NeoGAF

Originally Posted by MOPP 4

But the Federal Government does make contracts like this for service members, employees of 3 letter agencies, and federal agents. Once you sign a federal contract, your life is the government's to own until your contract is up. Everything about your life is theirs. This includes how your family acts and what your family can and cannot do.

Yet everyone WILLINGLY signs these contracts do so despite knowing all this. Sure some realize it's not for them and try everything to bail out but their lives are going to be shit regardless.

Okay well ignoring your example there are plenty of things you can put in a contract and have it be completely ignored in a court of law for being unreasonable. That's extremely common and gets brought up a lot when people talk about eulas.

Contracts from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are a little different and should be treated as such as a relatively benign "pro sports" contract, especially about their free time. It's not really relative at all.

Well the bigger streamers such as Dyrus have been playing WoW a lot recently between queues and almost everyone plays Hearthstone. I'm pretty sure the salaries the teams are given are pretty substantial which I believe, includes paying for their "gaming house" not too sure about this though, remember hearing it somewhere. Especially for people like Bjergson who have received a visa to enter the country sponsored by Riot.

I can see why Riot did this as the channels themselves are listed on Twitch mainpage as "League of Legends" so as a sponsor you wouldn't want somebody as an example watching Masterchef and during breaks it switching to Top Chef.

TL;DR

It sucks but I can see why they did it even if I don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by Zing

Playing a game while you wait to play a game is rather unique.

Its an issue for the top 50 whose elo is so much higher than anyone else that putting them with lower people would, in effect, be pointless. The LP system gives you a + or - number to your league points at the end of every game, depending on how likely you are to have won the game given your ranking compared to your opposing teams. Its not an issue which effects anyone but the top 0.000000001% of people playing lol, but given that these people command 10-20,000 stream watchers a time its a problem that effects a sizeable number of people. Pro's have got aroudn this streaming conveniently short games like hearthstone.

Originally Posted by Mr Cola

Pro's have got aroudn this streaming conveniently short games like hearthstone.

And now they'll just stream Pokemon or some other game not on the list and Riot will be playing whack-a-mole with games until they get fed up and ban everything or give up and allow whatever.

Hopefully this makes some people try DOTA 2 and make the switch realising how much of a better game it is.

Originally Posted by patapuf

esport scenes were mostly self organized an you can professionalise a game without being a dick about it.

the fighting game community is doing it,

dota is doing it

starcraft was like that as well (in the west anyway), once blizzard started to change things it bit them in the ass.

This is a whole 'nother topic altogether but even with clauses like this I much prefer to have these onerous restrictions in order to have something like LCS than the mish-mash otherwise.

I remember the times where the only people who were able to actually compete in LAN tournaments were the teams with the money through streaming or sponsorships who could afford the plane/hotel fare on a consistent basis, which means smaller teams never had a chance to get the LAN experience to compete with the more popular/richer teams.

Time to stream some fighting games! Seriously though this is out of left field.

Originally Posted by SteveWinwood

Yeah but what Dota pro is going to casually stream LoL and "convert" others. It's a joke.

Make a quality product and people will want to play it and watch it, and you'll have no need to enforce it through contracts.



Why shouldn't they be able to do it whenver and however they please? If they can play LoL and Dawngate at the same time more power to them I guess.

An easy workaround is to just play the game you want to play without sound on your second monitor.

Originally Posted by SteveWinwood

What is so different about it that it throws you off so?


Many would say that publicly streaming is what they choose to do in their spare time.

Twitter and Facebook is also public, do you think companies let their employee go wild there on their "spare time"?

Fuck pendragon.
I just have to say that every time Riot is mentioned.

Originally Posted by kiunchbb

Twitter and Facebook is also public, do you think companies let their employee go wild there on their "spare time"?

Why do you think so many people have the "my thoughts are my own and not my employers" on their info?

We're not talking about racist language or drug use or anything like that. If a pepsi warehouse worker took an instagram of his kitchen and their happened to be a coke bottle in the corner of it.

Originally Posted by VanquishUK

An easy workaround is to just play the game you want to play without sound on your second monitor.

So that your viewers are treated to 30 minutes of a waiting screen with no streamer interaction? That sounds great for everyone, especially the viewers and the streamer!

They don't have to sign the contract if they don't like the terms. Otherwise, they'll just have to stream something else while waiting in queue. Or they can stop streaming LoL and can play those games. Funny that Fat Princess is on that list. I understand Dota 2, but Hearthstone lol. They'll just stream another game that isn't listed like a fighting game or pokemon.

Well that is shitty Guardsman Bob was removed from featured streamers when he isn't even in the LCS. He did get it back shortly afterwards.

Originally Posted by JesseZao

The bigger the giant...

I could see this year being a sharp turn in lol's popularity. The new season changes didn't make the game more fun or interesting. Hearthstone is the new king of F2P (in the hearts of gamerz).

Unlikely that this will have any negative impact at all. The vast majority of the player base doesn't even watch streamers.

Originally Posted by SteveWinwood

We're not talking about racist language or drug use or anything like that. If a pepsi warehouse worker took an instagram of his kitchen and their happened to be a coke bottle in the corner of it.

do you really think that's a reasonable approximation? really?

Originally Posted by zerokoolpsx

They don't have to sign the contract if they don't like the terms. Otherwise, they'll just have to stream something else while waiting in queue. Or they can stop streaming LoL and can play those games. Funny that Fat Princess is on that list. I understand Dota 2, but Hearthstone lol. They'll just stream another game that isn't listed like a fighting game or pokemon.

Well that is shitty Guardsman Bob was removed from featured streamers when he isn't even in the LCS. He did get it back shortly afterwards.

They can't play in the LCS if they don't sign the contract. you expect them to give up their livelihood?

Originally Posted by Maleficence

Hopefully this makes some people try DOTA 2 and make the switch realising how much of a better game it is.

Despite the fact that they reside in the same genre the feel is way different.

Sometimes I feel like LoL, sometimes I feel like DotA2.

Originally Posted by BurnOutBrighter

Unlikely that this will have any negative impact at all. The vast majority of the player base doesn't even watch streamers.

I think LOL has one more season comfortably at the top, people dont seem to be migrating to DOTA 2 in the numbers the fanbase expected, but id trust Valve in a marathon over Riot. Its hard to say though, LOL entered uncharted waters this year in terms of viewership, its a giant, its the new wow, it makes rediculous money and people seem to love it. Go to Twitch now and it dwarfs the competition. Regardless of views on the game its done something no other game has done. I guess it has a year left but who knows, eventually it will be toppled but Riot has been very smart in adding and subtracting enough to keep the game new.

Originally Posted by Pandaman

do you really think that's a reasonable approximation? really?

He has 20,000 instagram followers?

They are paid by a company.

In their free time, that happens to be viewed by others and they make some amount of money out of, they show (not in a good or a bad light necessarily just show at all) a product by a different company.

This is in their free time, in something that the company should have no say in.

Originally Posted by SteveWinwood

He has 20,000 instagram followers?

They are paid by a company.

In their free time, that happens to be viewed by others and they make some amount of money out of, they show (not in a good or a bad light necessarily just show at all) a product by a different company.

This is in their free time, in something that the company should have no say in.

nike gets a basketball player to do a series of commercials.
that player shows up to his next game in his addidas.
nike cancels the contract.
fuck nike, right?

Originally Posted by Pandaman

nike gets a basketball player to do a series of commercials.
that player shows up in the park walking his dog in his addidas.
nike cancels the contract.
fuck nike, right?

sure there ya go

I don't see Magic the Gathering on there! Stream that during queue.

Originally Posted by balladofwindfishes

Bringing a military contract into this discussion is really weird. Most of those stipulations in the contract are done for national security purposes... it's quite a different sort of contract than trying to stop people from killing time with a digital card game.

But it's still a work contract. The same could be said about high profile corporations and the restrictions they put on their employees. There is nothing unlawful about Riot saying "don't play this game because it's our competitor". People who sign up with Riot are more than willing to not sign up with Riot.

They willingly wanted to be signed on Riot's payroll and they need to follow their contract.

Originally Posted by SteveWinwood

He has 20,000 instagram followers?

They are paid by a company.

In their free time, that happens to be viewed by others and they make some amount of money out of, they show (not in a good or a bad light necessarily just show at all) a product by a different company.

This is in their free time, in something that the company should have no say in.

That's not even close to being the same thing.

A better analogy would be a player playing a pickup game of basketball publicly in a brand of apparel that doesn't sponsor him.

Yeah, it's his spare time, but as a public figure doing something in a public venue you are essentially promoting another product for free just by wearing it while a bunch of people are watching.

Don't get me wrong, I think Riot's clause is overreach but it's not a good analogy.

Originally Posted by SteveWinwood

Why do you think so many people have the "my thoughts are my own and not my employers" on their info?

We're not talking about racist language or drug use or anything like that. If a pepsi warehouse worker took an instagram of his kitchen and their happened to be a coke bottle in the corner of it.


So that your viewers are treated to 30 minutes of a waiting screen with no streamer interaction? That sounds great for everyone, especially the viewers and the streamer!

It's just as easy for a viewer to do something else while the person they are watching is in a queue.

Originally Posted by MOPP 4

But it's still a work contract. The same could be said about high profile corporations and the restrictions they put on their employees. There is nothing unlawful about Riot saying "don't play this game because it's our competitor". People who sign up with Riot are more than willing to not sign up with Riot.

They willingly wanted to be signed on Riot's payroll and they need to follow their contract.

Nobody said it was unlawful.

Originally Posted by PsychoSoldier

That's not even close to being the same thing.

A better analogy would be a player playing a pickup game of basketball publicly in a brand of apparel that doesn't sponsor him.

Yeah, it's his spare time, but as a public figure doing something in a public venue you are essentially promoting another product for free just by wearing it while a bunch of people are watching.

Don't get me wrong, I think Riot's clause is overreach but it's not a good analogy.

I can see why they might not be happy, but to actually enforce something like that would be insane and any brand with half a pr department would know that, and yes I like your analogy better.

Originally Posted by VanquishUK

It's just as easy for a viewer to do something else while the person they are watching is in a queue.

Why are they watching streams at all then?

Originally Posted by SteveWinwood

sure there ya go

No!

if nike hires a basketball player, that basketball player cant just pretend that his playing of basketball wasn't relevant to his support of the product.

streaming isnt some casual pass time they do removed from their work with riot. when you're a riot employee streaming yourself doing your job you cant pretend to be removed from any responsibilities to your employer.

After reading the restrictions, I'm not upset about it. I know the internet will make a big deal out of it, but it's something you have to expect with the direction that Riot is going in with making a legitimate eSports league and being the ones cutting the checks.

You want eSports to be big, well these are the types of things you will need to expect. Otherwise, don't sign the contract and make no money playing a video game.

Originally Posted by Pandaman

No!

if nike hires a basketball player, that basketball player cant just pretend that his playing of basketball wasn't relevant to his support of the product.

streaming isnt some casual pass time they do removed from their work with riot. when you're a riot employee streaming yourself doing your job you cant pretend to be removed from any responsibilities to your employer.

Is League paying them to stream and taking all of their twitch money? If you don't stream are you not doing your job? I don't know the contracts you tell me.

I would have thought their jobs were to participate in the tournaments Riot sets up and to practice with their team.

Streaming yourself casually playing a game (any game) I would say is definitely a pass time. Do they stream their scrims and practices (which I would say is part of their job)?

Originally Posted by SteveWinwood

I can see why they might not be happy, but to actually enforce something like that would be insane and any brand with half a pr department would know that, and yes I like your analogy better.

Why are they watching streams at all then?

Well people watch a LoL stream to watch LoL. If they want to watch Hearthstone while they are queuing, they can just open a hearthstone stream.

Your replies are pretty terrible.

Originally Posted by VanquishUK

Well people watch a LoL stream to watch LoL. If they want to watch Hearthstone while they are queuing, they can just open a hearthstone stream.

Your replies are pretty terrible.

I watch streams because I enjoy the streamer. If I wanted to watch LoL or Dota I would play it.

I'd watch SingSing play solitaire because I enjoy watching him play things. I wouldn't enjoy not listening to him play a separate game off the stream and watch his queue bar fill which is what you want apparently.

Originally Posted by Malice215

You want eSports to be big, well these are the types of things you will need to expect. Otherwise, don't sign the contract and make no money playing a video game.

But they're really not. Starcraft was huge as one of the first major eSports and it never had stuff like this.

It's kind of sad people feel this sort of stuff is required to be a serious thing. It's not at all.

Originally Posted by SteveO409

I don't see the big deal. Riot pays the team $100k+ salary each season. Is it really that crazy that Riot pays LCS pros lots of money to promote only LoL when streaming? Just play other shit when not streaming...

$100k a year
divided by 5 players and a manager = $16.6k a year

That is minimum wage.

Originally Posted by SteveWinwood

I watch streams because I enjoy the streamer. If I wanted to watch LoL or Dota I would play it.

I'd watch SingSing play solitaire because I enjoy watching him play things. I wouldn't enjoy not listening to him play a separate game off the stream and watch his queue bar fill which is what you want apparently.

If you watch a stream for the streamer, why would it matter if he's playing a game or not? If he's that entertaining, you could just watch him talk for 30 minutes while he queues right?

Originally Posted by dave is ok

$100k a year
divided by 5 players and a manager = $16.6k a year

That is minimum wage.

+ prize money (if you win it of course) + stream money (unless Riot decides to just not have anyone stream anymore)

I don't know how the brand sponsorship works, if it's through Riot or through a team management.

Oh and I'm assuming food, lodging, and certain equipment is covered.

Originally Posted by balladofwindfishes

But they're really not. Starcraft was huge as one of the first major eSports and it never had stuff like this.

It's kind of sad people feel this sort of stuff is required to be a serious thing. It's not at all.

I think it's pretty silly that Riot needs to go this far. I'm just not surprised by it with the direction that they've been moving in in terms of making a legitimate league in the likes of the NFL.

Expect more of this in the future.

Originally Posted by dave is ok

$100k a year
divided by 5 players and a manager = $16.6k a year

That is minimum wage.

This doesnt account for prize winnings, streaming, salaries and sponsorships.

And even if it was minimum wage every team has a house, no player pays rent, food or accommodation and gets to play video games for a living.

Id take it.

Originally Posted by dave is ok

$100k a year
divided by 5 players and a manager = $16.6k a year

That is minimum wage.

But how much free shit do they get? That's as much as an Airman gets E-1 to E-3 and they live more than comfortably with that much income.

If Riot/Sponsors are paying for all their expenses I see no problem with it. That's 16k in pure spending money a year.

Originally Posted by balladofwindfishes

But they're really not. Starcraft was huge as one of the first major eSports and it never had stuff like this.

It's kind of sad people feel this sort of stuff is required to be a serious thing. It's not at all.

This. People keep saying "it's just like regular professional sports!" as if that sector wasn't a quagmire of corporatism and people getting fucked over money.

Riot is a pretty dirty company based on what I've seen the past few years.

people don't watch the streams for the games, they watch it for the streamer's particular brand

I don't think Riot pays living expenses.

Originally Posted by brian!

people don't watch the streams for the games, they watch it for the streamer's particular brand

tell that to this vanquish guy

Originally Posted by dave is ok

$100k a year
divided by 5 players and a manager = $16.6k a year

That is minimum wage.

on the other hand, you 'work' [go to riot studios] for one day a week.

They can still play Strife though, right? If S2 is feeling ballsy, maybe they will extend their beta to a few private invites.

Originally Posted by Pandaman

on the other hand, you 'work' [go to riot studios] for one day a week.

On the other hand, you have to constantly train or you get fired.

yeah punda that's disingenuous

Originally Posted by Archie

On the other hand, you have to constantly train or you get fired.

or you dont get rehired next year.

you can turn to complete shit all season long if you want to, as long as your team is cool with it.
it's called the NA league.

Update: onGamers has confirmed with the team representatives that LCS players are disallowed from streaming the games listed below outright, not just when adjacent to a League of Legends stream. Under Section 3 Rule 4 of the new contract handling 'Non-League Events and Streaming', it states that "... the [LCS] Team shall ensure that, during the Term of this Agreement, its Team Members do not publicly stream gameplay of the titles set forth on Exhibit B". Exhibit B states "the specific restrictions on streaming are set forth in the Sponsorship and Streaming Restricted List, as updated by the League from time to time", which is the document listed below.

Source: http://www.ongamers.com/articles/rio...ames/1100-261/


Now THIS is very bad if true.