Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Report: Activision Buys E-Sports League's Assets (esportsobserver.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the why-get-the-milk-for-free-when-you-can-buy-the-cow dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Major League Gaming (MLG) is one of the biggest e-sports operations out there. Or it was, until Activision Blizzard purchased most of its assets for $46 million. MLG's CEO has been removed, and nobody's quite sure what will become of the league once Activision is done with it. MLG has been struggling for some time, and it's expected that most of the sale's proceeds will go toward paying off debts. Shareholders are not pleased. Analysis at Forbes notes that "MLG has been most closely tied with Call of Duty for a long while now (though recently Activision partnered with MLG rival ESL for a new COD league), and has a history with Starcraft 2, both Activision Blizzard titles. It could make sense that in order to bolster their eSports division, Activision would assimilate MLG, though parts of this sound more like a liquidation of assets rather than MLG continuing to operate under its own banner, just with a new owner." Others note with skepticism the idea of a game publisher buying an e-sports league, which could lead to concerns about how games from other publishers are treated.

45 comments

  1. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck MLG.

    1. Re:Good. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      And fuck Forbes! I don't even click their links any more. It seems they dislike my use of an ad-blocker so they send me to a blank page where, I presume, they want to load stuff via various scripts. I could turn that off but I'd rather not. So, fuck 'em. Their property, their rules, and I don't visit.

      Not that I was going to RTFA anyhow but, you know...

      I just read the comments here and get the gist of it. It's probably more insightful than the article.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. "shareholders are not pleased" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shareholders aren't liable for debts, and the value of shares depends necessarily only on their demand on the secondary market, not on the value of the company - a company's value can be completely independent from the value of its shares.

    1. Re:"shareholders are not pleased" by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      That's really only half true... The value of the shares is tied to the company's value. The price of the share is separately tracked for public (or private, but that's more irregular) trade.

      It seems MLG was privately held, so we only really care about what the shareholders can get from a buyback, not public sale. That puts the shareholders' investments at greater risk, based on what happens to the company's value. They have a piece of paper saying they own a certain percentage of the company, but the company itself had an awful lot of debt. Any cash or assets they may have been entitled to are instead being used to cancel out those debts, effectively making their shares worth far less.

      A more profitable scenario for the shareholders would be for Activision to keep the company functioning as a separate entity, debt and all. Then the company, under new management and with more professional connections, could turn a profit, pay off those debts, and still have enough value in reserve to make the shares of stock worth something. Of course, that depends on MLG being a viable business, which may not be the case.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:"shareholders are not pleased" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      worth far less

      take away the adjective

      worth less

      take away the whitespace

      worthless

      tada.wav

  3. Invasion of the suits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sucking the lifeblood out of everything interesting since forever.

    1. Re:Invasion of the suits by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      What "lifeblood" is there to be sucked? E-sports has no lifeblood to begin with.

      E-Sports is a niche curiosity that everyone inside, from stakeholders who want it to be something akin to real sports venue with merchandising revenue and ticket sales to the participants who'd just love to be paid like those real sports "heroes" (I'll use the term loosely now), want so badly to take off, while everyone around shrugs it off with a "meh" because, frankly, outside the circle jerk, nobody gives a fuck.

      Football and basketball are billion dollar money machines because Joe Average doesn't want to play but watch people who're really, really good at it play. It's exactly the opposite with computer games. And as long as that doesn't change, e-sports is simply not worth a dime.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: Invasion of the suits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think e-sports is about playing and not watching games, then you haven't got a clue.

    3. Re:Invasion of the suits by Vokkyt · · Score: 2

      I don't think this holds true that there is no life blood. Gamers seem more than happy to part with money for hats/skins/donations to streamers, and are even more happy to park themselves in front of ads during official matches. There's money to be made with eSports and a strong community with even casual observers behind it. League of Legends, regardless of what your personal opinion may be, has a huge casual following; they may only queue up for non-ranked modes or play one or two characters, but the amount they will spend on the game and their willingness to be part of the audience for the game is undeniable. Riot, for all of its faults, has done a good job of catering to non-hardcore players with the skins, stories, and community events.

      Hell, there's a reason Riot hasn't done IRL give aways through sponsors in a long time and it's because every time they do, the fans pretty much destroy whatever website or product has the freebies. People were stealing codes from magazines when they had a skin give away years back. Razor did a rune give away and couldn't handle the volume of traffic at all. Coke had Riot Points (the pay-for in game currency, as opposed to Influence Points which you can earn in game) in Coke Rewards for about a day and they ran out of stock instantly. Diabetes rates would skyrocket if Riot put skin codes underneath some bottle caps. There's a very strong and eager market willing to keep these games running, and the game companies have been surprisingly reserved about doling out sponsorship deals and advertisements.

      Though I'd personally argue they're too into the whole fan-zine stuff with their characters, having seen how riled up people get over lore events instead of patch notes kind of tells me that Riot knows how to meet their audiences' expectations.

      I will agree that the Joe Average probably won't tune in unless Joe Average already plays the game being streamed. DotA and League just have a bit too much going on to really follow well without knowing more than just the core rules of the game. However, this isn't going to kill off the events and the potential in these games because honestly, the audience that exist is absolutely rabid for pretty much everything related to the game.

    4. Re:Invasion of the suits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, are you talking about e-sports, or Linux?

    5. Re:Invasion of the suits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DotA and League

      ...Are pretty much it.

      Every other company, including Blizzard, has looked at these two, said "me too!", half-assed cloned mechanics, and come up with a stinking pile of fail.

      I'm sure someone out there can develop a game purposely for lolesports, but it isn't any company currently known in the industry.

    6. Re:Invasion of the suits by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      However, this isn't going to kill off the events and the potential in these games because honestly, the audience that exist is absolutely rabid for pretty much everything related to the game.

      Why? I don't understand why people are so intensely into LoL

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. Not a surprise by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    MLG hasn't succeeded as well as they'd hoped, and Blizzard really, really wants esports to take off, and are willing to put serious resources into it.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Not a surprise by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Blizzard's not exactly built themselves the best track record when it comes to arranging their own tournament, the Starcraft II WCS. For example, one year, Blizzard arrogantly decided to have ALL the regional finals during the same weekend, which also happened to be the week that the biggest DotA 2 event in the world took place, The International. I'll let Totalbiscuits, a well-known person from the Starcraft II scene, including as a team owner affected by Blizzard's decision, words illustrate how happy many in the scene were with Blizzard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    2. Re:Not a surprise by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      tbh I think Blizzard is trying to reduce the number of tournaments. A lot of people feel like there were just too many, thus they didn't matter. Fewer tournaments would bring in the hype more. Or something.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Not a surprise by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Not really, they just wanted the WCS to be the central point. However, it was not competently managed. And you can sort of see the after-effects nowadays. Homestory Cup finals ran just after Legacy of the Void was released, and the finals had less viewers than the random streaming from CSGO players had in aggregate, and Homestory Cup isn't exactly a small no-name tournament. In fact, I think they may have attracted more viewers than WCS did this year.

    4. Re:Not a surprise by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok, so what do you think Blizzard should do to increase viewership?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Added jiggly tits, asses, and Bill Cosby raping little boys. I'd watch the hell out of that shit.

    6. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to focus more on MLG videos where Pingu no-scopes his parents

      MLG Pingu

    7. Re:Not a surprise by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      The question isn't what I would do, it's what I COULD do to turn it around. But I'd start by adding a system similar to Dota 2's Compendium. Cynical marketing move, sure, but it does evidently help to get people interested. More timely responese to balance issues also.

    8. Re: Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Cosby raping little boys. I'd watch the hell out of that shit.

      I'm sure you would.

    9. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is well known yes. Mostly for being one of those persons that never admits when they are wrong.
      Do you know what happens when people doesn't correct themselves when they are wrong? They tend to base their next idea of something incorrect.

      I've stopped listening to Totalbiscuits rants. They are never worth the time.

    10. Re:Not a surprise by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      I doubt that one scheduling decision had much of an impact on anything. I don't know how to gauge the overlap in the audience of SC2 and DOTA2, but my guess is that it's rather small. LOL and DOTA2 may be fungible products, but SC2 is an entirely different beast, for a very different audience (that isn't growing right now). I would love this buyout if it meant that SC2 will return to MLG, because it's the only esport that I care about. I'm just not sure how committed Blizzard are to SC2, now that it's clear there will be no new expansions and the game is basically set loose to naturally coast to a stop. It's a game with a business model designed around box sales, not in-game purchases, and there will be no new boxes of SC2-anything, so investing in SC2 hype may not have payoffs for Blizzard. Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm might be the future they care about. I hope not. I watch ever major SC2 tournament (and some minor ones), but I have zero interest in any other esport.

    11. Re:Not a surprise by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      The overlap in viewership is pretty large. Hell, Team Liquid had to split Dota2 coverage over to a website of its own, because it overshaded the SC2 coverage on the main Team Liquid site.

      Totalbiscuit, as a team sponsor and a professional SC2 caster seriously watched TI3 when his own players didn't play matches in the WCS regional finals. That tells you about the overlap.

    12. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor at designing their own game. If they weren't going to make Starcraft 2 a viable PvP game, they should have released new singleplayer campaigns and just updated the engine while maintaining Starcraft as Starcraft.

      The result of David Kim's Starcraft 2 is that people have tuned out and Koreans are still playing the original Starcraft.

    13. Re:Not a surprise by Woldscum · · Score: 1

      Blizzard is dying. WOW is almost a dead game compared to what it used to be. Starcraft is on life support as an Esport soon to die. HOS (LOL ripoff) is a huge flop compared to LOL. Overwatch (TF2 ripoff) will be a flop as an Esport. Diablo still has a fanbase. Hearthstone is the only healthy and growing game/community/Esport Blizzard has.

    14. Re:Not a surprise by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm just not sure how committed Blizzard are to SC2

      Committed. They just increased the amount of money they are going to spend on pro Starcraft this year.

      now that it's clear there will be no new expansions

      Another expansion is already being planned, based on the back story of Nova.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Not a surprise by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If they weren't going to make Starcraft 2 a viable PvP game,

      PvP is balanced. They are the same race!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can buy the whole thing for $46 mil., it kind of puts it into perspective how small the whole professional gaming thing really is.

  5. MLG has provided us with some remarkable culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope these delicate flowers of wonder will not be lost to the ravages of time and copyright:

    MLG Thomas the Dank Engine
    MLG Teletubbies m8

    To watch is to love.

  6. Re:E-sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU are the joke, m8.

    Dank Engine w lyrics

  7. Cool, i've been waiting for this day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right up there with PGL. and the others

  8. Welcome to Forbes by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 2

    Hi again. Looks like youâ(TM)re still using an ad blocker. Please turn it off in order to continue into Forbesâ(TM) ad-light experience.
     
    I guess it's not ad-light then.

    Oh well, I didn't need to read that after all.

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    1. Re:Welcome to Forbes by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Forbes is clearly paying Slashdot for placement, because they reliably have the shittiest article on every subject we discuss here with a link from them. Brace yourself, more Forbes links are coming

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. And the lawsuits by tepples · · Score: 2

    And not just "suits" as in executives who traditionally wear business suits. It can also mean lawsuits if Activision starts using the copyright in its games to take down streams of rival leagues. At least Capcom,[1] Nintendo,[1] and Sega[2] have been known to use copyright against fan videos and streams, and Activision had a TV rights dispute with KeSPA a few years back.

    [1] Kyle Orland
    [2] Tony Ponce
    [3] Wikipedia

    1. Re:And the lawsuits by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that it sucks, but exclusive streaming rights for a major league competition might be why Activision was willing to make this deal despite MLG's debt.

    2. Re:And the lawsuits by tepples · · Score: 1

      Which incidentally I see as one thing keeping e-sports from reaching the same prestige as traditional sports any time soon. Nobody has the exclusive right to stream basketball matches, for example.

    3. Re:And the lawsuits by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Which incidentally I see as one thing keeping e-sports from reaching the same prestige as traditional sports any time soon. Nobody has the exclusive right to stream basketball matches, for example.

      I don't think I can agree completely. You may be right for re-broadcasted pro sporting events, but there's a huge market for streaming rights live pro sports. Some might even say that the biggest business challenge to pro/college sport leagues, and sports media networks right now is how to handle live streaming of pro sports with the consumer shift towards streaming.

  10. Re:MLG has provided us with some remarkable cultur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To watch is to love.

    Attack of the Noscopers 1984-style
    Major League Can Can
    How 2 Montage

  11. Re:MLG has provided us with some remarkable cultur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thx m8, with decent folk like you championing its cause, MLG will live in our hearts 4EVA

  12. Other publishers' games by DrHyde · · Score: 1

    > Others note with skepticism the idea of a game publisher buying an e-sports league, which could lead to concerns about how games from other publishers are treated.

    What's the problem? It doesn't matter that a chess tournament doesn't include a bit of Scrabble, or that the FA Cup doesn't include baseball.

    I presume that people compete by playing Call Of Grand Theft Warcraft 97 against each other, and you don't have one person playing Call Of Grand Theft Warcraft 97, one playing Minesweeper, and one playing Doom 2, so why does it matter. And if other publishers feel left out they can start leagues for their own games.

  13. NL/AL, NFL/AAFC/AFL, NBL/BAA/ABA by tepples · · Score: 1

    You may be right for re-broadcasted pro sporting events, but there's a huge market for streaming rights live pro sports.

    Even if a particular streaming provider has exclusive rights to the live events of a particular league, no league has a monopoly on a sport. Pro baseball had the National League and American League competing until they officially merged into Major League Baseball. Pro American football had the NFL competing at various times with the AAFC and AFL until they merged, with the short-lived USFL and XFL also making appearances. Pro basketball had the NBL absorb two other competing leagues (BAA and ABA) to form the NBA. And in each case, the pro league(s) competed with the NCAA for viewers.

    But with e-sports, a game's publisher can use copyright to make all other leagues illegal.

    1. Re:NL/AL, NFL/AAFC/AFL, NBL/BAA/ABA by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Ok. Before I thought you were only referring to streaming rights, but now I understand how you meant to relate it to league to league competition.