Element Sold to NoA

[_Morphine_]

entRo wrote..

Glad you two are so informed! OPIE, maybe you don't realize how much money is given out at big tournaments. What was it.. $60,000 for first place in CS at the last CPL? That's quite alot for a mere video game. While I'm not calling it a sport, it definitely is competitive, and it's gone beyond being just fun for some people and teams.



If Element had never signed a contract, and he left for NoA, AND THEN SK threatened legal charges, that'd be ridiculous. No one forced Element to sign the contract, if he didn't understand or want to abide by the contract, he could have simply not signed it. "Video game" or not, you don't breach a contract on purpose, and expect to get off free with it. Just the idea that he SHOULD get off with no reprocussions, as you'd like, is ridiculous.



We don't know the whole story, but I'm sure if Element wanted to leave SK because of his studies, they'd allow him to as long as he didn't play for another team, but that's not the case. He joined NoA that same day if I'm not mistaken, so obviously, school wasn't that big of an issue. Element knows all of the strats SK used, would you want your team's tournament-winning-strategies to be given to your obviously-toughest competition, with big money on the line? No.



Also, I don't see how this is WORSE for e-sports, than it is better. Would it be better in a sponsor's eye to see top players leaving top teams and joining other teams, or would it be better to keep the rosters as stable as possible? While Element still left SK to NoA, buying his contract atleast reimburses SK for the player they've lost, the money given to him by their sponsorship in AMD, and the fact that their chances of losing to NoA are greater than they were before. It also keeps other members of top teams from clanhopping, for fear of legal action or what happened in Element's case.



Try to think about things with business and competition in mind, and not just your everyday pub-clan.

If they are so freakin worried abot their strats, then why are they offering to sell them in lessons. If you go to their site you can hire their players to play with your team and teach you their techniques, give you tips, AND TEACH YOU THEIR STRATEGIES! So that arguement is crap.



And telling me to think about this as a business with sponsorships, I do. I run a server rental company, I personally am working with my clan to get sponsored, I am trying to get sponsors for building custom moddified PCs. Even though I am working to accomplish this, I still feel that the level of competitivness we see at work here is complete bullshit. To me it has ruine a game, game should be a past time, entertainment, NOT a freaking lifestyle.



I also would have to argue with you and say that this is counter-productive for esports. If I were sponsoring a team ad then they had this sort of childish nonsense going on an a player broke, and this type of little fiasco went on I would probaly drop the sponsorship with them. Or at least I would try to get them to get their act together. In my view, threatening legal action over nothing more than a game is just crap. If they cannot keep the clan together and have to resort to that kind of non sense then in my opinion it actually makes them look less professional. Having players in a pc game sign contracts, is just far too extreme. This sort of bull ruins the atomsphere of the game, and hurts the community.

[absent]

haha

cs players are fags

[blackcivic]

Thought id try to shed some light for a few people:



Straight from dictionary.com, the OFFICIAL definition(s) of the word sport:



1)Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. (Granted, the subject of whether or not CS would qualify as a "physical" sport is debatable)



2)An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively (see #1)



3)An active pastime; recreation. (This would fit how Counter-Strike could technically be defined as a sport)



Its debatable whether cs is considered a "sport" and whether it requires any type of physical activity besides movement of mouse and typing. In my opinion, competative cs is definetely a sport. 2 teams are competing against eachother to achieve victory, just like a "physical" sport such as baseball. Competative cs, and any other recreational sport, are easily comarable to eachother. Why? Because its logical to consider competative counterstrike a sport.



Baseball: 2 teams, set amount of teammates, rules and regulations, points system, managers, player trades, salary cap, players earning salaries



Counter-Strike: 2 teams, set amount of teammates, rules and regulations, points system, managers, player trades i.e. Element, salary cap (Im sure organizations such as SK have salary caps, being that there are people in that organization who do in fact earn a salary to play full time, as a professional baseball player would, and im sure the value of the different players varies as well.



Seems pretty similar to me, except the whole physical argument. But, my argument to that point is this; Even though counter-strike doesnt require the physical aspect of competition, when competing, all kinds of other factors play a part in why counter strike could be considered a sport. Hand-eye coordination, reaction speed and time, the whole strategic part in general, communication skills, and im sure there are more that i've missed, are all qualities that if worked the right way, can be practiced on and improved, just as a regular "physical" sports player would improve his abilities.



Counter-Strike as a competative sport, and e sports as a whole, in my opinion is just getting ready to take off. Countries like Korea, Japan, China, have television channels dedicated strictly to games, gamers, and events. They are quite evolved as an E-sports community, being that there is such a great interest in that form of entertainment, whether its partaking in competition, or spectating. Once CS source is released, and the majority of the populace has made the transition, I have a strong feeling the concept of e-sports as a form of entertainment will explode. Of course, I could be wrong, and im sure there are people out there who think i am. But please, if you disagree, offer some intelligent contradictions to my points as to why counter-strike shouldnt be considered a sport. Im open to all suggestions, if you can maintain the maturity level to actually have a civilized argument on the subject :)

[flippo]

You don't know what a salary cap is do you? Even though it's self explanatory.

cs players are fags

ya

[blackcivic]

Yes, a salary cap is a limit as to how much money they are able to pay their potential players. Also yes, it is kind of self explanitory (SALARY/CAP), I apologize if i worded it wrong and you misunderstood what i was trying to say.

[n8bowa]

All sports around today started out as "just games". Online Competitive Gaming is becoming a sport now too, and it will continue to grow. The definition of 'Sport' is: "Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively". What throws people off is the physical activity part--but dont be fooled. We all know Counter-Strike requires an immense amount of hand-eye coordination which is a very developemental physical attribute. If anything, it requires alot more physical activity than Chess. Sure, its scope of physical activity is not as broad as football or something, but it still fits the definition and is thus a sport, no matter how rediculous it may seem to your stereotypical mind that some nerd could actually be involved in a sport and be successful.



One of the main reasons people look down on video games becoming a sport is because it is so different from the rest. But, like always, our society will eventually come around and accept it b/c it's the younger generation that is so involved in it. More and more people will learn that they don't have to be in tip top shape, and that they don't have to have the luck of being predisposed to the right genes to be able to compete. Pretty much anyone can pickup a mouse and keyboard and get used to games.



And to those saying stuff like "go out and get a real job" and other shit like that, what makes you think that your job is anymore "real" than HeatoN's (or w/e his name is)? What is your definition of a "real job" anyways? That it is has to suck? I don't know about you guys, but I know I would like to live the rest of my life doing something I enjoy doing and getting paid for it rather than doing something I hate. But am I going to attempt to play Counter-Strike for a living? Nah, I can't say I can be attached to any game that much, mainly because I get bored of them so fast. I don't really do much gaming at all anyways--Just wanted to point out my opinion on this.

[Supersonic^]

I agree with n8bowa.



Just because competitive CS isn't as physical as something like football, or athletics, it doesn't mean it's not a sport. If you took out the word physical from those dictionary definitions, then it would apply to CS completely.



It won't be 10 years before competitive gaming gets the TV coverage it deserves.

[Ravenium]

It's funny - you hear this same tripe from the Paintball arena. "oh, it'll explode, just you wait!". So far I haven't seen monday night paintball, just clips on at 4 AM on espn. I love playing paintball, don't get me wrong, but only video games scream more about "niche spectator potential".



If you think hand eye coordination involves physical exertion, then I have another "sport" for you. It involves your hand, and a lot of cs players probably practice it a lot...



Let's face it, when your primary demographic is whiny affluent teens who want to see that they don't have to listen in school and don't have to be a varsity athlete to get ahead in life, of course you'll get them hooked. In addition, while an actual athlete can enjoy a long career of 20 years or more, your video gamer gets to ride the fad wagon only as long as his game is popular, upon which point he has to start from the ground up.



Sorry to burst your illusionary bubble, guys. It's just a game, and just because a half dozen people might win enough to get by, it doesn't make it any more of a legitimate choice in life.

[DeFade]

with the upcoming release of hl2 and all the rest of the next generation of games, competitive gaming will probably become more popular because the graphics will be so much better. the graphics in cs arent very good at all comparatively speaking, and they probably look even worse to people who arent used to seeing it. looking at cs:source and imagining what cs2 will be like, i can easily see more people wanting to see the best players in the world fighting eachother.

[n8bowa]

Ravenium wrote..

It's funny - you hear this same tripe from the Paintball arena. "oh, it'll explode, just you wait!". So far I haven't seen monday night paintball, just clips on at 4 AM on espn. I love playing paintball, don't get me wrong, but only video games scream more about "niche spectator potential".



If you think hand eye coordination involves physical exertion, then I have another "sport" for you. It involves your hand, and a lot of cs players probably practice it a lot...



Let's face it, when your primary demographic is whiny affluent teens who want to see that they don't have to listen in school and don't have to be a varsity athlete to get ahead in life, of course you'll get them hooked. In addition, while an actual athlete can enjoy a long career of 20 years or more, your video gamer gets to ride the fad wagon only as long as his game is popular, upon which point he has to start from the ground up.



Sorry to burst your illusionary bubble, guys. It's just a game, and just because a half dozen people might win enough to get by, it doesn't make it any more of a legitimate choice in life.

Competitive Gaming is still within the lines of the definition of "sport" despite your negative outlooks on the players and the ability to become successful in it. You're comparison with masturbation is false because, to my knowledge, I know of none that do it competitively. If there are some that do, as absurd as it may seem, it can be classified as a sport too. An activity doesn't have to exhibit the ability for one to become successful financially to be a sport and neither has to be immensely popular. Football, soccer, baseball, basketball, and even chess can be said to be "just a game" too. But the fact stands that online competitive gaming follows the definition of "sport", so therefore it is one. You haven't said anything to prove your point, just expressed pessimistic ideas.

[Ravenium]

Consider this: you could play for your entire life and not be Brett Favre, David Beckham, or Tim Duncan. However, with enough time and money, some friends with similar outlooks, and some limited natural hand-eye "nintendo" coordination, you could be among the top video game players in the world. Maybe not at the top, but a lot closer than you would be in the first scenario. That low of a barrier to entry extinguishes the idea of "natural athleticism" in video games, and is an example of part of why physical sports are popular spectator events - you watch people do something you physically cannot do yourself.



In the end, it comes down to what someone "thinks" it is. If you think it's a sport, it's a sport to you. One of the regrets of some is that there are no absolute black and white scenarios - I don't view bowling as quite as much of a sport as hockey, etc. I personally don't care what people call it, I just cannot give much respect or awe to a game or players with this level of ridiculous nonsense in it, masked under the excuse of being a "visionary". Spectator sports rise because people come to watch them, not because people try to shoehorn a concept into the public arena.

[lockhart]

Edited by [user="25310"] @ [time="1085084291"]

Ok I'm an idiot. This guy is too, though.

Scroto wrote..

Oh man i couldn't agree with u more. There is something wrong in this world when people are getting payed $60,000 for playing a fucking video game. GODDAMNIT that money could go to much better causes like funding schools or parks or something that acctually helps the community.

You're an idiot.

So, how about we take A-Rod's contract, stop paying him, and give all that money to schools or parks or something.

You could make the same argument for anyone that works for any company or enters any contest to win any prize.

[Supersonic^]

lockhart, NoA paid SK so he could play for them. That's close enough to being "sold" for me.

[xlokix]

absent wrote..

haha

cs players are fags

not only is that bias, but i don't even know one homosexual cs player

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Today on quotefest, we'll be whining about:

» America's "band-aid" culture,

» validity of any pro sports, and

» the terminology of being sold.

Check out the end for a lame attempt at comedic wit. Be sure to read along boys and girls! :)

Thortok2000 wrote..

While one shouldn't donate to a cause where one doesn't see the results, it doesn't mean that ALL causes won't show results, much less be result-less simply because you can't see them.

...

I'm not a benefactor to any causes and I'm not saying any/everyone else should be. I'm just saying to totally dismiss them out of hand is wrong, and is being willfully ignorant of the less prettier parts of life on this planet.

Don't get me wrong, Thortok, I'm not saying we should do away with charity. It's simply that, as an American, I see my country throwing billions upon billions of dollars at all sorts of "noble causes" and such. Sometimes it's in our own country (welfare, schools, Indian reservations, etc) and sometimes it's other, less fortunate countries.



The problem is, it's a band-aid approach, our typical "treat the symptoms" approach that most of American culture buys into with our painkillers and feel-good self-esteem-building psychology. Most of the time we don't really solve any of the root problems, so we waste millions and billions of dollars on a "cause" that will never fix the problem.



Sure, feeding the hungry and needy is a worthy cause. But why does there seem to be a never-ending supply of hungry children? Why the hell are people still having fourteen kids when they can't afford to feed even the first one? That is the type of thing that we never address. How about the money we spend trying to treat aids victims in Africa, when the real problem is that the bulk majority of the population still runs around screwing each other and passing on the disease, bringing it on themselves?



At least in Afghanistan, we finally spent money on addressing the cause of some serious problems, instead of just the effects. It'll take a long while for things to stabilize, sure, but in the end it actually changes something. With so much of the rest of our aid, there is never a stopping point where people become self-dependant again, and that's the real problem.



So my point is, simply having more money to throw at problems doesn't help anything, so there's no point in saying "oh, we could have spent this money on starving children" or whatever.

Ravenium wrote..

Let's face it, when your primary demographic is whiny affluent teens who want to see that they don't have to listen in school and don't have to be a varsity athlete to get ahead in life, of course you'll get them hooked. In addition, while an actual athlete can enjoy a long career of 20 years or more, your video gamer gets to ride the fad wagon only as long as his game is popular, upon which point he has to start from the ground up.



Sorry to burst your illusionary bubble, guys. It's just a game, and just because a half dozen people might win enough to get by, it doesn't make it any more of a legitimate choice in life.

Honestly, competitive sports are just as much of an illusion, when you think about the figures. You know how ridiculously small the percentage of high-school athletes will ever make it pro? You know how many athletes suffer debilitating injuries that ruin many of their future career options?



Sure, I know the idea of me becoming an eSports superstar is an illusion, just like the idea of me becoming a football all-star is an illusion. That doesn't change the fact that a few people have accomplished these goals. However, for every one that is successful, you're talking about huge numbers of those who failed trying.



What can a college athlete look forward to? Many universities pressure teachers into passing athletes despite poor academic performance (there's some interesting research on this), resulting in a lot of them ending up with no real education when they find out that they didn't get drafted. Their lives are now rather screwed over, and yet few complain about how illusionary football (or any other commonly accepted pro sport) is.



Saying eSports is just a dream for athletically challenged kids is the same as saying sports are just a dream for academically challenged kids. Neither is a valid argument to claim that there is no potential in either realm.

lockhart wrote..

He wasn't "sold," the title of this newspost is misleading and has resulted in several idiots believing that he was actually sold. He was bought out of his contract, and he joined NoA. There's a difference between that and being 'sold.'

I like the idea of him being "sold" because it's that much more amusing to say it like that. No matter what term or phrase you use for it, however, it still amounts to the same thing, and we're all aware of what the deal was.

xlokix wrote..

not only is that bias, but i don't even know one homosexual cs player

Know thyself.