
Lol dude, TeamLiquid has BW section / other games section ..
And yes I enjoy watching GSL and Massive SC2 events . But It seems to me that Blizzard could gain a bit less and support the competitive scene more. Most likely I have rather high expectation from people who have to sole purpose of boosting their profits but still...Out of SC2 ... there won't be a game like DotA ... out of D3....it won't be a mod like MXL ... Whatever...
|
On January 16 2012 07:20 Shiori wrote: This intellectual property digital stuff has really gotten out of hand,
Under the laws as they were fifty years ago, Blizzard would still have had copyright claims to the broadcasting of Starcraft 2. They created the artwork, they created the audio, and broadcasting of copyrighted works has been explicitly subject to copyright (worldwide!) since the 1920s. So no, it's not a matter of "US laws" or "intellectual property digital stuff."
Also, note that Blizzard set a reasonable threshold ($5k prize pool) for small tournaments to be absolutely no hassle to set up. TB's decided his tournament isn't quite profitable enough to be worth the extra hassle and cost to go higher, and that's perfectly reasonable too. However, no matter what Blizzard did to make things easier for smaller organizers, someone would be on the edge and tempted to limit what they're doing by a lower-cost option. The alternative would be that Blizzard charges all tournaments a fee simply to preserve their rights to charge a fee to the biggest ones.
I can't see why on balance it's not better to give small tournaments a break even if once in a while you get one limiting their prize pool to stay under the threshold.
|
On January 16 2012 07:53 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:39 Broodwurst wrote:On January 16 2012 06:35 integrity wrote:On January 16 2012 06:31 Talin wrote:On January 16 2012 06:26 integrity wrote: the following statement is my opinion, no it might not be like your and no im not asking you to agree with me:
at this point with over 50k viewers TB can take a lost to his OWN ad revenue to raise the prize pool. after a certain point in ads he is already making way more than the 5k needed for the next tournament. it just my opinion that he doesnt want to raise it because he rather take the huge amount of ad revenue he is getting from 50k people himself...which is way more than the 5k he is giving to players No matter how much of an opinion it is, you can't blindly accuse people of things like that. the statment came out a little acutory(sp?) but my point is ad revenue from 50k viewers is way more than 5k to pay players. Proof? Also, would you (theoretically speaking) be seriously complaing if they'd actually be earning money for their work? Really? Let me guess, the same wouldnt work for Blizzard, right? They dont need to get paid for their work, correct? Because the battle.net sustaines itself, the time and effort which go into balance-patches etc (which dont come from thin air, but people working on it - and want to get paid for it).. Screw it, how dare they? I actually think they should just sit aside and watch others make money with their game. That sounds really smart. Not saying btw that TB and others shouldnt make money for their efforts - what im saying is, calling Blizzard a "evil company" because they want a fair share off of what others are making with their game, is not only ridiculous, but pretty stupid.
No idea where you got that from, i'm absolutely fine with Blizzard demanding royalties. If someone makes money from their work they are up for a piece of that.
|
I know blizzard gets a good share of the ad revenue from tournaments with 5k + prize pool.But also you have to take in account that this tournament was entirely funded from ad revenue from TB's stream + donations.
|
On January 16 2012 07:53 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:50 akaname wrote:On January 16 2012 07:21 StRyKeR wrote: What's so wrong about this? I'm sick of people who feel entitled, that somehow they should get everything for free.
These tournaments are profiting off of sc2, making money off of advertisements and viewers. For what reason should blizzard NOT charge a fee? thank god someone said it. blizzard continue to support their games long after launch, the more money they can continue to make, the better SC2 will be. OP if you really hate blizzard that much just f*** off, i don't understand why someone who 'loathes' blizzard would be watching tournaments for their game and then visiting a forum for their game. That fact that Blizzard supports a game does not have any relation to them being entitled to a cut of profits that other people make from broadcasting people with already paid-for licenses playing it. MLG/GSL/whatever aren't selling Sc2. They're selling an event. They've already bought copies of Sc2. They shouldn't have to pay again.
Sounds reasonable. Tell me, where are you from? Just so i can model the next argument around something you really know. Like Superbowl for example. Or Bundesliga. Stuff like that, where you can buy a ticket for.
Buy a ticket for the superbowl and then try to stream it your TV-Channel. Or even better, you paid for the cinema-ticket, try to stream the film over the internet.
Doesnt work that way? Pretty much it does, because you actually just have bought a permission to install the game basically.
Blizzard clearly states in the EULA that you can use the license/game for noncommercial use only. Everyone agreed to that. If you make money from the game, well.. How noncommercial is that? And how can someone complain about the fact that Blizzard want to enforce its "rules" (or at least, get its share off of the tournament-orgas)?
|
On January 16 2012 08:02 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:57 akaname wrote:On January 16 2012 07:54 bOneSeven wrote:On January 16 2012 07:50 akaname wrote:On January 16 2012 07:21 StRyKeR wrote: What's so wrong about this? I'm sick of people who feel entitled, that somehow they should get everything for free.
These tournaments are profiting off of sc2, making money off of advertisements and viewers. For what reason should blizzard NOT charge a fee? thank god someone said it. blizzard continue to support their games long after launch, the more money they can continue to make, the better SC2 will be. OP if you really hate blizzard that much just f*** off, i don't understand why someone who 'loathes' blizzard would be watching tournaments for their game and then visiting a forum for their game. Let's be serious, without TeamLiquid or the pro BW scene in Korea SC2 wouldn't have happened. You should thank TeamLiquid mostly , not Blizzard. errr... what has that got to do with what i said? edit: ah i see, you're at teamliquid even though you hate SC2 nm i sort of get it. Lol dude, TeamLiquid has BW section / other games section .. And yes I enjoy watching GSL and Massive SC2 events . But It seems to me that Blizzard could gain a bit less and support the competitive scene more. Most likely I have rather high expectation from people who have to sole purpose of boosting their profits but still...Out of SC2 ... there won't be a game like DotA ... out of D3....it won't be a mod like MXL ... Whatever... err yeah but you're (a) posting in the SC2 section and (b) watching a SC2 tournament.
i just cannot understand how people who like a game dislike the creators so much. and if you feel that Blizzard only works for profits, you're clearly playing and watching a different version of SC2 to me. Personally, i'm incredibly glad they have a sustainable business model (including their often maligned 'trilogy') that will allow them to continue to support SC2 for at least 5 more years. the more money we can continue to feed them, the better.
edit: sorry i was so harsh in my first post by the way, i just get surprised by people who are still enjoying a game almost 2 years after its release who still seem to look down on it.
|
On January 16 2012 07:36 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Hey guys, what would you prefer, having to pay for patches, them releasing a new SC2 each year with major patches and selling it for $60, having to pay $15 or so a month to play, or have a % of the profits of tournaments be paid to Blizzard? The latter makes the most sense to me, since the work Blizzard spends outside of developing the game (balancing, fixing bugs, etc. etc.) contributes to the esports side of things by making it a competitive game, so by having part of the profits of tournaments go to Blizzard, it's as if we're paying for their extra efforts instead of just giving up on SC2 after patching for only a couple months.
?? How do you explain every other game that has ever gotten free patches after release without a tournament scene to tax. For example relic rts games get a bunch explain why dawn of war 2 got a balance patch last month. There is no reason we have to chose any of the options you listed.
What if blizzard just made money from the extremely long term sales of their game (broodwar sold a lot for a decade) and the map marketplace they will soon add instead of making it more likely that all the unstable tournaments that advertise their game and keep fans interested in sc2 instead of other games go out of buisness.
|
On January 16 2012 07:17 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:03 Broodwurst wrote:On January 16 2012 06:58 bOneSeven wrote: And my philosophy is rather simple . Restrict the pro scene as a game developper = you are a vicious company. I'm sure if they wouldn't patch the game, some programmers who love the game would patch the game for free so the community gets stronger ( if they had the permission from Blizzard ) .
But shouldn't pro-gamers also "love the game"? So if programmers can patch for free they could play for less. Ok I'm to dumb to understand what you just said o_O pls restate :D
You're basically suggesting that Blizzard shouldn't demand royalties as "programmers who love the game would patch the game for free." By that logic there wouldn't be a need for prize money because gamers love the game, too.
|
For all the people hating on blizzard:
Blizzard created the game, created all the art assets and the gameplay that enables pro gamers to compete on such a high level. People who are streaming their game without paying are actually against copyright law, and the fact that they don't go after internet streamers and televised events with prizes under 5K is already a sign of goodwill from blizzard. Remember they spent 5+ years creating this game, and it's their right to use it as they see fit.
Remember that when people pay for the game, they're paying for their personal use, and not streaming and broadcasting licenses, those are different licenses. Also, people are raging without even knowing the licensing agreement from blizzard (and no one even knows, because it's under a NDA), but we can all agree that if it wasn't profitable for tournaments, those tournaments would probably just wouldn't happen and e-sports organizers would turn to other games, such as street fighter, DoTA, Halo or countless others.
This is not the first time i see team liquid's community asking for more attention from Blizzard, and we got to remember that SC2 wasn't made for e-sports, we are just the vocal minority. So stop bashing on Blizzard for creating a game that was awesome enough to create a whole tournament scene without even knowing what they are asking from them.
|
On January 16 2012 08:11 Broodwurst wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:17 bOneSeven wrote:On January 16 2012 07:03 Broodwurst wrote:On January 16 2012 06:58 bOneSeven wrote: And my philosophy is rather simple . Restrict the pro scene as a game developper = you are a vicious company. I'm sure if they wouldn't patch the game, some programmers who love the game would patch the game for free so the community gets stronger ( if they had the permission from Blizzard ) .
But shouldn't pro-gamers also "love the game"? So if programmers can patch for free they could play for less. Ok I'm to dumb to understand what you just said o_O pls restate :D You're basically suggesting that Blizzard shouldn't demand royalties as "programmers who love the game would patch the game for free." By that logic there wouldn't be a need for prize money because gamers love the game, too.
Somehow i got your first posting wrong, sorry for that. Hirnfurz somehow.
|
On January 16 2012 06:58 bOneSeven wrote:Say if Stephano won this tournament and got 3k$ and TB gets 10k$ , how would that be fair TB's not in this for love and kisses. He's in this to make a living. If he wants to further esports, it's because he wants to be able to keep making a living from what he's doing. So if he runs a tournament and makes money from it I'm completely okay with that.
But I think he's been fairly transparent about costs and such in previous times, and he pretty much breaks even. I think.
|
|
Wow. Same thread. Similar arguments as well.
|
On January 16 2012 08:21 JOJOsc2news wrote:Wow. Same thread. Similar arguments as well. wow never seen this text in a thread before
Warning: The last post in this thread is over two months old. If you bump this, you better have a good reason.
|
I always thought this was incredibly retarded.
This would be equal to if the guy who invented the guitar demanded 50 % of ticket sales it's completely ridiculous.
Stop holding your own game back :/
|
Not that big a deal. Blizzard doesn't want a repeat of KeSPA, after all.
Really, 10-15% is nothing.
|
On January 16 2012 08:28 Cereb wrote: I always thought this was incredibly retarded.
This would be equal to if the guy who invented the guitar demanded 50 % of ticket sales it's completely ridiculous.
Stop holding your own game back :/
I don't see the guy who invented the computer demanding any money. I also don't see how this i holding anything back, SC2 seems to be doing pretty fine.
|
On January 16 2012 08:11 Broodwurst wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 07:17 bOneSeven wrote:On January 16 2012 07:03 Broodwurst wrote:On January 16 2012 06:58 bOneSeven wrote: And my philosophy is rather simple . Restrict the pro scene as a game developper = you are a vicious company. I'm sure if they wouldn't patch the game, some programmers who love the game would patch the game for free so the community gets stronger ( if they had the permission from Blizzard ) .
But shouldn't pro-gamers also "love the game"? So if programmers can patch for free they could play for less. Ok I'm to dumb to understand what you just said o_O pls restate :D You're basically suggesting that Blizzard shouldn't demand royalties as "programmers who love the game would patch the game for free." By that logic there wouldn't be a need for prize money because gamers love the game, too.
No because if people couldn't play the game pro - to make a living they wouldn't put such an amazing show => no reason to spectate the show=> no reason sponsors would sponsor an event. So pro players actually create the possibility of making money . The pro player are usefull to the community . Blizzard guys are not usefull, because patching can be done for free by fans. The only real thing Blizzard provides are the servers. And I'd be rather curious how much that costs them.
|
On January 16 2012 08:25 akaname wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:21 JOJOsc2news wrote:Wow. Same thread. Similar arguments as well. wow never seen this text in a thread before Show nested quote +Warning: The last post in this thread is over two months old. If you bump this, you better have a good reason.
yeah, if you have a good enough reason to make a new thread, you should be able to bump an old thread.
|
the ignorance in this thread is astounding, i wish i could find the link to the sundance interview where he was asked about this and said himself that blizzard's liscencing is reasonable.
|
The default license says $5k is the max. Anything more than that and you need a special tournament license, the % you pay to blizzard can vary greatly, any numbers is usually pure speculation.
|
On January 16 2012 08:37 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:25 akaname wrote:On January 16 2012 08:21 JOJOsc2news wrote:Wow. Same thread. Similar arguments as well. wow never seen this text in a thread before Warning: The last post in this thread is over two months old. If you bump this, you better have a good reason. yeah, if you have a good enough reason to make a new thread, you should be able to bump an old thread.
Wasn't aware of that thread ^^ Since it was like 2 months old...damn...not even a member back then
|
On January 16 2012 08:34 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:11 Broodwurst wrote:On January 16 2012 07:17 bOneSeven wrote:On January 16 2012 07:03 Broodwurst wrote:On January 16 2012 06:58 bOneSeven wrote: And my philosophy is rather simple . Restrict the pro scene as a game developper = you are a vicious company. I'm sure if they wouldn't patch the game, some programmers who love the game would patch the game for free so the community gets stronger ( if they had the permission from Blizzard ) .
But shouldn't pro-gamers also "love the game"? So if programmers can patch for free they could play for less. Ok I'm to dumb to understand what you just said o_O pls restate :D You're basically suggesting that Blizzard shouldn't demand royalties as "programmers who love the game would patch the game for free." By that logic there wouldn't be a need for prize money because gamers love the game, too. No because if people couldn't play the game pro - to make a living they wouldn't put such an amazing show => no reason to spectate the show=> no reason sponsors would sponsor an event. So pro players actually create the possibility of making money . The pro player are usefull to the community . Blizzard guys are not usefull, because patching can be done for free by fans. The only real thing Blizzard provides are the servers. And I'd be rather curious how much that costs them.
Blizzard made this one thing that makes ANY of this possible - the game itself. Without the game there wouldn't be a show, sponsors or a community to begin with.
|
For those of you wondering why this hurts e-sports, look at this this way. It's a tax, taxes deter investment, witch leads to less "over 5000" tournaments, witch in turn leads to less overall money in the scene, witch translates into less players being able to make a living out of it. If you don't get why taxes discourage investments, I suggest a little economics reading.
|
On January 16 2012 08:58 Waio wrote: For those of you wondering why this hurts e-sports, look at this this way. It's a tax, taxes deter investment, witch leads to less "over 5000" tournaments, witch in turn leads to less overall money in the scene, witch translates into less players being able to make a living out of it. If you don't get why taxes discourage investments, I suggest a little economics reading. how about a little business reading? investors invest in games companies because they expect/hope for a large return on their investment. blizzard making as much money as possible on their game means a larger ROI. a larger ROI means more investors in the future. more investment means more projects (i.e., games), which is why we have sc:bw, war3, wow, sc2, etc. from blizzard. blizzard's investors being sad makes blizzard sad; random forum posters and/or players being sad makes blizzard . . . oh wait, blizzard doesn't care.
oh, and your post is kind of ridiculous. MLG, IPL, GOM, etc. are making tons of money off their tournaments, and they are expanding, not contracting. so, your whole "taxes deter investment" doesnt really hold water, now does it?
|
How can you guys say that Blizzard doesn't deserve the money when they continue to update the game with great features like clan channels, quality maps, and netcode that doesn't lag in the middle of big tournaments?
|
On January 16 2012 08:58 Waio wrote: For those of you wondering why this hurts e-sports, look at this this way. It's a tax, taxes deter investment, witch leads to less "over 5000" tournaments, witch in turn leads to less overall money in the scene, witch translates into less players being able to make a living out of it. If you don't get why taxes discourage investments, I suggest a little economics reading.
Organizing an event just doesnt compare to developing a game.
GSL is business venture, they exist to make money ESL is business venture, they exist to make money NASL is business venture, they exist to make money MLG is business venture, they exist to make money Dreamhack is business venture, they exist to make money
yet somehow Blizzard is not allowed to make money off other people using their products to get rich (or die trying). its just dumb, please get in touch with reality.
|
We've discussed it before on the forums. The only problem I personally have with that is: since the exact terms of licensing (and %) are unknown, and apparently Blizzard only clarifies them to you when you make a big tournament, then this relies on some very open rule in the user contract, and I must say I dislike when it comes to using such open general rules allowing basically to add new rules. It means when you buy the game you involve yourself with possibilities to get screwed. Of course, that has been discussed very widely too, even before the game was released, but it's still as annoying.
|
yeah next time just bump the old thread, or don't bump it at all, since the only thing that will happen are anti Blizzard posts with strange argumentation, on why they aren't allowed to make money with their product. Creating games actually became more expensive and just selling the game isn't enough anymore to get bigger. Blizzard of course could make it like ea, and spy your pc, sell the same game with a small update every year anew etc. I mean thats way easier and less risky then making a good game and hope that people will host big tournaments.
Just imagine if ea made starcraft, we would have starcraft 12 released soon ! with origin of course
|
how about the ad revenue goes to player with <5k prize pool? and the big tournament can readjust their prize pool to 5k and give more $$ to winner with "ad" money~
|
On January 16 2012 09:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:58 Waio wrote: For those of you wondering why this hurts e-sports, look at this this way. It's a tax, taxes deter investment, witch leads to less "over 5000" tournaments, witch in turn leads to less overall money in the scene, witch translates into less players being able to make a living out of it. If you don't get why taxes discourage investments, I suggest a little economics reading. how about a little business reading? investors invest in games companies because they expect/hope for a large return on their investment. blizzard making as much money as possible on their game means a larger ROI. a larger ROI means more investors in the future. more investment means more projects (i.e., games), which is why we have sc:bw, war3, wow, sc2, etc. from blizzard. blizzard's investors being sad makes blizzard sad; random forum posters and/or players being sad makes blizzard . . . oh wait, blizzard doesn't care. oh, and your post is kind of ridiculous. MLG, IPL, GOM, etc. are making tons of money off their tournaments, and they are expanding, not contracting. so, your whole "taxes deter investment" doesnt really hold water, now does it?
Are you sure about that? How do you know?
Blizzard doesn't charge them outside of some relatively small license fee. The problem is that these leagues don't make money. No esport league makes money. MLG is MAYBE the only league to make money in 2011, and I'm even dubious about that... but luckily they had $10 million in VC money to play with on the year, and I'm sure they have more long term plans so it doesn't matter if they don't make money this year...
GOMTV doesn't seem to have that kind of backing, which means that their league is not being very successful (financially)... hence cutting about 1/2 million from their expenses. Seems like overall, Korea is having a very rough time leveraging SC2's popularity and their players' skill with sponsors the way Western companies / organizations / players are able to do.
said by xeris about GOM
I bet I'll be more sad then blizzard's investors if the leagues fail. They probably care more about the game selling millions then the expansion selling millions then the map marketplace selling millions of stuff. If they really wanted to maximize profit they should be taxing all the teams, players, casters, streamers, and websites not just tournaments.
Are you sure this tax isn't hurting the tournaments (and in the long run blizzard due to no free massive advertising to lots of people)?
|
I don't know about Blizzard taking a fee for tournaments with over a 5k USD prizepool. You have to agree that it was them who created the game itself, but it's not them who create the content that makes it so exiting to watch a tourney. Hate me for saying this, but i don't think they own legitimate rights to claim money because of copyrights or making the game in the first place. A few examples and just examples: would anybody aprove of, if Microsoft claims money from a writer who wrote his/her script in Word? Or would you like it if your favorite musician would have to pay money for every song he/she sold, after reaching 5000 or even 500.000 USD, to the company who developed the program he/she recorded in? Should Blizzard pay money to the company who developed the graphics tool that's used to create the models and textures for the game? I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it. You should think of it that way: Would 50k people watch a stream of two a.i. extreme fighting it out over 7 hours? That way Blizzard would, in my opinion, own the rights to claim money from the stream, because their program creates the content. But who really cares about that topic? Blizzard can and will easily shut down any attempt to break the rules (You've been kicked and banned from the server!) Because it is them who make the rules . Lets be honest ... the only cause that there is no LAN-mode is, so that blizzard can monopalize on that. Is that good for e -sports? No. Can we change something about that? No.
PS I don't even know if the text above is productive, not outdated or at least makes any sense! :D
PPS I hope my english is not to bad. If it is: Sorry!
|
I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree".
Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest?
|
I don't get why Blizzard getting a small percentage of money of tournaments over $5000 is such a big deal..
In 2011 approximately $2.6 million USD (source is somewhere on TL.net, but can't find the thread) was given away in prizes..a good portion of this came from tournaments with prize pools under $5000.
In 2011, Blizzard would have profited a maximum of $250,000-$375,000 off of tournaments.
|
On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote + I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly.
If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with.
|
Because Blizzard always needs more money =D
|
On January 16 2012 08:39 taLbuk wrote: the ignorance in this thread is astounding, i wish i could find the link to the sundance interview where he was asked about this and said himself that blizzard's liscencing is reasonable.
haha I know. I hate to say it but as the community grows larger it is more and more frustrating to read these threads with uninformed comments on BOTH Teamliquid and Reddit... ah well as long as I can enjoy SC2 people can be as ignorant as they want.
But for the OP.. this has been discussed to death- stop beating a dead horse by opening a new thread and just use the search function. Also its blizzards game- they have EVERY right to protect their intellectual property. after all- tournaments are making money from sc2, why should they not have to pay the developer who created the game in the first place.
|
Edit: @ Shiori Mate, you have these "problems" with all kinds of mediums. Its a copywright-issue, nothing more. Btw, to prove you wrong:
Look up a german tuning-company called "Brabus", and why they are not allowed to sell their (former) Mercedes as a Mercedes, but have to rename them. See the parallels? They bought a (lets say) a Mercdes SL500, but they have to sell them as Brabus SL.
Why do they need to rename them?
|
On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote: I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with.
I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back.
|
On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote: I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected.
|
On January 16 2012 09:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:58 Waio wrote: For those of you wondering why this hurts e-sports, look at this this way. It's a tax, taxes deter investment, witch leads to less "over 5000" tournaments, witch in turn leads to less overall money in the scene, witch translates into less players being able to make a living out of it. If you don't get why taxes discourage investments, I suggest a little economics reading. how about a little business reading? investors invest in games companies because they expect/hope for a large return on their investment. blizzard making as much money as possible on their game means a larger ROI. a larger ROI means more investors in the future. more investment means more projects (i.e., games), which is why we have sc:bw, war3, wow, sc2, etc. from blizzard. blizzard's investors being sad makes blizzard sad; random forum posters and/or players being sad makes blizzard . . . oh wait, blizzard doesn't care. oh, and your post is kind of ridiculous. MLG, IPL, GOM, etc. are making tons of money off their tournaments, and they are expanding, not contracting. so, your whole "taxes deter investment" doesnt really hold water, now does it?
Alright, first of all, I'm talking mostly about the sc2 scene, not the blizzard intention to make more games. You're taking a different approach that I don't think it's true (you are implying that any game that blizzard creates contributes to e-sports, witch I don't think holds true)
Nevertheless, lets go to the other point. I'm NOT talking about big tournaments here, because, let's face it, most of them are played and won by the same people over and over. I'm talking about small-medium tournaments held in different parts of the world, picture, I don't know, my country for instance. We have ONE pro (d.Killer). In order for us to have more, we need a reason for people to try and play in a more serious manner. Small tourneys accomplish that. If fewer people make small-medium tournaments, less people is interested, and talented players are lost. There, if you are going to tell me this isn't true, good, but give me a valid reason why I should think that less small-medium tournaments with the side-effect of putting more money in blizzard's pocket is going to improve the scene. (I'm not saying they shouldn't profit, but not in this way).
|
On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote: This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive.
The difference is that a USB drive is not a creative work protectable by copyright. Different type of intellectual property, different rules. Also, to the extent that the USB drive implements various patents, it would be possible for patent holders to charge you, the user, a fee. Generally they waive this so that people will adopt the technology, but unlike a game there are functionally equivalent alternatives.
|
Theoretically, the more money Blizzard has the more resources they can put into developing StarCraft II into a better game. I fail to understand how this is bad.
|
On January 16 2012 11:15 mki wrote: Theoretically, the more money Blizzard has the more resources they can put into developing StarCraft II into a better game. I fail to understand how this is bad.
Well it's not so much that blizzard makes money. It's about how they do it.
|
On January 16 2012 11:07 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote: This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. The difference is that a USB drive is not a creative work protectable by copyright. Different type of intellectual property, different rules. Also, to the extent that the USB drive implements various patents, it would be possible for patent holders to charge you, the user, a fee. Generally they waive this so that people will adopt the technology, but unlike a game there are functionally equivalent alternatives. Completely arbitrary rules.
|
On January 16 2012 11:30 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:07 Lysenko wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote: This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. The difference is that a USB drive is not a creative work protectable by copyright. Different type of intellectual property, different rules. Also, to the extent that the USB drive implements various patents, it would be possible for patent holders to charge you, the user, a fee. Generally they waive this so that people will adopt the technology, but unlike a game there are functionally equivalent alternatives. Completely arbitrary rules.
Arbitrary perhaps, but nevertheless they're the law, and over the last 50 years they've been largely standardized internationally by treaty.
|
United States5162 Posts
Starcraft 2 is Blizzard's intellectual property, and as a result, have the right to some of the profits that others make while utilizing their property. In a more general sense, they have the right to stipulate the terms and conditions of use. That's why some software, such as CAD programs, don't require you to pay royalties on profits made using the product, because it's explicitly meant to be used that way.
Starcraft 2 is in a strange middle ground between personal entertainment, such as a movie, and commercial product creator, like AutoCAD. As a game, it's not really meant to be used to create a commercial product, but a commercial industry has built up around it.
I really can't think of a way to conclude this post, maybe a good way is to compare SC2 to a restaurant franchise. You are the one doing all the work ensuring that the restaurant runs well with good food and happy customers, but you have to buy the rights to use the name, as well as pay some of the profits to the parent company. It's a win-win situation though because the new restaurant has a head up over competition with a well-established name, and the parent company makes money without having to invest as much time or money. Not a perfect analogy, but hopefully a bit helpful.
|
On January 16 2012 11:33 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:30 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 11:07 Lysenko wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote: This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. The difference is that a USB drive is not a creative work protectable by copyright. Different type of intellectual property, different rules. Also, to the extent that the USB drive implements various patents, it would be possible for patent holders to charge you, the user, a fee. Generally they waive this so that people will adopt the technology, but unlike a game there are functionally equivalent alternatives. Completely arbitrary rules. Arbitrary perhaps, but nevertheless they're the law, and over the last 50 years they've been largely standardized internationally by treaty.
You mean corporate lobbying?
|
On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote: I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected.
Of course it has to do with protecting intellectual property. May it be the SC2 Logo (and other Logos in general), graphical design (and yeah, here in germany Mercedes scrapped an imported car from china for looking somewhat like a smart - it got smashed to pieces by a forklift as soon as it landed in the harbor, meaning just by the looks of it) etc.
The license isnt btw separated from the game. Its just not the license you need to broadcast SC2. How is that different from Windows-Licenses? Or Office, or even Anti-Virus-Programs? They all have different licenses. Hell, even in Reallife (scrapping Software-Examples), i cant just open a USB-Stick, and re-engineer it. I have to watch out for patented or copyrighted stuff. And thats a good thing, lets see it this way: if i wouldve "made" Starcraft 2, i want to know its protected. I dont want anyone to just take the engine etc, create some new skins and resell it as a different game (and actually that would be possible in "your world"). How is that better than, well, making money from what you created?
You mean corporate lobbying?
Well, i would call it "common sense". But meh.
|
On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote: I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected. They're legal to prevent people from buying a game and creating their own version based on the one they purchased. If I buy SC2, make some modifications, and sell it as a new game, this is illegal under current law as I don't own SC2 to begin with. If the law was changed how you wanted, this would change and the game industry would become a cesspool of people copying eachother with slight changes. Tired of the CoD engine being reused every year? Imagine if every FPS by every company used it.
And of course this ignores the fact that no company will ever want to invest the money into building a new engine or original game ever again since it would cost them millions of dollars at which point everyone would just steal their work.
All software follows this plan and has always followed this plan unless it's open source, in which case you can take whatever you want.
|
On January 16 2012 11:38 rotegirte wrote: You mean corporate lobbying?
Not if you're referring to the treaties, since it takes multiple nations to come together to make a treaty and corporate lobbying is pretty removed from that process. Corporate lobbying certainly influences the law, but that doesn't make it any less the law.
Regardless, copyright, trademark, and patents have been around for centuries, and are explicitly provided for in the original text of the U.S. Constitution which was written 229 years ago. This is not a new development.
|
On January 16 2012 11:42 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote: I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected. They're legal to prevent people from buying a game and creating their own version based on the one they purchased. If I buy SC2, make some modifications, and sell it as a new game, this is illegal under current law as I don't own SC2 to begin with. If the law was changed how you wanted, this would change and the game industry would become a cesspool of people copying eachother with slight changes. Tired of the CoD engine being reused every year? Imagine if every FPS by every company used it. And of course this ignores the fact that no company will ever want to invest the money into building a new engine or original game ever again since it would cost them millions of dollars at which point everyone would just steal their work. All software follows this plan and has always followed this plan unless it's open source, in which case you can take whatever you want. Where have I advocated stealing products and selling them? I'm merely advocating broadcasting myself playing a game which I legally purchased and own. I have made no modifications; the license is mine before and after the broadcast; I am using the game completely legally. If I wish to offer a prize for whomever beats me, Blizzard has essentially no business asking for a cut.
|
On January 16 2012 11:57 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:42 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote: I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected. They're legal to prevent people from buying a game and creating their own version based on the one they purchased. If I buy SC2, make some modifications, and sell it as a new game, this is illegal under current law as I don't own SC2 to begin with. If the law was changed how you wanted, this would change and the game industry would become a cesspool of people copying eachother with slight changes. Tired of the CoD engine being reused every year? Imagine if every FPS by every company used it. And of course this ignores the fact that no company will ever want to invest the money into building a new engine or original game ever again since it would cost them millions of dollars at which point everyone would just steal their work. All software follows this plan and has always followed this plan unless it's open source, in which case you can take whatever you want. Where have I advocated stealing products and selling them? I'm merely advocating broadcasting myself playing a game which I legally purchased and own. I have made no modifications; the license is mine before and after the broadcast; I am using the game completely legally. If I wish to offer a prize for whomever beats me, Blizzard has essentially no business asking for a cut. I was simply stating the legal basis. In both cases you're making money largely off the work Blizzard did, so they can outright prohibit you from doing so or they can allow you to do what you want. Blizzard has chosen to allow it, provided they get a cut.
This is completely fine as far as I'm concerned.
|
On January 16 2012 11:02 Waio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 09:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 16 2012 08:58 Waio wrote: For those of you wondering why this hurts e-sports, look at this this way. It's a tax, taxes deter investment, witch leads to less "over 5000" tournaments, witch in turn leads to less overall money in the scene, witch translates into less players being able to make a living out of it. If you don't get why taxes discourage investments, I suggest a little economics reading. how about a little business reading? investors invest in games companies because they expect/hope for a large return on their investment. blizzard making as much money as possible on their game means a larger ROI. a larger ROI means more investors in the future. more investment means more projects (i.e., games), which is why we have sc:bw, war3, wow, sc2, etc. from blizzard. blizzard's investors being sad makes blizzard sad; random forum posters and/or players being sad makes blizzard . . . oh wait, blizzard doesn't care. oh, and your post is kind of ridiculous. MLG, IPL, GOM, etc. are making tons of money off their tournaments, and they are expanding, not contracting. so, your whole "taxes deter investment" doesnt really hold water, now does it? Alright, first of all, I'm talking mostly about the sc2 scene, not the blizzard intention to make more games. You're taking a different approach that I don't think it's true (you are implying that any game that blizzard creates contributes to e-sports, witch I don't think holds true) Nevertheless, lets go to the other point. I'm NOT talking about big tournaments here, because, let's face it, most of them are played and won by the same people over and over. I'm talking about small-medium tournaments held in different parts of the world, picture, I don't know, my country for instance. We have ONE pro (d.Killer). In order for us to have more, we need a reason for people to try and play in a more serious manner. Small tourneys accomplish that. If fewer people make small-medium tournaments, less people is interested, and talented players are lost. There, if you are going to tell me this isn't true, good, but give me a valid reason why I should think that less small-medium tournaments with the side-effect of putting more money in blizzard's pocket is going to improve the scene. (I'm not saying they shouldn't profit, but not in this way). any tournament that is less than $5000 i would classify as a small-mid sized tournaments. there are very few tournaments over $5000. so, i dont see this as a problem in your scenario.
|
You people complaining about this sicken me. Blizzard made the freaking game for crying out loud, they own all rights to the game and can do whatever they want with it. They are continuously providing you with servers to play on and constant updates to fix bugs and balance issues, and all that without requiring a monthly fee. They can only sell you the game once, so for them to keep putting in the effort to maintain the game, obviously they should expect to see some form of profit. Would you rather pay a monthly fee?
|
On January 16 2012 11:15 mki wrote: Theoretically, the more money Blizzard has the more resources they can put into developing StarCraft II into a better game. I fail to understand how this is bad. The main problem on that argument is that you "Expect" blizzard to do a good job by getting some "ad-revenue" with this "$5k+ Rule", the only main thing it'll do is make blizzard wait for new big tournaments just to keep earning money, why is this logical?
Money =/= Development, it sure helps a game on it's development but it's nowhere near to have good comprehension of the game itself, you can develop a game constantly but not having any clue on how to balance it (I.E. Crusiers), money did help blizzard to make HotS but they didn't fix the "Protoss lategame air phase" (was there ever one?).
|
They made the game, seems reasonable to me.
|
On January 16 2012 05:46 Xeris wrote: If you want bigger tournaments, you need a special tournament license from Blizzard, which costs money, and they take % of all the money u make
How much of a cut? Would you mind giving a range. Yes, it is a pity that Blizzard is concerned with making money more than growing the scene, especially compared to Riot Games and their $5 million infusion of cash into the LoL scene. But at least Blizzard is doing things such as patching to keep the game balanced, and allowing tournaments to operate. It could be better, but it could be worse.
That said, we should try to get the message through to Blizzard that they could probably benefit from the long run if they worked more actively to helped develop competitive SC2, whether it be from increased gamesales, or increased publicity. Rather than hate on them, we should try to send out a reasoned message on why we think they should change their current policy.
|
Do E-sport community felt wronged when tournaments have to pay a fee to blizzard to get a permission i think the answer is a resounding yes.
But do blizzard have the right to do so? yes there is such thing as intellectual property and yes what they are doing is legal under the law . Does this help E-sport in general? i do believe so if companies sees that there are money/royalties to be made from competition not just the selling of the game itself, they might consider creating games that has potential for E-sport.
|
You mean Blizzard isn't allowed to make money off their own game? lol..you people will argue about anything. Putting more money into the company that has made a game which has turned into a huge esport? How dare they!
|
I don't think it's fair that people bash blizzard for things like this. they freakin' developed the game, they deserve to be able to control how other people make money off of it. How would you feel if you spent years creating a game and then people go and create tournaments for it and make tons of money for themselves? I mean, it's not like they should get all of the money, because a lot of time and effort goes into creating and running tournaments that admins should be rewarded for, but lets not forget that the entire game of starcraft was invented and developed by blizzard...
or maybe think of it this way. You spend a decade writing a book and make money by selling the paperbacks in bookstores. Then some jackasses simply read your awesome story and sell audio books. Sure, they had to do all the recording and distribution, but you wrote the story! The audiobook people should have to pay the author or create a deal. this is how IP works, people. creators should be rewarded for the things they create and this is what the rules try to protect.
|
On January 16 2012 11:57 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:42 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote: I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected. They're legal to prevent people from buying a game and creating their own version based on the one they purchased. If I buy SC2, make some modifications, and sell it as a new game, this is illegal under current law as I don't own SC2 to begin with. If the law was changed how you wanted, this would change and the game industry would become a cesspool of people copying eachother with slight changes. Tired of the CoD engine being reused every year? Imagine if every FPS by every company used it. And of course this ignores the fact that no company will ever want to invest the money into building a new engine or original game ever again since it would cost them millions of dollars at which point everyone would just steal their work. All software follows this plan and has always followed this plan unless it's open source, in which case you can take whatever you want. Where have I advocated stealing products and selling them? I'm merely advocating broadcasting myself playing a game which I legally purchased and own. I have made no modifications; the license is mine before and after the broadcast; I am using the game completely legally. If I wish to offer a prize for whomever beats me, Blizzard has essentially no business asking for a cut.
Well, the problem is: you dont. If you like it or not, you A: dont own the game, you did not purchase the game. B: you are not using the game completely legally if you make money from it.
And actually, you dont have to pay anything to blizzard if you just "give away money if someone beats you". You have to pay if you MAKE money. A percentage of your earnings.
Im flabbergasted that someone actually dont get the principal or even call it "bad". If you make money with stuff i invented (and, now the interesting part: with stuff i dont want YOU to make money with, but me, because im a company with investors and stuff), i want my share.
How the hell has a thought-process to work to get the kinda borked logic you show? You didnt even get the facts straight (at least by judging your example - missing the fact that you can give away as much money as you want, you just cant earn any), are you just here to bash Blizzard because you lost some games in a row, or what?
|
On January 16 2012 13:36 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:57 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 11:42 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote: I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected. They're legal to prevent people from buying a game and creating their own version based on the one they purchased. If I buy SC2, make some modifications, and sell it as a new game, this is illegal under current law as I don't own SC2 to begin with. If the law was changed how you wanted, this would change and the game industry would become a cesspool of people copying eachother with slight changes. Tired of the CoD engine being reused every year? Imagine if every FPS by every company used it. And of course this ignores the fact that no company will ever want to invest the money into building a new engine or original game ever again since it would cost them millions of dollars at which point everyone would just steal their work. All software follows this plan and has always followed this plan unless it's open source, in which case you can take whatever you want. Where have I advocated stealing products and selling them? I'm merely advocating broadcasting myself playing a game which I legally purchased and own. I have made no modifications; the license is mine before and after the broadcast; I am using the game completely legally. If I wish to offer a prize for whomever beats me, Blizzard has essentially no business asking for a cut. Well, the problem is: you dont. If you like it or not, you A: dont own the game, you did not purchase the game. B: you are not using the game completely legally if you make money from it. And actually, you dont have to pay anything to blizzard if you just "give away money if someone beats you". You have to pay if you MAKE money. A percentage of your earnings. Im flabbergasted that someone actually dont get the principal or even call it "bad". If you make money with stuff i invented (and, now the interesting part: with stuff i dont want YOU to make money with, but me, because im a company with investors and stuff), i want my share. How the hell has a thought-process to work to get the kinda borked logic you show? You didnt even get the facts straight (at least by judging your example - missing the fact that you can give away as much money as you want, you just cant earn any), are you just here to bash Blizzard because you lost some games in a row, or what?
But what if I lose money doing something that indirectly makes you money with the stuff you invented? Like say run a very expensive unprofitable tournament that has acts as a huge advertisement for how awesome your invention is and keeps fans interested in your invention not moving on to others so you can sell future expansion inventions and invention marketplaces inside your invention later?
Or what if the tournament just breaks even or is nonprofit with everything being reinvested into the next one? Are you still upset about that? Because there are these other inventors over there (riot and valve) that are willing to pay millions for that exact same advertisement you get for free yet really don't want to happen.
Yet maybe you should tax the tournaments so that they fail faster and you get no benefit at all from them after that!
|
On January 16 2012 15:22 coolcor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 13:36 m4inbrain wrote:On January 16 2012 11:57 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 11:42 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote: I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected. They're legal to prevent people from buying a game and creating their own version based on the one they purchased. If I buy SC2, make some modifications, and sell it as a new game, this is illegal under current law as I don't own SC2 to begin with. If the law was changed how you wanted, this would change and the game industry would become a cesspool of people copying eachother with slight changes. Tired of the CoD engine being reused every year? Imagine if every FPS by every company used it. And of course this ignores the fact that no company will ever want to invest the money into building a new engine or original game ever again since it would cost them millions of dollars at which point everyone would just steal their work. All software follows this plan and has always followed this plan unless it's open source, in which case you can take whatever you want. Where have I advocated stealing products and selling them? I'm merely advocating broadcasting myself playing a game which I legally purchased and own. I have made no modifications; the license is mine before and after the broadcast; I am using the game completely legally. If I wish to offer a prize for whomever beats me, Blizzard has essentially no business asking for a cut. Well, the problem is: you dont. If you like it or not, you A: dont own the game, you did not purchase the game. B: you are not using the game completely legally if you make money from it. And actually, you dont have to pay anything to blizzard if you just "give away money if someone beats you". You have to pay if you MAKE money. A percentage of your earnings. Im flabbergasted that someone actually dont get the principal or even call it "bad". If you make money with stuff i invented (and, now the interesting part: with stuff i dont want YOU to make money with, but me, because im a company with investors and stuff), i want my share. How the hell has a thought-process to work to get the kinda borked logic you show? You didnt even get the facts straight (at least by judging your example - missing the fact that you can give away as much money as you want, you just cant earn any), are you just here to bash Blizzard because you lost some games in a row, or what? But what if I lose money doing something that indirectly makes you money with the stuff you invented? Like say run a very expensive unprofitable tournament that has acts as a huge advertisement for how awesome your invention is and keeps fans interested in your invention not moving on to others so you can sell future expansion inventions and invention marketplaces inside your invention later? Or what if the tournament just breaks even or is nonprofit with everything being reinvested into the next one? Are you still upset about that? Because there are these other inventors over there (riot and valve) that are willing to pay millions for that exact same advertisement you get for free yet really don't want to happen. Yet maybe you should tax the tournaments so that they fail faster and you get no benefit at all from them after that!
your logic applied to other IP situations: author writes play production companies put on play without paying author ???
seriously? why does it matter that the production company might lose money on the play? the fact is that their using something that someone else spent time and money on creating. you can't just exploit other people's ideas for making your own money, otherwise, creativity in the industry and market would shut down. thats the whole point of these rules...
|
I think that we bash the person who we feel is trying to take the money away from the system. If the money isn't in the players hands, then we get upset because we feel that it isn't going to somewhere supporting eSports. Blizzard put a lot of effort, time and resources so that the game could be the best it could possibly be, and are continuing to put money into the game so it can be even larger with the expansions and balance patches.
They do make a profit when they release a game (or expansion), but what about what happens when people take their game and start turning it into business and content, e.g., someone streaming their games, or uploading videos on youtube, or running tournaments, suddenly they aren't seeing anything return to them, except maybe additional screen time (i.e. people who didn't originally purchase the game and are picking it up simply because they saw it being played).
They have to take a cut somewhere, it is their intellectual property and they deserve something from it. We all tend to hate on Blizzard because it already has so much money already (Typical Robinhood syndrome, rich = bad). We don't know where this money goes, so we naturally assume it isn't assisting our cause. This really turns into a nasty debate; I really feel Blizzard deserves a cut, and I don't know how much, obviously not enough to strangle a tournament into disbanding, but enough that they can say, 'Hey, we did a good job with StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty, down at MLG they really enjoyed it! In HotS we have to add more cool features so it looks even more amazing on the big screen!'
I think if a tournament falls on bad times because they were taxed for their prize pool, or for whatever reason, then I think it was poor tournament planning in the first place. You should be able to have a strategy and meetings with sponsors and advertisers to carefully go over all the numbers and then determine the most effective course of action.
Blizzard isn't evil, I think we tend to think they are because they take a realistic, slow, logical approach to game design and that doesn't sit well with impatient people who want the best at this very instant.
|
On January 16 2012 15:38 LXR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 15:22 coolcor wrote:On January 16 2012 13:36 m4inbrain wrote:On January 16 2012 11:57 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 11:42 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote: I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected. They're legal to prevent people from buying a game and creating their own version based on the one they purchased. If I buy SC2, make some modifications, and sell it as a new game, this is illegal under current law as I don't own SC2 to begin with. If the law was changed how you wanted, this would change and the game industry would become a cesspool of people copying eachother with slight changes. Tired of the CoD engine being reused every year? Imagine if every FPS by every company used it. And of course this ignores the fact that no company will ever want to invest the money into building a new engine or original game ever again since it would cost them millions of dollars at which point everyone would just steal their work. All software follows this plan and has always followed this plan unless it's open source, in which case you can take whatever you want. Where have I advocated stealing products and selling them? I'm merely advocating broadcasting myself playing a game which I legally purchased and own. I have made no modifications; the license is mine before and after the broadcast; I am using the game completely legally. If I wish to offer a prize for whomever beats me, Blizzard has essentially no business asking for a cut. Well, the problem is: you dont. If you like it or not, you A: dont own the game, you did not purchase the game. B: you are not using the game completely legally if you make money from it. And actually, you dont have to pay anything to blizzard if you just "give away money if someone beats you". You have to pay if you MAKE money. A percentage of your earnings. Im flabbergasted that someone actually dont get the principal or even call it "bad". If you make money with stuff i invented (and, now the interesting part: with stuff i dont want YOU to make money with, but me, because im a company with investors and stuff), i want my share. How the hell has a thought-process to work to get the kinda borked logic you show? You didnt even get the facts straight (at least by judging your example - missing the fact that you can give away as much money as you want, you just cant earn any), are you just here to bash Blizzard because you lost some games in a row, or what? But what if I lose money doing something that indirectly makes you money with the stuff you invented? Like say run a very expensive unprofitable tournament that has acts as a huge advertisement for how awesome your invention is and keeps fans interested in your invention not moving on to others so you can sell future expansion inventions and invention marketplaces inside your invention later? Or what if the tournament just breaks even or is nonprofit with everything being reinvested into the next one? Are you still upset about that? Because there are these other inventors over there (riot and valve) that are willing to pay millions for that exact same advertisement you get for free yet really don't want to happen. Yet maybe you should tax the tournaments so that they fail faster and you get no benefit at all from them after that! your logic applied to other IP situations: author writes play production companies put on play without paying author ??? seriously? why does it matter that the production company might lose money on the play? the fact is that their using something that someone else spent time and money on creating. you can't just exploit other people's ideas for making your own money, otherwise, creativity in the industry and market would shut down. thats the whole point of these rules... I'm not arguing the destruction of all copy-write laws I'm saying this is a unique situation that it is not necessarily in a game companies best interest to tax tournaments.
Putting on a play would give the exact same experience the author could provide. That is why it hurts the author because nobody will go see it from him again and he should stop it if they profit or not. Yet if competing authors were willing to pay that production company millions to put on that show maybe the author should consider letting them do it for free if they want due to the indirect benefits the competing authors seem to see in it.
Watching people play a video game does not replace buying a video game. (If so let's plays on youtube would have millions of views from the millions of game sales they replace) Nobody will say I was planning to buy sc2, but I watched mlg so there is no reason to do that that anymore, it has givin me the same experience as playing it myself. Having huge events dedicated to how awesome your game is and how awesome the people playing your awesome game is can only benefit a video game, in fact riot and valve feel the benefits are worth over a million dollars of marketing expense!
Do you think relic is thinking about how glad they are about all the money they aren't losing because nobody wants to put on 100 thousand dollar tournaments for dawn of war 2 streaming to 100 thousand people leading to bar of wars popping up all over the world where new people will constantly be exposed to the game and how much people like it and current fans stay interested. (it must be awesome if all these people are cheering for it like a sport) Threads and news stories constantly popping up on general gaming sites and even mainstream media about these incredibly unique successful events constantly getting their game in front of people who have not bought it yet, for zero marketing expense.
Or are they glad their game was never on south korean tv for hours a day until everyone in the country knew about it as an awesome rts, where coincidentally the game sold to 10% of the countries entire population. What company would want that to happen?
A movie company should shut down a bar or steam showing their game for free it can only decrease sales, a game company should not shut down barcrafts or tournament streams that do not pay them it can only increase sales due to not replacing the experience of buying the game, only directly advertising how awesome that experience is.
Obviously it is better for blizzard if they can get both huge esports and tournament fees, but taxing unprofitable tournaments seem like a good way to make sure they never get to the point and are risking destroying all the potential benefit the tournaments can give them, or at least limit it's potential growth and reach.
|
On January 16 2012 16:33 coolcor wrote:
a game company should not shut down barcrafts or tournament streams that do not pay them it can only increase sales due to not replacing the experience of buying the game, only directly advertising how awesome that experience is.
Obviously it is better for blizzard if they can get both huge esports and tournament fees, but taxing unprofitable tournaments seem like a good way to make sure they never get to the point and are risking destroying all the potential benefit the tournaments can give them, or at least limit it's potential growth and reach.
They take 10% of the profit for tournaments over $5k.
If you have an unprofitable tournament then guess what Blizzards 10% cut of your zero dollars comes out to?
|
whether Blizzard is or not entitled to 'extorting' money out of tournaments is a matter of opinion, the fact is that they do it because they can, and as long as they can they will seek profit from all means possible.
|
On January 16 2012 10:54 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:31 imjorman wrote:On January 16 2012 10:08 Shiori wrote:On January 16 2012 10:01 m4inbrain wrote: I don't think so! Because they all bought legitimate copys of the respecting program and own therefore the right to create revenue with it.
Thats where you are wrong, sir. Completely wrong. You dont have any rights to create revenue with Starcraft 2. You should read the End User License Agreement, before clicking "yes, i agree". Im actually a bit shocked that so many people think because they own "a" license, they can do whatever they want to. Did you even read "what" license you paid for? Be honest? This is a problem that essentially exists with no other medium, though. When I buy a USB drive, it's my USB drive. I don't buy a license to use the USB drive. Likewise, when I buy a copy of Sc2, I should be buying the data as-is for my own purposes (provided they are not illegal and I don't present the game as my own creation; I should be able to resell it, if I so wish) because I own the disc it is coded into. This notion that I can own the physical medium of a product without owning the "idea," and that this "idea" entitles the publisher to all sorts of extended rights is just one giant middle finger to the consumer. Blizzard can make an agreement that says I merely own a license to their program, but I'm pretty sure that, at least from an intuitive point of view, I actually do own my Sc2 CD. At best, Blizzard owns Battlenet and can govern my use of it. That said, as far as Blizzard is required to do anything, an MLG is equivalent to playing customs with your friends. It requires no additional effort from Blizzard, uses functions that are already built into the game which was already purchased. They have no grounds on which to demand more, much in the same way that the makers of frisbees don't charge me if I buy one of their frisbees and then host an ultimate frisbee tournament. Know why? Because I already bought the frisbee; I don't need to pay twice so I can use it publicly. If it really had anything to do with maintaining the game, I might buy it, but it doesn't. Suppose Blizzard takes 10%. Then as per the guy above me, that's what, 300k? Chump change. That's about 5000 sales. When's the last time you heard of a game selling 5000 in a year and being successful? Exactly, because it's nothing. This has everything to do with Blizzard maintaining the power to basically blacklist any tournament it has a spat with. I disagree with you on a lot of different levels here. Just because you "feel" entitled to be able to make money off of SC2 doesn't mean you actually are. The difference between Starcraft and the frisbee analogy you used was that when you purchased the frisbee you didn't agree to the condition that your frisbee usage was only for noncommercial uses. When you accepted the EULA, you agreed to it. If you don't like that, your more than allowed to return the game to the store and get your money back. Such agreements shouldn't be standard nor legal, much in the same way that waivers indemnifying establishments do not protect them against negligence. Separating the game from the license to play is a major error and should not be a valid legal concept. I'm well aware that under the current law, I am considered to own a simple license to play Sc2. I'm saying that such a thing is completely nonsensical and exists for the sole purpose of corporate moneygrubbing. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property in any sense in which it deserve to be protected.
So what is stopping someone from buying a game, then burning it to infinity and reselling it at slightly cheaper price? Assuming people prefer the same product at a cheaper rate, the new guy gets all the money leaving Blizzard with the debt from the initial development investment.
Digital products have the issue of not being tangible while at the same time being obscenely easy to reproduce once initially made. If a piece of software costs a company 1 million to develop, and for arguments sake 0 to distribute, how can they be sure they will get paid for their work and not some other guy who grossly undercuts them or uses their product to make a fortune without having to deal with any real manufacturing cost? The guy who is redistributing it could go anywhere from free to a penny below the original sale price as long as he has the better deal, its all profit to him.
Digital law is really troublesome I agree, but it is way too naive (I feel) to package full content rights with the product like you would a car or something.
Supply and Demand. Supplier wants to sell for infinity bucks, and Demand Dude wants everything for free. In the case of Digital content, the demand side has an inherent and disproportionate amount of power over the product. If you could buy one thumb drive, and subsequently have the ability to only do whatever you want with the thumb drive, but create infinite amounts of the same thumb drive in seconds without any cost incurred, why would anyone honestly buy a thumb drive when they could find the one guy who did buy it and take one..then copy it themselves.
|
Of all the real life examples in this thread, the only one that was relevant was the play concept. All the other ones were poorly thought out. A musician's song does not obviously reflect the program it was related in. Looking at an advertisement you can't tell whether it was edited in Photoshop, Indesign or MS Paint. With a game it is obvious, and I think you guys need to give Blizzard credit for allowing the scene to blossom while still wanting to make money from it. As a Blizzard lifelong gamer and shareholder I think this represents the smartest business model in eSports because it's a "help me, help you" attitude; the smaller tournaments can work unhinged as well as streamers who can support themselves off streaming, but the major ones will feed Blizzard a good income stream, and in return Blizzard will continue to support the eSports scene, by developing the expansions, patching it and advertising it.
Im sorry but IEM Kiev, Dreamhack, MLG and GSL all receive "free" advertising within the SC2.exe via the news feed, Blizzard doesnt have to do it, but because everyone profits together for the major tournaments it's in their best interests that the eSports scene is successful, if they made no money from it aside from box sales, which tournaments dont really affect as much as you think(most of the people who watch already own, dont kid yourselves), then there would be no incentive for Blizzard to support the eSports scene because it would just be a drain on their finances. I think this business model is much more sustainable than any other eSport game because it doesn't rely on spending millions on prize pools by the host company to create a "flashy" headline but instead allows all parties to take their fair share of the proceeds and this could carry on until the end of time.
There is no incentive to support a game if a KesPa-like situation occurs. Most of the posters hating on Blizzard probably didn't play Blizzard games at the time, yes they got 10% of SK owning a copy of SC:BW and it was the highest selling PC game of all time but until the lawsuit KeSpa didnt pay them a ****ing cent out of the money they made, and in the end KesPa supports itself merely through sponsors which is an unsustainable business model.
Think of it musically; hip-hop producers(including myself as I recently received a C&D from a record label telling me to remove the sample from one of my tracks or to risk lawsuit) have always had a problem with "sampling": taking chunks of audio from other songs and re-working them into new pieces of music. The argument of the producers is much like the arguments I see here against Blizzard; "well we created something new and made new people interested" "your just a big greedy corporation". The fact is that we need to protect people's intellectual rights or else innovators, artists and programmers will have no will to create anything new because stealing from others would just become the status quo.
Keep doing your thing Blizzard, MLG/GSL had millions of viewers from YOUR game, you deserve your cut, keep the games coming!
|
Don't like it make your own RTS with all the freebies you want like LAN, no recurring fees, etc and let us know how it goes. Places like Piratebay and newsservers made it so companies must have these restrictions to make money off 40 million dollar development games these days. Sux but not the end of the world.
The two factors of pirating and high devolpment costs compared to past make it so companies have to resort to other means besides actual game sales to get them in the black. MMO's do it through recurring fees. SC2 is choosing to do it via tournaments - just be lucky they don't charge us for bnet per month.
|
|
|
|