League vs Dota Megabrawl: Arcen Games Edition

[Hearteater]

I was under the impression the requirement was that is, for example, CLG was salaried, they couldn't have a DOTA/HoN team, even if those individuals weren't being paid by Riot.  Basically, if the name CLG was salaried it shouldn't be attached to other games.  This is what happens when modern business people aren't held in check by people who actually have a grasp on reality.

[Wingflier]

The more I read, the more I don't get it.

How is that someone who is paid to play your game being told not to publicly play your competitor suddenly a terrible thing?

Lying about this practice is idiotic on riot, for they should have simply put it as a NDA in their contract for this, but it doesn't change the fact.

That VP who commented to begin with should get the ax. Even an apologist like me cannot stand such a blatant lie, even with my cynicism not surprised.

What I don't get is how saying, "But every other Corporation does this" makes it okay. 

Gaming and E-sports are just in their infancy in America in terms of its popularity and even acceptance among our culture.  Hell, most people still consider people who spend their lives making games their career as nerds or pimply basement-dwellers.  The e-sports community really needs all the positive attention and publicity it can get.

Secondly, if you are a professional gamer, as the people on most of these teams are, would you like to spend all your time playing together, practicing, and getting better the game so you can win tournaments; or working at McDonald's in your spare time so that you can make ends meet?  Riot isn't paying these players enough to live on, I can assure you.  Most professional gamers in America have to enter tournaments from multiple games to sustain their lifestyle, or take up some kind of part-time job to continue playing.  Some well-known players have had to quit gaming forever to pursue a college career instead of an unreliable and performance-based field (E-Sports).

But Riot doesn't give a shit about the plight of the gamers or of E-Sports in general, all they care about is making money.  Isn't this what I said from the very beginning? 

If they just came out and said that, I would at least respect them for their honesty.  But no, they want to portray themselves as this "community-friendly", "self-sacrificing" company who, by giving their game out as free, must be struggling with money, and kindly accepts you, the player's donation.

Let me ask you something:  Do you HONESTLY think that Riot needs that money?  Do you honestly think that if they don't make people sign a contract to not play any other game, they'll suddenly go bankrupt and have to shut LoL down forever?

If anyone here really thinks that, the insults I have for your gullible mind are not fit for these forums.  I'll let you use your imagination.

One final point I'll make is that if Riot is really CONFIDENT in their game, and in the success of League of Legends, why is this kind of action necessary?  As Idra says in this video around 37 minutes (http://www.twitch.tv/onemoregametv/b/331091682), a good game should speak for itself.  The fact that this is happening so soon after The International 2, and so close to DotA 2's release, shows how insecure and petty they are as a company.

What Riot did, and has done since they entered the scene, is intrinsically wrong; it shouldn't have to be explained to you.

[RCIX]

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=28978008#28978008

Call me gullible or naive or whatever for "swallowing the company line", but I'm not buying it in the first place. Riot has made big mistakes before (huge ones) but they haven't shown that they're directly working against the consumer or pro scene in any way. It's just *too* boneheaded of a move for them to try, never mind try and then deny that they are doing it.

My bet? the QQstorm over this will die down as it should, a few of the quote-unquote exclusive labels will start up dota/hon teams, and we'll find it was all a fabrication/lie.

[Wingflier]

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=28978008#28978008

Call me gullible or naive or whatever for "swallowing the company line", but I'm not buying it in the first place. Riot has made big mistakes before (huge ones) but they haven't shown that they're directly working against the consumer or pro scene in any way. It's just *too* boneheaded of a move for them to try, never mind try and then deny that they are doing it.

My bet? the QQstorm over this will die down as it should, a few of the quote-unquote exclusive labels will start up dota/hon teams, and we'll find it was all a fabrication/lie.

I gave that link already in my first post:  http://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/zdiyn/riot_attempts_to_force_sponsors_of_teams_in_pro/c63ny6e

What is more likely, that Riot, an already questionable company who has many shady dealings in the past is lying?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YXEajpaZ7M

OR that a bunch of leaders from professional teams are lying to make Riot look bad for some unknown reason?  http://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/zf6bg/dont_listen_to_riot_the_lol_team_exclusivity/c642gyf

We already know that Riot has tried to monopolize many tournaments, barring any other MOBA from entering, this is just taking it a step further.  Why would the leaders of these teams lie?  How does it benefit them?  League of Legends is a E-Sport and source of money for them, why would they want to jeopardize that unless they found it absolutely necessary to call Riot out on their bullshit?

If it comes between Riot and well respected community members, and the leaders of many professional teams, I'll choose the respected gamers every time.

[Mánagarmr]

To be frank, trying to front an exclusivity deal isn't strange. It's just company bullcrap as usual. Lying bald faced about it when confronted is was makes it terrible.

[RCIX]

What is more likely, that Riot, an already questionable company who has many shady dealings in the past is lying?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YXEajpaZ7M

How is that "shady"? It may not be very nice and it may not be the smartest PR move, but it's good business practice if you can pull it off. Plus, if the people who are signing these contracts understand it and agree to it then it's not shady (at worst it's Riot forcing a bunch of organization's hands into accepting unfavorable deals).

OR that a bunch of leaders from professional teams are lying to make Riot look bad for some unknown reason?  http://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/zf6bg/dont_listen_to_riot_the_lol_team_exclusivity/c642gyf

I would honestly place them at equal weight at this point. Never underestimate the league community to blow small problems out of proportion and start frothing at the mouth over slim facts and slimmer evidence. You want proof? Look at the 1000 RP "fiasco", where the forums erupted in a sea of over-entitled gamers whining that people who had a bunch of additional problems ON TOP of the servers going down for ~1 week didn't deserve additional compensation.

That's not to say that Riot's communication on these sorts of topics doesn't suck (it does) but given Riot's history I honestly don't see how this makes them eeeee-vil.



And bottom line, if this somehow was "shady" and Riot was acting stupidly/maliciously, I'd still be loyal to them. Why? Simply because all of the competitors suck worse. The only one even really worth considering is Dota 2 and the community is leagues worse (hue). plus the developer's attitude, if not outright statements and actions, say that most of it's playerbase is second class citizens who are not worth giving the time of day to (never mind actually trying to make a more fun experience for them).

EDIT: http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=29022381#post29022381
Honestly, I don't know what more you want out of them at this point then a "no we aren't, we haven't, and we never will".

[Wingflier]

How is that "shady"? It may not be very nice and it may not be the smartest PR move, but it's good business practice if you can pull it off. Plus, if the people who are signing these contracts understand it and agree to it then it's not shady (at worst it's Riot forcing a bunch of organization's hands into accepting unfavorable deals).

How is it shady to make major gaming tournaments exclusive to your own game?  Do you see anybody else doing that?

Do you see nothing wrong with that?

I would honestly place them at equal weight at this point. Never underestimate the league community to blow small problems out of proportion and start frothing at the mouth over slim facts and slimmer evidence.

I'm not talking about the Riot Community, I'm talking about the heads of several major gaming teams such as Team Liquid, EG, CoL, and Dignitas.  They've all come out and said that Riot was forcing them to play LoL exclusively until they realized how bad of an idea it was (and what a PR shitstorm it would have caused), and went back on what they said.

And bottom line, if this somehow was "shady" and Riot was acting stupidly/maliciously, I'd still be loyal to them. Why? Simply because all of the competitors suck worse. The only one even really worth considering is Dota 2 and the community is leagues worse (hue). plus the developer's attitude, if not outright statements and actions, say that most of it's playerbase is second class citizens who are not worth giving the time of day to (never mind actually trying to make a more fun experience for them).

Wait.  Valve's attitude and actions is that most of its playerbase is second class?  Are you serious?

EDIT: http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=29022381#post29022381
Honestly, I don't know what more you want out of them at this point then a "no we aren't, we haven't, and we never will".

Why should I believe them just because they say it twice?

If this was a court they would be guilty as sin:

1. They have a clear motive.
2. They've done it before.
3. The accusers (professional teams) have no reason to lie - there is no benefit to getting on bad terms with Riot.

AND Riot has lied before, many times. 

When it comes between trusting a greedy Corporation and trusting several small groups of gamers trying to make a living doing what they love, the choice is clear.

[RCIX]

How is that "shady"? It may not be very nice and it may not be the smartest PR move, but it's good business practice if you can pull it off. Plus, if the people who are signing these contracts understand it and agree to it then it's not shady (at worst it's Riot forcing a bunch of organization's hands into accepting unfavorable deals).

How is it shady to make major gaming tournaments exclusive to your own game?  Do you see anybody else doing that?

Do you see nothing wrong with that?

I didn't say it was a great idea, especially for PR. If both parties agree to it, then I don't see a problem, no. You see "exclusivity" contracts in employment all the time (see non-compete clauses) as well as in various other areas.

And bottom line, if this somehow was "shady" and Riot was acting stupidly/maliciously, I'd still be loyal to them. Why? Simply because all of the competitors suck worse. The only one even really worth considering is Dota 2 and the community is leagues worse (hue). plus the developer's attitude, if not outright statements and actions, say that most of it's playerbase is second class citizens who are not worth giving the time of day to (never mind actually trying to make a more fun experience for them).

Wait.  Valve's attitude and actions is that most of its playerbase is second class?  Are you serious?

What was the last balance or design decision Dota has gotten for the playerbase at large over the "tournament and pro scene"?

2. They've done it before.

Where?

If this was a court they would be guilty as sin:

Oh, and, no. These teams have produced ZERO shreds of evidence, its just a bunch of guys pointing their finger at Riot right now and going YOU TRIED TO MAKE US EXCLUSIVE with nary a document or recorded conversation backing them.

I would honestly place them at equal weight at this point. Never underestimate the league community to blow small problems out of proportion and start frothing at the mouth over slim facts and slimmer evidence.

I'm not talking about the Riot Community, I'm talking about the heads of several major gaming teams such as Team Liquid, EG, CoL, and Dignitas.  They've all come out and said that Riot was forcing them to play LoL exclusively until they realized how bad of an idea it was (and what a PR shitstorm it would have caused), and went back on what they said.

So assuming this was the case, they have decided not to do exclusivity contracts. Name me another large company that wouldn't try to steamroll forward anyway and only pull out if it was likely to cause the entire game to implode (or similar of that magnitude).

Edit: https://twitter.com/dignitasODEE/status/243854085411987456

[chemical_art]

What I don't get is how saying, "But every other Corporation does this" makes it okay. 

Gaming and E-sports are just in their infancy in America in terms of its popularity and even acceptance among our culture.  Hell, most people still consider people who spend their lives making games their career as nerds or pimply basement-dwellers.  The e-sports community really needs all the positive attention and publicity it can get.

Ok. What is the point? A company is paying some players to do e-sports, expanding the field.

Secondly, if you are a professional gamer, as the people on most of these teams are, would you like to spend all your time playing together, practicing, and getting better the game so you can win tournaments; or working at McDonald's in your spare time so that you can make ends meet?  Riot isn't paying these players enough to live on, I can assure you.  Most professional gamers in America have to enter tournaments from multiple games to sustain their lifestyle, or take up some kind of part-time job to continue playing.  Some well-known players have had to quit gaming forever to pursue a college career instead of an unreliable and performance-based field (E-Sports).

No one is forcing them to accept playing for Riot. If they don't make enough money, they walk away. If enough teams leave Riot, they drop the idea or they pay the players more or they accept less skilled teams. If they don't make enough money for a career to what is a hobby, they can pursue a less satisfying but more financially rewarding job. Billions of people do it, I don't see what makes e-sports players so entitled. As for being forced to pursue a college career rather then pursuing their dream, that happens in the millions for other sports players of all sorts, so I don't see what makes e-sports any more tragic.

But Riot doesn't give a shit about the plight of the gamers or of E-Sports in general, all they care about is making money.  Isn't this what I said from the very beginning? 

You can repeat the same statement over and over, but since you are not providing direct evidence (and finger pointing by the accused alone is not enough) you aren't doing a good job of convincing those who don't already want to believe. You brought up if this was court they are ugly as sin, but if you think hearsay alone is damning enough, then any employee can accuses their employer of anything, and any person can convict others do to word alone. There was a time when hearsay alone could convict someone: They were literally witch-hunts.

If they just came out and said that, I would at least respect them for their honesty.  But no, they want to portray themselves as this "community-friendly", "self-sacrificing" company who, by giving their game out as free, must be struggling with money, and kindly accepts you, the player's donation.

If what they said is true. But since I don't find direct evidence, and find some conflicting reports (see RCIX's link) I'm not fully convinced this was a hard and fast policy. In addition, this is the company paying you to play their game. They don't have to pay teams at all, and the community would sever as the e-sports are less entertaining because Riot sacrifices some money to attract talent. I don't see why an employer for a field for a hobby is required to be a paragon of goodness to its employees any more then any other company ever.

Also: Relationship of company to its employees =/= relationship of its customers directly.

Let me ask you something:  Do you HONESTLY think that Riot needs that money?  Do you honestly think that if they don't make people sign a contract to not play any other game, they'll suddenly go bankrupt and have to shut LoL down forever?

You can say this about any business ever you don't like. Does <x> have to do <y> to make money. Do oil companies have to make billions. Does McDonalds have to make billions. Does insurance have to make billions. Does <company you don't like> have to <pursue money making idea> to <be a company and make money>.

Who decides what a company should or should not do. You, me, the government? Today, its the market aside from legal issues.

If Riot decided they wanted players to give their game publicity to their game, and their game alone, they have the right to evaluate the idea. It doesn't matter whether the idea is tasteful or not. It's a black and white issue: If what the company wants to do is legal, do they either:
1) Not allowed to pursue their idea and let the market decide if it is a good idea or not.
2) Company is allowed to pursue their idea as long as it is legal in spirit and in practice.

Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean Riot is not allowed to pursue a means of making money.

In addition, if Riot gave a competitively higher rate of salary in return for exclusivity, then market forces would causes teams to flock to them. If their pay was not competitive, players of lower skill would flock to them while the most skilled would walk away. No one is stopping any of these teams to not accept the money and thus pursue publicly playing other games. No one is stopping the players from taking the money or enjoying

If anyone here really thinks that, the insults I have for your gullible mind are not fit for these forums.  I'll let you use your imagination.

You can throw whatever insults you want, but it doesn't make you any more right. You don't have the right to decide what a company should or should not do any more then anyone else, so you answer with your wallet and views of LoL.

One final point I'll make is that if Riot is really CONFIDENT in their game, and in the success of League of Legends, why is this kind of action necessary?  As Idra says in this video around 37 minutes (http://www.twitch.tv/onemoregametv/b/331091682), a good game should speak for itself.  The fact that this is happening so soon after The International 2, and so close to DotA 2's release, shows how insecure and petty they are as a company.

So the #2 company has its largest competitor coming into the scene with an huge update. Soon the said competitor shall compete directly for attention in e-sports. Do they have the right to respond and change to it? It's a yes or no answer. If they are allowed, they are allowed to decide what they want. You don't have to agree with it, and if enough people don't the game will crash. But it's the company that decides their own fate.

What Riot did, and has done since they entered the scene, is intrinsically wrong; it shouldn't have to be explained to you.

See, this isn't an logical argument. You say it is clear as day this is happening, but have no more then accusations. You say its clear how bad it is, but don't bring out how you think you should dictate what a company can or cannot do based on your opinions. You say anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot not worthy to speak. And that if you cannot see it you don't deserve the explanation.

These are fine to a crowd that agrees with you, but you are failing spectacularly of driving discussion forward or convincing those who don't agree.

[Wingflier]

You can say this about any business ever you don't like. Does <x> have to do <y> to make money. Do oil companies have to make billions. Does McDonalds have to make billions. Does insurance have to make billions. Does <company you don't like> have to <pursue money making idea> to <be a company and make money>.

Who decides what a company should or should not do. You, me, the government? Today, its the market aside from legal issues.

LOL, you're defending the oil companies now?  Defending a institution that has publicly and blatantly patented energy alternatives in order to keep their monopoly on the market?  An institution that, within the next 20 years, will probably cause a global meltdown when the finite oil reserve runs out?

You're defending McDonald's, whose business is to serve people extremely unhealthy food quickly, regardless of the cost?  Being a huge cause of obesity and heart disease in America?

You're defending insurance companies, who profit off of the loss and misfortune of people; when the countries which are doing best statically in the world already have Universal Healthcare?

Because everyone else does this, that makes it okay?

I'm not arguing with you two anymore, you are fan boys to the extreme.  If you can't see the problem with the Corporate world today, and the reason why uprisings like Occupy Wallstreet and The Tea Party even exist, and also be ashamed that Riot would try to replicate such disgusting business tactics, then you have completely missed the point.

If Riot decided they wanted players to give their game publicity to their game, and their game alone, they have the right to evaluate the idea. It doesn't matter whether the idea is tasteful or not. It's a black and white issue: If what the company wants to do is legal, do they either:
1) Not allowed to pursue their idea and let the market decide if it is a good idea or not.
2) Company is allowed to pursue their idea as long as it is legal in spirit and in practice.

Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean Riot is not allowed to pursue a means of making money.

So assuming this was the case, they have decided not to do exclusivity contracts. Name me another large company that wouldn't try to steamroll forward anyway and only pull out if it was likely to cause the entire game to implode (or similar of that magnitude).

This is where the crux of our disagreement lies.  Your argument seems to be "If a company CAN do something, why shouldn't they be allowed to?"  As if Corporations shouldn't be held morally accountable if they can get away with something horrible.

Sorry, but this discussion is over.  I'm really disappointed.

[chemical_art]

You still don't get it.

I'm defending the worst companies because that is the crux of the arguement.

In the United States, there is the right for free speech. The issue comes up not when people says things everyone likes, it comes up when people says things no one likes. Because that is arguement: If you think the right exists, then it applies to everyone, not just those you like.

For the same reason, if you think companies of any sort, from oil companies, to Apple, to Arcen, to Valve, to Riot, have the right to run their own companies if they follow rules and regulations, you have to accept them all. That is the rule of law. It is not arbitrary.

I'll repeat it: It is not arbitrary

You still are cherry picking. The problems you just described with oil companies are not legal, neither in print nor in spirit.  Just because you think companies can do what they want withinthe law doesn't mean they get to brake the law.

McDonalds is offering something people want. Who is to say they cannot give what people want, since the food they serve is safe if not healthy? If you think they cannot serve their food, then why not ban Burger King, Wendy's, or any fast food. And if that is the case, then restaurants should not serve healthy food either...where do you draw the line? It's a slippery slope, and you might think its fine till they take away what you like.

Insurance companies are following rules and laws made from them, if you don't like them, change them. Blame the source, not the symptoms. Change what they are or not allowed to do, provide a public option, nationalize it, etc. But the company is running in the environment given to them.

You seem to have the idea that because you don't like something, it is not right, not considering other points of view. The world does not revolve around you. You can blither all the insults you want, but it would be far more effective to let your arguments do the insulting for you, rather then be about you.

To bring it back around to my supposed claim, I'll bring yours: "If a company does something I don't like, they shouldn't do it."

Laws were made so others didn't decide what everyone could do based on a whim. Law is supposed to be blind and applied equally. If you think this is true, then it must be pursued to everything, not just used to support what you like and against what you don't like. Thus, if something or someone does something you don't like, you don't demand to change their behavior, you ignore it. If think you have the right to change it, then you give up your own right to do what you want, for someone certainly doesn't like something you do. For every business, everyone, everyone, yes, even arcen, has someone that doesn't like what the company does. If you think the bad business should change because you don't like it but it is within the law, then you accept every business must change.

So if you want to remain in the opinion that anyone who disagrees with you is bad, and idiot, whatever. It hurts your arguments, and as shown here has caused the opposite of causing support to your opinion with causing me who at the start of this thread not caring at all, but now caring to disagree enough to write all this.

But for me? I believe in the ability for others to pursue what they like, to ignore that they don't like, and to enjoy a good debate on points of view. I don't feel entitled to being superior, to thinking I'm always right, and yet being able to do what I want. Live and let live.

[Wingflier]

In the United States, there is the right for free speech. The issue comes up not when people says things everyone likes, it comes up when people says things no one likes. Because that is arguement: If you think the right exists, then it applies to everyone, not just those you like.

For the same reason, if you think companies of any sort, from oil companies, to Apple, to Arcen, to Valve, to Riot, have the right to run their own companies if they follow rules and regulations, you have to accept them all. That is the rule of law. It is not arbitrary.

Oh, so as long as you're not breaking the law, what you're doing is completely fine.

So it's fine to cheat on your spouse?  It's fine to blatantly lie to your friends or customers?  It's fine to scream and hurt somebody that loves you? 

None of these things are illegal, but they are still considered wrong by what I would consider moral people.  THE LAW does not cover all moral injustices, and if you think it does then you're either Patriotic to a fault, or completely blind. 

The LAW ITSELF can be unjust, and yes, it is our duty to change the law, I agree with you.  Unfortunately, when the Congress approval rate in the U.S. is 9%, it's not very easy to change the law when you don't even trust the people elected to represent you.

And I HAVE been active in trying to change unjust Corporate Laws btw.  I was part of an Occupy Wall Street event in Washington D.C. last December.  I got arrested and thrown in jail with hardened criminals, it was one of the worst experiences of my life. 

So once again, the law does not necessarily reflect what is morally just, nor are the people or companies who follow the law to the letter necessarily moral people.  This is ethics 101.

You seem to have the idea that because you don't like something, it is not right, not considering other points of view. The world does not revolve around you. You can blither all the insults you want, but it would be far more effective to let your arguments do the insulting for you, rather then be about you.

It's more than just what I don't like.  What Riot was attempting to do was an injustice to the ENTIRE gaming community.  Why do you think they tried to hide it once they realized how bad the reaction would be?  I don't need to explain why it's wrong, the reasons speak for themselves.

Just because it's covered "BY THE LAW" doesn't make it right, and if you can't see that you're blind.

Laws were made so others didn't decide what everyone could do based on a whim. Law is supposed to be blind and applied equally. If you think this is true, then it must be pursued to everything, not just used to support what you like and against what you don't like. Thus, if something or someone does something you don't like, you don't demand to change their behavior, you ignore it.

Oh, so since a Company lying to its playerbase isn't technically against the law, I should ignore it?

Since it's not technically cheating for my wife to cheat on me, I should ignore it?

You're naive and nuanced view of "the law" is completely unrealistic, and a huge part of the problem with our country. 

Finally, I don't think I'm better than you, but this IS NOT something I'm going to back down on.  I don't care how popular it is for companies to pull stunts like this; whether or not they get away with it, it's not RIGHT.  I don't care what the law says, it literally means nothing to me.

Lying about this practice is idiotic on riot, for they should have simply put it as a NDA in their contract for this, but it doesn't change the fact.

You're literally saying that Riot's biggest mistake was not hiding this disgusting business practice better than they did.  How can I respect that?

[chemical_art]

I'm not backing down either.

When you say "The law means nothing to me" you highlight just how entitled you feel you are. Imagine a society that had such a view. That would not be a society for very long.

Allowing a company to pursue their business how they want is not the same as you being fine with it. While the company has the right to do what they want legally, you have just as much right to respond to it, whether you buy from them, boycott them, speak for them, speak against them. You have just as much right to respond as they do what they want.

The work of the above point is shown clearly in the in Riot's situation: They could decide to force exclusivity, but their public opinion to those who enjoyed e-sports suffered. The benefit of forcing exclusivity was not worth the cost they thought, so they abandoned it if they thought about it to begin with, and they certainly won't try if they were just considering it.

On the other hand,  reconsidering a change in employee contracts (in this case, e-sport players of riot being payed to play League of Legends) is not an injustice to the "entire" gaming community, its the small but vocal minority who watches e-sports on anything more then a casual basis. Even then, it still isn't an "injustice". There is nothing injust about a Non compete clause. In fact, it is very common in media from television to radio. If you boycott Riot because they considered the idea, you should follow through and abandon news stations, radio talk hosts, etc, for they follow the same idea.

Something that is not within the law doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it wrong either. It is opinion. Opinions make their voice heard with wallets or lack thereof. That is how it should be done, and that is exactly how it is being done here.

As for Riot and their NDA, it is again a matter of what you approve of. I think Steam has the "disgusting" practice of not allowing those who use their service to disclose how much money Steam takes as a cut. That is an NDA in practice. Steam actually is a worst case for it is a case of company - customer relationship, which for me should be more open then the company - employee relationship of Riot and salaried e-sports players. However, Steam is still better then other similar services, so I still use it.

[Wingflier]

When you say "The law means nothing to me" you highlight just how entitled you feel you are. Imagine a society that had such a view. That would not be a society for very long.

Look at the context.  In terms of moral rights and wrong, the law means nothing to me.  Many laws in our country are made to protect the Capitalistic "Rights" of the people, and really have no moral value (perhaps a negative moral value).

Morality != Law, these are two completely different subjects.  The laws can be moral, and things can become laws because they are moral, but they aren't necessarily equivalent.

Allowing a company to pursue their business how they want is not the same as you being fine with it. While the company has the right to do what they want legally, you have just as much right to respond to it, whether you buy from them, boycott them, speak for them, speak against them. You have just as much right to respond as they do what they want.

You're right, I have the right to speak out against them.  I'm practicing my right.  What is it that we're disagreeing about?

On the other hand,  reconsidering a change in employee contracts (in this case, e-sport players of riot being payed to play League of Legends) is not an injustice to the "entire" gaming community, its the small but vocal minority who watches e-sports on anything more then a casual basis. Even then, it still isn't an "injustice". There is nothing injust about a Non compete clause. In fact, it is very common in media from television to radio. If you boycott Riot because they considered the idea, you should follow through and abandon news stations, radio talk hosts, etc, for they follow the same idea.

Once again, it doesn't matter how many Companies do this, it doesn't make it right.  Besides, this is a quite unique situation.  E-sports, like I said before, is still in its infancy.  We don't need this kind of exclusivity and greediness, we all need to be working together to improve the negative perception most people have towards it.  And if this wasn't viewed BADLY by the MAJORITY of the gaming community, then why did Riot need to BLATANTLY LIE about it?

If you honestly want to say that blatantly lying to your loyal community is not immoral, then you are morally bankrupt in my view.

As I said, I have no problem with what Riot attempted to do.  I'd love for them to come out and show the entire gaming world how greedy and pathetic they really are.  The real moral crime here is to try to portray themselves as something they are not, then lie to protect that facade.  If an individual person did this, we would consider that person to be immoral; so why is it okay if a COMPANY does it?

OH BECAUSE LOTS OF COMPANIES DO IT.

Oh and by the way, I don't watch TV, or listen to the Radio, or to pretty much any of the garbage the media spits out, and I protest it whenever possible.

[chemical_art]

Morality ! = Law

Morality is arbitrary, law is equal. Law and morality can both be corrupted. Just because the functioning of law today is bad doesn't mean it should be thrown out, and shouldn't be ignored.

Video games when they were made to now have always been exclusive on some level, whether it being forced to develop them on game platforms, developers being contracted to only work with certain platforms, and publishers wanting to make money and keep ownership of studios. If it weren't for this in the first place though, it would lagged far behind if not developed at all. Today games can be made with Kickstarters and that is glorious, but without the roots of companies both wanting to make money while providing a product the games would not have gotten the funding at the start.

Sports of all sort have multiple levels, from casual people playing it to professionals who obey certain rules from a league, union, or other provider. E-sports is operating in the same environment of these other sports. If you have problem with the environment, you might as well hate all professional sports. In which case, nothing is stopping you from watching non-payed players.

Riot may or may not be lying, because I'm still not sure they do it or if they denied it. I've seen one post from one employee saying they don't do it. Was that person authorized to speak for the company on that matter? This I don't know honestly, he says he's VP of sports but I don't know what that entitles him to. Does he decide contracts, or is that another department? This reminds of that discussion of why small companies can respond fast while big ones cannot. Because while the smaller ones know each other and their products to respond, big companies have divided labor so the left hand and the right hand need a brain to talk to each other, metaphorically.

Until there is evidence rather then accusations, there is no "blatant lie". Accusations ! = evidence.

All my arguments that lots of companies do something is trying to imply something else:

IF you boycott a company for something they do because you don't like it, but partake in other companies that have the same thing, then you are not changing much of anything; you are using the thing you don't like as an excuse, or you don't have the conviction to fully through. So if you think Riot is doing something disgusting, in this case exclusivity, you should follow through and hate other exclusives. DotA 2 is exclusive to Steam