Starcraft 2 Musings

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Clarifying Blizzard/Gretech vs. KeSPA/OGN/MBC

Here's a post I wrote in one of the forums for Team Liquid:

I'm not a law student of anything, but I've seen a lot of comments in these forums which demonize one of the parties in the title. In this post, I want to clarify the concepts that each side is talking about, as well as provide my input. Feel free to add any corrections/additions but to the facts at hand. (Italicized text is my analysis.)

As for my background, while I did play Broodwar when it was first released, I wasn't really active with it (I've seen a few of the games on Arirang since it was available as a cable channel here but that's probably it). It's only with Starcraft 2 that I started taking interest in the game again.

IP Rights

Blizzard's claim:

First, GomTV is the exclusive business partner for SC1 and SC2 in South Korea. Because MBCGame and OnGameNet refused to sign the IP rights licensing contract, they are violating our IP rights. It is not right for them to broadcast when the negotiations are still in progress. So, I think our IP rights are being violated by some broadcasters.

Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7158393

KeSPA's claim:

KeSPA and the negotiation team have recognized Blizzard's intellectual property rights from the beginning of the negotiations as Blizzard is the original author. This agreement regarding recognizing Intellectual Property rights was something that was agreed upon even within the negotiations, and this was also the reason why negotiations were possible to the present, and KeSPA and the negotiation team had sincerely applied themselves to the negotiations.

But because recognizing the IP rights shouldn't be a chain that constrains the organizations involved via license fees, demanding complete ownership rights to derivative works, and to even demanding auditing rights to KeSPA, KeSPA has repeatedly been in discussions to try and reach a common ground where both sides can agree with with regards to IP rights acknowledgement.

Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7171870

I want to clarify, the conflict between the two is the interpretation of what it means to own "IP Rights". With Blizzard, they mean Starcraft and all its derivative works (i.e. broadcasting rights, competitions, etc.). For KeSPA, it seems that they're willing to acknowledge Starcraft: Broodwar is Blizzard's product, but not quite so much when it comes to everything else (i.e. derivative works).

Here's an analogy: For Blizzard, they own a hamburger retail shop (the hamburger is Broodwar in its entirety). KeSPA suddenly got their hamburgers, and started selling pieces (the bread, the hamburger) individually or even repacking them, but claiming it as their own. Blizzard wants acknowledgment that whatever KeSPA is selling belongs to them since it can all be traced to their hamburger (Broodwar).

For KeSPA, Broodwar is a tree in Blizzard's backyard. They acknowledge that the tree belongs to Blizzard. However, occasionally, fruit (derivative works) from the tree will fall on public property or KeSPA's property, such as the street. Thus KeSPA claims that Blizzard has no claims over the fallen fruit, since it fell on public property/KeSPA's property, and that they appropriated it (worked on it, refined it, etc.).

The gist of the conflict is the interpretation between these "IP Rights", and each side attaches different meanings to them. To be fair to Blizzard, it's a common acceptance in the rest of the world that they should own the rights to everything derived from their IP (there are exceptions of course). To be fair to KeSPA, in their mind, they developed the BroodWar scene without help from Blizzard (minus the game itself of course) and then here comes a third party suddenly asking for a share of the profits from all their hard work (similarly, if you're familiar with how franchise work [I'm not saying KeSPA is a franchise of Blizzard], some people don't like franchises because they perceive it as them doing the hard work yet the parent company gets a percentage of their profits; if you're this type of person, then you'll understand how KeSPA feels).

This IP Rights conflict however has to happen. If Blizzard doesn't defend their IP, they will be setting a precedent should others "steal" their IP for profit in the future. The longer they let this past, the longer it works against them. For KeSPA, the popularity of eSports in their country is unique, so they could attempt to present that their product isn't infringing on Blizzard's IP. Should they succeed, this has huge legal implications when it comes to the video game industry, not just in Korea, but in the world, due to this legal precedent.

More on KeSPA's definition of "derivative works":

KeSPA has expressed its position of being willing to pay for a rational level of usage fee and appeal its support of marketing and promotion for product line-up of Blizzard with continuous investment such as sharing all contents which belong to KeSPA like pro gamers, broadcasting and sponsorship.

However, Blizzard has asserted not the right as a copyright but unreasonable demands as following.

1. Set the contract term for using its games to 1 year
2. Prior approvals about all league operations such as contracting sponsorship, marketing materials, broadcasting plan
3. License fee for running of league and all license fee of sponsorship inducement
4. Ownership of all broadcasted programs, program videos
5. Right to audit KeSPA

Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=5170767

"Blizzard is out to kill Broodwar"

Now many fans claim that Blizzard is out to kill Broodwar, especially with the release of Starcraft 2. I don't think this is the case, as it is more of protecting their IP Rights (see above). Most attribute this claim because Blizzard unveiled Starcraft 2 in Korea in May 2007, but Blizzard actually attempted to negotiate with KeSPA as early as February of the same year (source:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=5170767), most likely in light of KeSPA's Broadcast Rights Controversy (source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=1680175).

I'd like to add that if you read through those old post on the subject (such as thishttp://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=1718118), it's hilarious to see history repeating itself. KeSPA/IEG for example claims rights to Broodwar, tries to prevent OGN/MBC from airing Broodwar, and antagonizes fans (but not the players/sponsors) source:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=1704839. Now it seems the roles are reversed, with Blizzard enforcing their rights.

If Blizzard wanted to stop the airing of Broodwar, they could have filed an injunction--which would stop the broadcasts until everything could be legally resolved, but didn't:

Why didn't you request an injunction to stop broadcasting?

Blizzard and GomTV has always been participating in the negotiations in the good faith. Any other companies in our situation would never have the same patience we have. We still acknowledge South Korea as an important market. But now, I think there is no answer other than the lawsuit. If we really wanted to get done with this faster, we would have filed an injunction. I think that in order to broadcast, a proper license is required. So, we filed an lawsuit in the basis of IP rights violation without filing an injunction first.

Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7158393

It also makes consistent sense in the fact that Blizzard hasn't gone after iCCup for example, which isn't a for-profit organization. Nor has Blizzard stopped selling Starcraft: Broodwar for that matter. And at the end of the day, Broodwar is still additional revenue, so why kill it?

Blizzard on Profits

From Blizzard:

South Korea only brings in 5% of overall global sales.

Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7158393

The fact of the matter is, this is both good and bad. 5% of global sales is a significant market share, especially considering Korea's niche, size, and population density. However, the number is also thrown about to diffuse the exagerration that the public have, that Korea is where Blizzard is deriving majority of its profits. It's also there, in my opinion, to alleviate Korean public opinion that a foreign company is deriving significant profits from them.

Some fans are complaining that the measurement of 3 years is unfair, that Blizzard should have mentioned their global sales in the past 10 years. I think it's necessary to limit the time frame to the present, since that's what's being discussed at hand. For example, Sega has sold a lot of consoles over the past three decades, but what's significant today when we're talking about console sales is how much Sega has sold in the past few years (i.e. they're not in the console-selling business anymore).

From Blizzard:

It is said Blizzard wants at least 700,000,000 won from the Korean market. Is that true?

The licensing fee is there to say that if they wish to use our content, they need to be capable of producing high quality content. When problems relating to intellectual rights is dealt with, the fee can be adjusted as needed.

Some are confused by the fee with regards to "producing high quality content". I'll re-post myclarification from another thread:

Basically, the licensing fee is a barrier to entry. Whoever plans to broadcast the games needs to prove that they have the financial capability to produce such shows. It's not necessarily Kespa-specific (i.e. whether MBCGame is unable to produce good shows), but rather a general rule for Blizzard's terms when it comes to broadcasting their shows (in the event that another broadcaster wants to air Blizzard's games). The issue at hand though is the acknowledging of IP rights, which is the second of Blizzard's conditions. I don't think there's any doubt that MBCGame and OnGameNet can produce quality shows, but rather that they're not recognizing Blizzard's IP Rights.

To restate, Sam is saying that Blizzard wants its IP rights acknowledged and is suing on principle. That's the reason for the fee (which is less than what Kespa was charging for their broadcasting rights), why contest license fees (not to be confused w/ broadcasting fees) are just 1 won per year (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=6950901), or that profits from broadcasting fees will be donated to charity (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=6614875).

From KeSPA:

Blizzard said that because players and audiences have a right to demand and enjoy high quality eSports broadcasts, and said that they need a broadcast license fee so that only companies that reach a certain standard can enter the eSports industry.

But in the last 10 years, the broadcasting stations and the Progame teams, KeSPA, and other organizations had worked together to create the foundation and the model of an eSports industry, and it's becoming the standard of worldwide eSports. Many organizations around the world took interest in the growth of Korea's eSports scene and introduced it to the world, and many countries are using Korea's eSports system as a model to develop an eSports market in their country.

In order to develop Korea's eSports market, over the last 10 years the Progame teams invested billions of won every year. The government, civilian organization, and KeSPA has also continued to put in many costs and effort to expand the base of eSports in Korea and to enhance the status of Esports internationally.

Thus, Blizzard's argument about "License fee to have a high quality eSports broadcast" is a statement that ostracizes the broadcasting companies, the progame teams, KeSPA, the government, and all other involved organizations, while ignoring the efforts and accomplishments of these organizations in the past 10 years, and we express extreme disappointment regarding this statement.

Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7171870

Rather than using a "barrier to entry" paradigm, KeSPA is making the assertion that the success of the success of e-sports is due to mutual cooperation and effort from everyone. This isn't necessarily incorrect, just a different paradigm.

As an analogy, Blizzard is selling you an encyclopedia: they've screened the contributors (not via fees of course but due to credentials) so that the reader knows that the information they're presenting is accurate.

KeSPA, on the other hand, is applying a Crowd Sourcing or Wikipedia model where everyone, irregardless of their station in life, can contribute to deliver accurate information to you.

From KeSPA:

While Blizzard has mentioned that KeSPA had made 1.7 billion won in the three years KeSPA had run a licensing business, and that the amount Gretech requested is only 1/5th of the amount taken in by KeSPA, but in reality, the amount requested by the Gretech amounts to 700 million won a year minimum if you combine the Proleague and both Individual Leagues. This amounts to far more than 2 billion won even through a simple calculation. Furthermore, because Gretech continues to push for year long contracts, we don't know how much they will charge for extending the contract after the first year.

Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7171870

In 2007, KeSPA originally charged 7,5000,0000 Won (approx. $3/4 million US) over 3 years and was lowered down to 3,9000,0000 Won (approx. $390,000 US) after negotiations. Source:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=1718118 (see KeSPA spoiler tag).

Gretech is currently charging 100,000,000 won per season (up to 3 seasons a year) and is good for one year. Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=6950901

Note: Other relevant info is how profits will be split, which I won't be going into here.

Again, KeSPA and Blizzard are working with 2 different paradigms. KeSPA was charging a large amount but was good for 3 years. Blizzard, on the other hand, was charging a small amount but was good, from my understanding, for one season.

As an analogy, KeSPA is asking you to make a huge downpayment on a car (spread over 3 years). How often you use the car is up to you (it's relevant because the stations air several seasons of Broodwar). Blizzard, on the other hand, is asking you to pay for this month's Internet connection. It's not a lot individually, but if you're airing a lot of seasons during a year, the cost IS indeed higher than what KeSPA is charging.

Having said that, why would Blizzard charge that amount today? Well, consider that this ultimatum came at the end of the year, so each station probably just has one or two seasons left to air within the year. Blizzard is looking at it from the short term perspective. Its current priority is:

Once the IP rights problem is dealt with, GomTV and Blizzard can adjust the licensing fee. This is not for the profits, but to protect our IP rights. To operate a business, it is important, as the holder of the IP, to get our IP rights protected.

All markets, including South Korea, request the rights to use our content. Of course, we cannot state exactly how much they needed to pay, but other markets do also pay as well. China and Taiwan came to us first, to get the license needed. We will finalize the licensing for broadcasting as well. It is not right to say that China has different situation than South Korea. This is same anywhere else including Europe.

Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7158393

KeSPA, on the other hand, is looking at it from a long-term perspective. If Blizzard continues to charge 100,000,000 won per season, then it IS going to be expensive.

I do think Blizzard is willing to lower the fee once the initial fee is paid and the companies acknowledge their IP Rights. KeSPA, on the other hand, has other interpretations of "recognizing" IP Rights (derivative works), hence the negotiation of a lower broadcasting fee cannot be negotiated.

As far as arguments go, each one is attempting to position itself in a favorable position.

Monday, November 1, 2010

The Starcraft and Chess Analogy

Photo by David Lapetina under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License

It's common for players of Starcraft to compare the game to Chess. Starcraft, after all, is a real-time strategy (RTS) game while Chess is a mainstream game (in addition to being accepted as a legitimate sport) that's synonymous with strategy. When talking to lay people, making the analogy that Starcraft is the Chess of video games is understandable, even if it's an oversimplification.

Photo by Andre Engels under the Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Generic License

There are several problems with the Chess analogy, but is there a better alternative as a point of comparison? In Western culture, no. As I mentioned in my opening paragraph, it's a game that has become synonmous with strategy and tactics, at least in the Western pop culture. A common joke is that "Chess isn't a sport" but that's only drawing attention to the fact that Chess is accepted as a sport, at least by the International Olympic Committee. There are other pastimes that vie for this title (both the strategy and sport part). Perhaps the closest one is Poker which has gained a lot of media exposure in the last few years. As strategic as a game like Magic: The Gathering is, it honestly has no traction when you mention it to a random stranger (although it once aired on ESPN 2). There are also several board games such as Settlers of Catan that are worthy contenders, but countries like Germany (whose relationship with board games is similar to Belgium and comics) are the exception rather than the norm.

Photo by Andre Engels under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

Astute readers will notice my qualification: Western culture. In Korea for example, the intricacies of Starcraft is well known, so comparing Starcraft II to Starcraft: Brood War is apt and accessible. Aside from comparing Starcraft to itself (or its predecessors), a sport that's a better analogy than Chess is Weiqi (Go in Japanese and Baduk in Korean). I prefer Weiqi for several reasons:

In terms of strategy and tactics, Weiqi has more depth, at least compared to Chess. While formation and location is important in Chess, it has a significantly bigger impact in Weiqi. For example, one can have the equal number of pieces as the opponent, but where they are on the board and how they are connected significantly determines who is in the lead and who isn't. While this can be true for Chess (such as a checkmate situation), the fact that this happens on a massive scale, on a massive board, and in every situation, makes this a better comparison for Starcraft. (It's even possible to have less pieces and be in the advantageous position due to placement and territorial control.)

There is also the sense of scope. In Chess, battles are fought on an 8x8 board, with a finite number of pieces. Weiqi, on the other hand, takes place on a 19x19 grid (there are smaller grids for beginners but the official size is 19x19), and one can simultaneously win a battle in one corner while losing a different fight in a another section of the board. Because of this, determining who is in the lead and who isn't at any given point in time, can be difficult to objectively assess. Just because you seem to have lost one fight does not mean you'll lose the game in the end.

The third point in favor of Weiqi over Chess is tied to the development of AI. With the former, the number of possible moves increases as the game progresses (thus making the game more complicated) whereas in the latter, it's the reverse. It's for this reason that Chess AI can beat the chess champion, but Weiqi AI, at the very least, needs a handicap in order to beat a professional player (and even then, not the highest-ranked one). This is also affected by memorization: a Chess player (in this case, AI) can mimic strategy and aptitude relying solely on rote memorization (i.e. all the possible moves/openings).

Having said that, Weiqi still isn't a perfect analogy for Starcraft, and it boils down to five concepts: RTS, Asymmetrical Warfare, Economy, Imperfect Awareness, and Terrain.

Protoss vs. Zerg

First is that Starcraft is an RTS. I want to emphasize the "real-time" aspect. It has a huge impact on the game and has several implications. The first and most obvious is the number of actions a player can take. Chess and Weiqi are turn-based games, which means theoretically, every player has the same number of actions*. That's not the case with RTS games, as the advantage typically goes to the player who can do the most Actions Per Minute (APM). Do you focus more on macromanagement or micromanagement? Do you focus more on your forces on the north or on the south? If you have a high APM, you can, to a certain extent, do a little bit more of one and the other. It's possible for example to have an SCV repair a Thor while ordering a Marine to shoot at the opponent's Pylon. With turn-based games, it's usually a binary choice: either you command this Unit on your turn, or you don't. if you do, then your turn ends. Let's not forget the strategy part though, so just because you have high APM does not necessitate you being the better player.

Another implication is that the value of a Unit is determined by whether you micromanage it or not. A Roach, a ranged Unit, for example, if used correctly, can easily take down a Zealot, a slow melee Unit. If you simply leave the Roach unattended when fighting the Zealot, the former is significantly weakened. This rationale applies to a lot of Starcraft II Units such as Reapers, Hellions, and Stalkers. Another tangent to this is that when two identical Units, such as a group of Banelings, face off each other, the one with the advantage is the one who micromanages their Units. Clearly, this isn't the case in either Chess or Weiqi. The value of a Rook won't increase just because you devote more attention to it. Chess and Weiqi conquer Units by initiative: if the Queen can act before the opposing Rook, the former wins.

The third implication of real-time strategy are the vectors of speed and acceleration, and to a certain extent, range and the terrain. Why are Zerglings with the Metabolic Boost upgrade better than those without? Because it increases their movement speed, thus enabling them to reach their destination faster (usually for counterattacks) and surround their enemies quicker. In a turn-based game, the former might be replicated (such as Rooks moving an unlimited number of squares whereas Pawns simply move one square) but the latter impossible unless it's represented in an abstract way (such as a turn-based game might give the Zerglings +1 attack to mimic their increased effectivity). A prevalent tactic in Starcraft is kiting (i.e. Marauders shooting at Zealots and then moving away) and this would not be possible if the game wasn't occuring in real time.

3 Zealots vs. 7 Marines

The second concept is Asymmetrical Warfare. One of the reasons Starcraft is hard to balance is because you have three non-identical races to play with. There are other turn-based games which feature asymmetrical warefare but as far as Chess and Weiqi are concerned, what one player is capable of, the other player has access to. White player's Knights are identical to the black player's. The only asymmetry with such games is who goes first or who has a handicap (in the case of Weiqi). With Starcraft however, unless it's a mirror-match, there is no perfect equivalent between Units. One Zealot does not equal four Zerglings. Even the most similar of Units, a Hydralisk vs. two Marines, for example, are not identical, whether due to their stats, their costs, or the tech needed to obtain them. This is compounded by the RTS aspect (i.e. the value of a Unit increases when it is micromanaged).

The third concept is Economy. Starcraft has an interesting risk/reward system: you have more resources at your disposal if you focus on economy. However, focusing on economy might mean you have a weaker army in the present. It's also possible to have a larger army than your opponent assuming you have a better economy than they do. This tension is not present in either Chess or Weiqi: the former awards you with a finite set of Units from the very start, while the latter rewards you with exactly one more Unit every round.

Introducing economy to the game has nuances. It's a viable target for example for the opponent: instead of simply decimating a player's Units, you can get ahead of the game by diminishing your opponent's economy. But neither is it a variable that will always determine success: just because you have a larger economy does not mean you'll win the war. A larger army can decimate your forces, or you might not be able to make use of your wealthy economy in time. It also leads players to make alternative and sub-optimal choices. Some strategies, for example, revolve around focusing on Minerals, Gas, or both Minerals and Gas. Where you spend (and if you're able to) your acquired resources adds depth, but neither is the system idiot-proof as production queing is usually detrimental. The entire argument of macromanagement vs. micromanagement (although this isn't a fair comparison as you're really doing both in the game; it just matters in what degrees) also wouldn't be possible if economy in the game didn't exist.

A probe scouting the mini-map

The fourth concept is Imperfect Awareness. In Chess and Weiqi, both players know what their opponent is doing. What they don't know is what their opponent is planning. In Starcraft, not only do players not know what their opponents are planning, they also don't know what their opponents are actually doing. That's why scouting and the Fog of War become elements of one's strategy. Concealing information from your opponent can win or lose you games. it's also a mark of a very good player if they can guess what their opponent is planning based on the meager information they can glean.

The last concept is Terrain. In Chess and Weiqi, the board is an even playing field, and Units have no inherent advantages based on where they are, aside from the tactical and strategic value of holding territory. In Starcraft, that's not the case. Air, for example, is unbreachable unless you have flying Units. High ground, on the other hand, denies vision from the opponent unless they have Units on the high ground as well.

Another consequence of terrain is that it gives games variety and favors certain races more than the other. The map you play in Chess and Weiqi will always be the same. That's not the case with Starcraft. Playing on Lost Temple for example is different from Metalopolis or Steppes of War. Similarly, Terrain is tied to to other concepts: RTS (distances), asymmetrical warfare (some maps favor some strategies/tactics more), economy (the placement of resources and starting locations), and imperfect awareness (how difficult it is to scout the opponent).

It is for these various reasons that I find Chess a poor analogy to Starcraft. Sure, both Chess and Starcraft employ strategy, but clearly, the strategy (and tactics) needed to master the latter is significantly different from the former. Nor can it be encapsulated in a single statement (or even a single paragraph), hence this long essay.

*Unfortunately, the problem with turn-based games is that the players aren't on equal footing. In Weiqi, it's accepted that the player who goes first has the advantage, so bonus points are awarded to the player who goes second, at least in a non-handicapped game.