I've got what you want, Riot. ANOTHER way to make money! Come inside...

Barkley·Jan 3, 2018·58 votes·2,920 views

Premium subscription option for live, full-control spectator mode of LCS games.

$0.99 per game, $9.99 per day, $19.99 for a split pass (all games for a split), $39.99 for the season.

Watch the game live with standard commentary as per usual, but allow the user full control of the camera and all the spectator options. (slow mo, rewind, fast forward, focus on one player, etc.)

The caster commentary would follow along with the game's timeline, so you'd hear what's going on as its happening. If you rewind, obviously you hear the same commentary again. Slow mo results in slow commentary, etc.

The meat and potatoes, the real point of it all would be the ability to direct and control the camera. You wanna see what Bjergsen does, minute by minute? Fix your camera on him. You wanna watch the bot lane the whole game? Hover your camera over bot lane.

CMON riot, you know you wanna make more money. We all know you wanna make more money. LET US CONTROL THE CAMERA FOR LCS GAMES!

55 Comments

Z3SleeperJan 3, 20189 votes

I could see them allowing players to spectate while routing the audio from commentary to the game itself but to have the game and outside audio be part of the same system during a live match so that you can skip time to specific parts of the game and hear the commentary for it is probably just plain impossible.

ŚhunpoJan 3, 201828 votes

DOTA has this feature FOR FREE!

hoyohaiJan 3, 20182 votes

You seem to hate this game. Why don't you go play DOTA instead of LoL? I'm confused to why you haven't moved

SwarovskoJan 3, 201816 votes

Comments like this are the reason the goverment is trying to remove net neutrality.

BarkleyJan 3, 20185 votes

"Trying?"

ADC5LUTJan 3, 20184 votes

They're EU, their government isn't completely corrupt and morally bankrupt..

ThrillØfTheHuntJan 3, 20182 votes

Net Neutrality isn't a good thing tho, educate yourself and you'll realise the truth.

IrokaiserJan 4, 201810 votes

https://media.giphy.com/media/ac7MA7r5IMYda/giphy.gif

HalcyonDwellerJan 4, 20185 votes

{quoted}

Net Neutrality isn't a good thing tho, educate yourself and you'll realise the truth.

Net neutrality existed for very important reasons it was only reclassified during the Obama era because it wasn't doing it's job well enough under its old classification, the complete removal of it is going to fuck things up because it will no longer protect people and businesses from fuckery by the ISPs.

But this is off topic for this thread so hush.

OxyrottenJan 4, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Net neutrality existed for very important reasons it was only reclassified during the Obama era because it wasn't doing it's job well enough under its old classification, the complete removal of it is going to fuck things up because it will no longer protect people and businesses from fuckery by the ISPs.

But this is off topic for this thread so hush.

There's so much more bad that people don't realize though.

Censorship rights, Freedom of speech, Right to congregate, Anonymity, Freedom of information, Intellectual property rights, Mass communication rights, Freedom of the press, Digital borders, Right to travel, Control of information, Control of media, shit it can go so far as mind control even (I'd have to explain that one)..

Losing net neutrality is the another first step towards a totalitarian government.

HalcyonDwellerJan 4, 20181 votes

{quoted}

There's so much more bad that people don't realize though.

Censorship rights, Freedom of speech, Right to congregate, Anonymity, Freedom of information, Intellectual property rights, Mass communication rights, Freedom of the press, Digital borders, Right to travel, Control of information, Control of media, shit it can go so far as mind control even (I'd have to explain that one)..

Losing net neutrality is the another first step towards a totalitarian government.

We don't need to make slippery slope fallacies to explain why removing net neutrality was bad.

Getting rid of it was bad because it was one of the few things standing in between ISPs and their desire to fuck everyone else out of their money without providing any better internet service in return.

OxyrottenJan 4, 20181 votes

{quoted}

We don't need to make slippery slope fallacies to explain why removing net neutrality was bad.

Getting rid of it was bad because it was one of the few things standing in between ISPs and their desire to fuck everyone else out of their money without providing any better internet service in return.

You can call it a fallacy all you want, but a slippery slope is exactly what it is.

And with freedom and rights on the line can we really afford not to call it what it is?

Consider the importance of the postal system, it's impact on wars, distribution and freedom of information, communication, rights, and ultimately freedom. Then consider how the internet is exponentially larger and allows for greater potential.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." - Wendell Phillips

HalcyonDwellerJan 4, 20181 votes

{quoted}

You can call it a fallacy all you want, but a slippery slope is exactly what it is.

And with freedom and rights on the line can we really afford not to call it what it is?

Consider the importance of the postal system, it's impact on wars, distribution and freedom of information, communication, rights, and ultimately freedom. Then consider how the internet is exponentially larger and allows for greater potential.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." - Wendell Phillips

I agree that eternal vigilance is of importance. But this issue has little to do with totalitarian government, and more to do with corporations being granted freedom to do what they want with their customers and the web services those customers use, to the detriment of those customers and web services.

tldr; it's less of a government issue and more of a corporate greed issue.

OxyrottenJan 4, 20181 votes

{quoted}

I agree that eternal vigilance is of importance. But this issue has little to do with totalitarian government, and more to do with corporations being granted freedom to do what they want with their customers and the web services those customers use, to the detriment of those customers and web services.

tldr; it's less of a government issue and more of a corporate greed issue.

So then what are those web services and what will these corporate entities do to them?

We have all heard the fastlane argument and not far beyond that is selective services. But what does selective services entail? If your paying for access to Facebook only or Facebook and youtube, does that not exclude access to the millions of other websites? Would these websites not have to be reviewed and then censored based on content (from a corporate point of view it would be profitability)? The same day net neutrality got repealed comcast and a number of other ISP's (who previously had in writing that they would fight for digital rights and would not censor traffic based on content), the same day they took down their signed promise not to filter content and started filtering file sharing protocols. The same day. Protocols they signed and swore they would not filter.

We already know Comcast has considerable interest in the democratic party. They own half the lobbyists in DC, they own NBC and Time Warner, they dump billions into the DNC. NBC already censor's politics based on their bias (so do Fox, CNN and the right-wing, don't take this as a political statement). Is it really that far fetched that Comcast would use it power to dictate what websites, services, and content to exert a political bias? They are already doing it through NBC, and Comcast already controls 1/3rd of the internet in America.

That is just one example, saying that corporate interests and governmental issues don't cross is foolhardy at best (no offense, this is just a dangerous topic).

We have already seen internet censorship take off in other countries. China erected a digital border, they are no longer allowed to access sites or services outside of China that aren't pre-approved by the government. China also just removed anonymity, requiring internet users to register their identity for online monitoring (something protected by net neutrality). Egypt is another example of the ISP's providing the government with total control of information and control of information dissemenination. Iran is another example of the government using ISP's to control the population. Ukraine another. Protester's in Sudan were identified by monitored internet usage, and subsequently executed. This all seems extreme sure, until you realize that part of net neutrality was intended to protect the American population from exactly this. Net neutrality provided privacy rights preventing US citizens from being identified through internet monitoring. Now that is gone. In fact Google was sued by the federal government for violating those privacy rights (protected by net neutrality) but I will touch on that below.

"But Oxy none of this matter's the public only uses FB and YT anyway." Sure except both have been found to exert their own censorship and biases to influence their viewers. YT leans left and removes right wing content already (again an example, idc about right vs left). FB has even admitted to performing mind control tests, including testing their ability to control votes at election time, and several others. In addition FB has "alleged" ties to US intelligence agencies, what's not alleged however is these intelligence agencies coming to FB's aid in court for no explanable reason. CIA owned In-Q-Tel already invests in social media companies as well as openly collects data from them. Google has similar alleged ties, and yet again intelligence agencies have shut down investigations into google, and again bailed google out in court by just outright shutting down court cases (curiously these court cases involved google illegally collecting data for an unknown partner by identifying internet users through it's google drive and google maps program). And now google is pushing to become one of the ISP's that would be allowed to control what information is available online? But this is out of the scope of the conversation so I digress..

TLDR: Still think that corporate greed and government control don't go hand in hand? I know I got long winded and some of this is extreme and lacks the correlation that you like so much, but the fact is net neutrality protected far more than just corporate greed, it included a number of other protections such as data collection, privacy, and the list of rights I put in my original message. These civil rights are now gone. That is fact. But for some reason the only thing the news discusses is "You will have to pay more" or "Your internet will be slower". With these rights taken away can we really afford not to be concerned with the worst case scenario?

HalcyonDwellerJan 5, 20181 votes

{quoted}

So then what are those web services and what will these corporate entities do to them?

Businesses for starters, and alternative services to the main ones. But also the end consumers. The ISP's will charge more for individual services because now they can differentiate them instead of simply charging users a flat rate for their rate of use. Additionally the ISPs will offer (at best) or charge (at worst) web services to avoid reduced bandwidth to their customers. For example, streaming services or file sharing services will be throttled or blocked unless the streaming service is willing to pay the ISP a "fast-lane fee" and then the streaming service will have to increase their rates for their customers to make up the cost, so really the cost will affect end consumers right on through the services they use.

We have all heard the fastlane argument and not far beyond that is selective services. But what does selective services entail? If your paying for access to Facebook only or Facebook and youtube, does that not exclude access to the millions of other websites? Would these websites not have to be reviewed and then censored based on content (from a corporate point of view it would be profitability)? The same day net neutrality got repealed comcast and a number of other ISP's (who previously had in writing that they would fight for digital rights and would not censor traffic based on content), the same day they took down their signed promise not to filter content and started filtering file sharing protocols. The same day. Protocols they signed and swore they would not filter.

We already know Comcast has considerable interest in the democratic party. They own half the lobbyists in DC, they own NBC and Time Warner, they dump billions into the DNC. NBC already censor's politics based on their bias (so do Fox, CNN and the right-wing, don't take this as a political statement). Is it really that far fetched that Comcast would use it power to dictate what websites, services, and content to exert a political bias? They are already doing it through NBC, and Comcast already controls 1/3rd of the internet in America.

Selective services is not difficult to implement, it is quite easy to simply whitelist the services (or categories of services) that your users have paid for, while blocking them from others. And the other problem is that ISPs then have the power to throttle some service providers but not others, so for example NPR may not be able to afford the "fast-lane fees" while Fox News could afford it, so this leads to a political bias merely from the matter of which news providers are more convenient to access. So yes I understand and agree that this leads to political issues as well.

And I'm not surprised that they took down those promises. Comcast and AT&T and other big ISPs poured tons of money into lobbying for the removal of Net Neutrality protections. They were so two-faced about the whole thing that it makes me sick.

That is just one example, saying that corporate interests and governmental issues don't cross is foolhardy at best (no offense, this is just a dangerous topic).

I understand, no offense taken. I actually really appreciate your style of argument, you're polite enough to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings for the most part at least, but you are also blunt enough to talk straight about issues.

We have already seen internet censorship take off in other countries. China erected a digital border, they are no longer allowed to access sites or services outside of China that aren't pre-approved by the government. China also just removed anonymity, requiring internet users to register their identity for online monitoring (something protected by net neutrality). Egypt is another example of the ISP's providing the government with total control of information and control of information dissemenination. Iran is another example of the government using ISP's to control the population. Ukraine another. Protester's in Sudan were identified by monitored internet usage, and subsequently executed. This all seems extreme sure, until you realize that part of net neutrality was intended to protect the American population from exactly this. Net neutrality provided privacy rights preventing US citizens from being identified through internet monitoring. Now that is gone. In fact Google was sued by the federal government for violating those privacy rights (protected by net neutrality) but I will touch on that below.

Aye, privacy is a larger issue though, and there are additional ruels in place (at least I thought there were) to protect Americans' privacy.

"But Oxy none of this matter's the public only uses FB and YT anyway." Sure except both have been found to exert their own censorship and biases to influence their viewers. YT leans left and removes right wing content already (again an example, idc about right vs left). FB has even admitted to performing mind control tests, including testing their ability to control votes at election time, and several others. In addition FB has "alleged" ties to US intelligence agencies, what's not alleged however is these intelligence agencies coming to FB's aid in court for no explanable reason. CIA owned In-Q-Tel already invests in social media companies as well as openly collects data from them. Google has similar alleged ties, and yet again intelligence agencies have shut down investigations into google, and again bailed google out in court by just outright shutting down court cases (curiously these court cases involved google illegally collecting data for an unknown partner by identifying internet users through it's google drive and google maps program). And now google is pushing to become one of the ISP's that would be allowed to control what information is available online? But this is out of the scope of the conversation so I digress..

I do find it suspicious if such court cases were dismissed seemingly for no reason. But also I have a bit more faith in google about this issue. They were one of the few corporate entities that actually lobbied - with their money - for Net Neutrality and it's Title 2 categorization to stay enacted.

TLDR: Still think that corporate greed and government control don't go hand in hand? I know I got long winded and some of this is extreme and lacks the correlation that you like so much, but the fact is net neutrality protected far more than just corporate greed, it included a number of other protections such as data collection, privacy, and the list of rights I put in my original message. These civil rights are now gone. That is fact. But for some reason the only thing the news discusses is "You will have to pay more" or "Your internet will be slower". With these rights taken away can we really afford not to be concerned with the worst case scenario?

I understand that these things are connected, but are the rights really gone? I was under the impression that they were protected under other laws and policies as well.

OxyrottenJan 5, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Ran out of room, deleting for space.

This equates to discrimination of content. Or rather selective approval of what can be accessed. That is wrong on so many levels. Censorship or removal of content is defined as "an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group." and has to be approved by the American Library Association. By putting that power in the hands of a corporate entity you are removing the objections part and putting the power in the hands of unknown individuals behind closed doors with no transparency or oversight.

deleted for space

So if you agree they are two faced then how can you trust them at face value when they say this is only about what we can charge customers? Do you find it strange that as soon as net neutrality was repealed, politicians who receive campaign contributions and have other associated ties with these companies, immediately stepped forward and said we will not stand for this we will fight to get net neutrality back, "But only the parts of net neutrality that pertain to cost, but nobody mention the rest of the CIVIL RIGHTS that net neutrality included" (<- paraphrased). Also you mentioned NPR having a cost barrier, but your forgetting corporate bias. Comcast no longer has anything saying it has to provide NPR service *at all it is now completely discretionary.

Aye, privacy is a larger issue though, and there are additional ruels in place (at least I thought there were) to protect Americans' privacy.

There are, however when it comes to digital rights, these laws and regulations are extremely vague and sketchy at best. We as a society have not had this technology very long, it is rather new (in a timeline of rights and liberties, as well as technology). We don't understand the technology, let alone the impact that the technology has on society and civil order and development. The government especially has a very limited understanding of these implications. The laws that have been put in place are few and very open to interpretation in comparison with the rest of legal jurisdiction. For the most part privacy and protection of civil rights when it comes to technology have only come about from court cases, thus bringing around regulations and compliances such as HIPAA, Sarbanes Oxley, Graham Leach Bliley, FISMA. This is natural development of law, but the point is we are in the infancy of regulating and protecting digital rights. Net neutrality was one of these, and was a set of rules. No one seems to want to say set of rules in the media for some reason.

Aside from it's direct duties, net neutrality also has implied duties. Allowing corporate entities to be the gatekeepers of the world wide web (as well as the internet, important difference to note) gives them the capability to select what websites are accessible. We aren't talking about pay x and you get fb and youtube, pay y and you get the rest. We are talking about pay y and you get whatever websites Comcast chooses. What about all the thousands of angelfire/geocities (pulling this example off the top of my head, bear with me) websites that are leftover from the 90's? Those websites would be hard to find profitable to allocate bandwidth or infrastructure or other resources to. So does that mean all the intellectual property (potentially) contained on those sites are protected? No, innaccessible because it doesn't suite the interests of a corporate committee. We then have domain providers and webhosts coming to Comcast to bid for accessibility, not only in general but also now in cost tier. What happens to the thousands of privately hosted sites and services? There's no way they can compete to have their content or services accessible, and as far as bandwidth is concerned do you really think without protection of filtering based on protocol type (type of connection, read: type of content or services, ie: website or voice chat) how long before comcast is throttling access to their privately hosted sites because of payment restrictions they can now put in place? Cost based barrier of entry aside, your also assuming comcast will find their content relevant, since comcast (just using comcast as an easy example) now can pick and choose what content gets seen at their discretion. It's not too far fetched to assume (yeah, yeah I know assumptions) that ISP's will start issuing their own web browsers that no longer has an address bar, it just has a menu of choices. Sure the more tech savvy can bypass that, but wait oh no we can't because net neutrality is gone and comcast can just throttle anything not going through their selective service (per plan, or per policy <- the dangerous one as it can include anything). When I speak of throttling I don't just mean slow lane, I mean like they have done with torrent protocols drop the filtered speed down to 0.1kbps (too small to function at all).

I do find it suspicious if such court cases were dismissed seemingly for no reason. But also I have a bit more faith in google about this issue. They were one of the few corporate entities that actually lobbied - with their money - for Net Neutrality and it's Title 2 categorization to stay enacted.

Well I went off on a tangent in regards to google I suppose. They are pushing to break into the ISP game, but I have my own issues with google's interests that perhaps I projected onto the topic and scope at hand. But this kind of ties into other points I was making. Google fights for many digital rights and issues, this is true. However their motivations in this is not known, additionally they often put contradictory actions into practice. Example, google has strongly advocated for privacy rights, namely that collected data should not be publicly disclosed (in this case at the governments request). Meaning they don't want the government to be able to request private user data for review (this came up a lot during the snowden events). Sounds good doesn't it? Google's fighting the big bad government that wants to spy on it's citizens. Until we look at the motivations. The reason being for their advocacy in privacy rights, is because they SELL that same data to not only the government but also private/public entities. They were protecting their own interests (profit) by advocating for privacy rights. I can speak to "alleged" connections, and court cases that were dismissed because google was breaking federal (privacy) laws with government permission. I can even speak to how google has taken over DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (the number one government funded military R&D tech agency), buying out their contracts and stealing all their researchers. I could even talk about how google has created the worlds largest intelligence (in the military sense of the word) database that rivals the CIA/NSA/FBI databases. I could even speak to how google on a daily basis violates privacy rights of millions of American's, not only online but physically as well, and how that somehow gets overlooked by the governing agencies responsible for monitoring them. But that would be me drawing my own correlations without causality.

I understand that these things are connected, but are the rights really gone? I was under the impression that they were protected under other laws and policies as well.

Not counting what I spoke to above, the short answer is yes and no. The other protections in place don't encompass the entirety of what they necessarily should. It is incredibly hard to get legislation passed in regards to digital rights, politicians don't understand the issues so they just don't want to deal with it (for lack of a better explanation). Privacy especially is a huge issue, yet has stupidly little classification on what is actually protected. There are a number of reasons for this beyond "nobody wants to deal with it" or "nobody understands it", one of the reasons is we don't have a clear definition of what should be "expected privacy" and what is really considered public domain (pretty much everything on the WWW is hosted on privately owned property). We have come a long ways in these matters but we are still no where near where we should or need to be. Net neutrality for example covered data collection rights (pretty hot topic recently, coincidental that it now gets repealed? Maybe.) that we have been discussing earlier. What FB and Google advocated against (to protect their monopoly on, and profits from data collection) ISP's can now do en masse. Think about it for a minute, we have to go to FB and give it our info, we have to go to google (not really but that's another topic), but ISP's can now collect EVERYTHING, encryption helps (but that's whole other topic, in response to net neutrality's implementation us intelligence agencies penned a couple of acts that basically let them do everything we made a fuss about in regards to snowden, CISA/CISPA) but the government has also advocated for a loosening of encryption standards, specifically how they apply to ISP's. But that brings up another topic, monopolies, net neutrality also protected against monopolization of internet resources. Anyway back to the point, there are laws and regulations that still protect specific parts of these rights, but they are selective as the laws came about from specific court cases. I'm out of room so I'll stop ranting and raving.

PS: Google is skynet.

TeCoolMageJan 4, 20184 votes

I understand some of the good things that'll happen without net neutrality if there's competition, people will just leave for another company if they're charged extra, but to free the market you have to topple the monopoly first (otherwise you choose between a reliable service that screws you over or a dying business that's screwed over..), which clearly isn't happening.

Maybe in the future net neutrality won't be good, but right now it's what everyone needs

OxyrottenJan 4, 20181 votes

{quoted}

I understand some of the good things that'll happen without net neutrality if there's competition, people will just leave for another company if they're charged extra, but to free the market you have to topple the monopoly first (otherwise you choose between a reliable service that screws you over or a dying business that's screwed over..), which clearly isn't happening.

Maybe in the future net neutrality won't be good, but right now it's what everyone needs

There's so much more bad that people don't realize though.

Losing net neutrality is the another first step towards a totalitarian government.

ZakughostJan 4, 20181 votes

{quoted}

There's so much more bad that people don't realize though.

Censorship rights, Freedom of speech, Right to congregate, Anonymity, Freedom of information, Intellectual property rights, Mass communication rights, Freedom of the press, Digital borders, Right to travel, Control of information, Control of media, shit it can go so far as mind control even (I'd have to explain that one)..

Losing net neutrality is the another first step towards a totalitarian government.

So taking away gov't regulation and control over the internet will lead to the gov't having more power? Somehow?

OxyrottenJan 4, 20181 votes

{quoted}

So taking away gov't regulation and control over the internet will lead to the gov't having more power? Somehow?

Yes, because part of that regulation told the government what they could not do.

We have already seen this in violation of privacy rights, example the snowden case. (Although I won't get into that for fear of being toxic)

KoutetsujôJan 3, 20185 votes

But dota is not made by rEAot games buddy

DeadlíestJan 4, 20182 votes

just a comparision of whats dota doing better then league, dont take offense ive never played dota and never will

PinkajJan 3, 20181 votes

{quoted}

DOTA has this feature FOR FREE!

RIOTS GOT COMPETITION

Z3SleeperJan 4, 20181 votes

Do they really? That's actually awesome then. Wonder how that even works.

MarshbouyJan 4, 20182 votes

Fun fact, DOTA is not league and they have completely different coding systems.

ŚhunpoJan 4, 20182 votes

While they may have different coding systems we've clearly seen that the League client can easily handle the addition of newer features such as a news bar, lootbox system and multiple gamemodes running at once.

In this context it's a VERY easy implementation to allow players to watch LCS games live with live commentary. However, Riot simply will not do this because greed has consumed them and they'll only implement features if they see financial gain.

KarunamonJan 4, 20181 votes

In that DOTA's is better in pretty much every way? Even just doing a blow-by-blow feature comparison, DOTA does more and implements the things it does a lot more solidly.

From a technical standpoint, LoL is pretty badly outclassed.

warpenguin555Jan 3, 20184 votes

I don't know if i'd buy it, but a good idea none the less

FourVsFiveJan 3, 20182 votes

Maybe then they can stop releasing more champs and balance old unused champs instead. Why do we need 200 champs?

kargishJan 3, 20181 votes

Always this one guy that speaks of Riot as 1 person. They got teams, each one working on different things.

ŻügżwängJan 3, 20182 votes

Nah, riot should double the experience required to level up. That way, we'd get LESS blue essence, forcing us to purchase RP, AND we'd get a sense of accomplishment and pride knowing we worked that much harder to level up.

DivewingJan 3, 20181 votes

you got your pride and accomplishment back to front there friend

RainbowIceeJan 4, 20181 votes

eeerrmmm not convenient. They've made their success selling skins and to sell skins they need people to have the champions. They also want to have the players have a set goal to achieve in this game is getting the champions, they don't wanna make it too hard.

Mama SorakaJan 4, 20182 votes

If this were a true premium service with a dedicated team to ensure it worked better than the twitch/youtube streams do on game day I'd gladly pay for it. As it stand I always just catch vods because the streams don't work well for me.

[sg-poppy]

BarkleyJan 4, 20181 votes

Yeah the twitch streams and the actual stream they put on the lolesports website are pretty awful. I always end up either streaming it on youtube or just catching the VoD later.

ModCaptainMårvelousJan 4, 20182 votes

That seems a bit like nickle/diming.

To use DOTA as a comparison, their passes for tournaments (at least when I played) gave you all the games in that tournament for about 9.99 or so. At around 10-20 games per tournament, you could get quite a bit. Majors, like their version of Worlds, were free iirc. Depending on the tournament, you could also get a skin or a courier.

If this was adapted to league, I'd argue to come in three different "packs":

Team-based: For around $10 or so, you get a 975 team skin and access to all the team's games for the season. Split the cost between Riot and the Team. (50/50? 60/40? IDK)

Region-based: For around $20, you can pick two team skins from that region as well as have access to all games that season for said region.

Season-based: For around $30, you can pick three team skins from ANY region as well as have access to all games from all regions.

Team skins could be purchased separately for the same split. Still, in this pack system:

Specific fans can support/focus on a singular team they like.
You can opt to support a region if you're hardcore NA/EU/CN/etc. fan.
You can go for the season pass and support a variety of teams you like.

BarkleyJan 4, 20181 votes

I just threw some random prices up there. The idea is really all that's important to me. Do what you want with the numbers.

I just wanna be able to control the camera for pro games. Live. As it happens.
I'd obviously prefer that functionality to be free, but this IS Riot Games we're talking about... so the best way I could think of to make the idea appealing was to attach a price tag to it.

The RedEyed XaXaJan 3, 20181 votes

I think this can work maybe a way to make the map larger for people who dont have great eyesight... Correct me if there is already a way guys... But all ups on the idea of the streaming bit..