51–60 of 64 posts
There was a bit of discussion about this on the subreddits for LoL[1] and Dota2[2]. I don't think any esports fan or player is happy that Riot is going this direction. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1s38ea/lcs_... [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/1s38uc/dota_2_censore...
There was a bit of discussion about this on the subreddits for LoL[1] and Dota2[2]. I don't think any esports fan or player is happy that Riot is going this direction. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1s38ea/lcs_... [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/1s38uc/dota_2_censore...
And over on /r/Starcraft. It's pretty bad, but frankly I'm not surprised. At a convention they stopped Dota2 from being played there.. I wish I had the link for that.
I'm not familiar enough with physical sports to know: do professional sports organizations generally do this kind of restriction? Worldwide? Is there any kind of cross-sport prohibition? I could believe it, since I've never actually seen or heard of players showing off without a contract of some kind... and yet, that might simply be because I don't hear about it.
This would be an appropriate comparison if they had restricted all competitive games (although the Hearthstone ban is fairly damning), but given that they didn't, I think it would be more enlightening to ask if pro sports leagues prevent their players from participating in other leagues for the same sport. My knowledge of professional sports is pretty limited to the US, where there is essentially a monopoly in each s…
One notable example is female basketball players. The two most popular and highest paying leagues are in Russia and in the USA and have seasons that do not overlap. It is pretty common for good players to play in both leagues. As far as I am aware, there is no restriction on this by either league.
Another example would be in football/soccer. Player's who play in the US are often "loaned" to teams in Europe in order for them to continue playing during the duration of the off-season. This allows them to stay in shape, face better competition, and improve their game. The team that receives the player will generally pay the team that loans the player an agreed upon fee in order to compensate them for the risk of injury. If the two teams can't agree on a fee, the player will be prevented from playing for the second team.
Riot are a blight on the pro gaming scene. Sigh.
With what do you substantiate your claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't right. These players are not allowed to stream the games at all as long as they are affiliated with Riot. From the original source: "onGamers has confirmed with the team representatives that LCS players are disallowed from streaming the games listed below outright"
I had the impression that LCS players were only disallowed from streaming those games if their stream advertised League of Legends content. At the top of the Elo ladder, queue times can be up to half an hour as the matchmaking service tries to build a fair game. Many of these pro players will play another game (Super Meat Boy, LIMBO, Dust, Mark of the Ninja, Hearthstone) on stream while they're in queue. This ban see…
They're not allowed to stream those games if they have any affiliation with Riot.
> This ban seems to target other games that could be competitive e-sports, specifically the new Blizzard game Hearthstone.
It does lean that way, though I'm not sure there's much of a danger of Warcraft: Orcs & Humans becoming a competitive e-sport.
Riot has never heard of Deion Sanders (A professional two sport athlete in the MLB & NFL)... It's a shame to limit people's personal pursuits
Riot's side of the argument would be something like: how do you think Nike would feel if Tiger Woods decided to switch to Titleist balls next week despite having a contract that pays him to use Nike golf balls?
Riot are a blight on the pro gaming scene. Sigh.
Not that I agree or disagree, but as a counter-point: Riot has sunk many dollars into organizing leagues for LoL teams, and has put on numerous high-profile events in attempt to push professional gaming into the mainstream. With what do you substantiate your claim.
They have a history of trying to corner out the market by trying to force traditionally multi-game events into only hosting LoL and not hosting competitors games. They aren't supporting professional gaming, they are supporting their marketing, under the guise of helping out e-sports. This is my opinion on the matter. Riot is also known for many shady business practices, especially with regards to competitors, and they are also owned by Tencent, arguably a company with one of the worst reputations in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DotA-like was fairly common in LoL's early days, and still seems fairly appropriate. There are not, to my knowledge, any games that compete with DotA for creating the genre.
Defense of the Ancients, like Tides of Blood, Eve of the Apocalypse, and Advent of the Zenith, was an AoS-style map. If you say AoS, though, few people will know what you mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Riot's side of the argument would be something like: how do you think Nike would feel if Tiger Woods decided to switch to Titleist balls next week despite having a contract that pays him to use Nike golf balls?
This seems more like Nike getting mad that Tiger took his son to a Putt Putt that didn't use Nike balls. He isn't really contradicting his endorsement by using the balls that Putt Putt gives him to play miniature golf with his son, and they aren't really contradicting their position as League of Legends pros by playing other games during their downtime.
If Swifty goes to Blizzcon and is forced to use a competitor's mouse to play the new xpac alpha I don't think Razer complains but if it gets out that he's using a Logitech G600 at home based on his stream he's going to lose that endorsement.
Circling back to Tiger, it'd be more like Tiger Woods scheduling his own live event, Tiger and Son Putt Putt Happy Time Hour, and he chose to use Titleist Putt Putt Balls.
These people aren't prevented from playing other games, just from publicly streaming those games. As sponsored spokespeople for Game X I don't find this an egregious requirement and if Riot isn't paying enough to make this requirement worth honoring then the players should tell balk at the terms.
Basically, they changed the terms so players can no longer accept sponsorship from other game companies to stream their games.