This article was originally published on GameSpot's sister site onGamers.com, which was dedicated to esports coverage.

　　On December 4th 2013, onGamers broke the story on how LCS players were, at the time, restricted from streaming or advertising a multitude of items. Some of these prohibitions were reasonable. Players were not permitted to stream anything pertaining to gambling, drugs, pornography or tobacco. Others? Somewhat less so. According to the "Sponsorship and Streaming Restricted List" in a leaked section of a 2014 League of Legends Championships Series contract, members of current LCS teams were disallowed from streaming or advertising games like Dota 2, Hearthstone, World of Warcraft, Awesomenauts and even Fat Princess.

　　The Internet, appropriately enough, rioted.

　　As of last Friday, thanks to public outcry, Riot Games has retracted their initial streaming policies. In a contritely diplomatic statement on the League of Legends subreddit, Riot Games' Director of esports Whalen Rozelle offered an olive branch to the community at large:

　　After reading all of your comments and having a LOT of internal debate over the last 24 hours, we’re going to be changing the LCS team requirement to something that more closely matches our intent. While under contract to the LCS, teams and players can’t accept sponsorship from other game companies to promote other titles. Besides that, they are free to stream any games they want.

　　I'll be hanging around to answer questions if you guys have any. Thanks for helping us make a better decision on this.

　　With the dust settling over the recent controversy, the question needs to be asked: was what Riot Games did so reprehensible or was their only mistake being the first to fire?

　　Upon first read, it might seem like the "Sponsorship and Streaming Restricted List" was a shotgun blast at the competition. Games like Dota 2 and Heroes of Newerth sat beside more seemingly arbitrary selections like Fat Princess and the long-defunct Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes. Arguments were raised against the obscurity of some of the games listed. Zynga's Solstice Arena earned shrugs, Aeria Games' Realm of the Titans looks of bewilderment. But outside of Riot Games' would-be banning of Blizzard and Wargaming.Net properties, the rest made sense. Every other game in the line-up is derivative of the inaugural Defense of the Ancients mod and that automatically positions them as threats to Riot Games' agenda.

　　Even if the idea of Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes being raised from the dead to serve as League of Legends' executioner might seem flat-out ludicrous, video game necromancy isn't completely outside the realm of possibility. Precedents in the shape of Hellgate: London and All-Points Bulletin exist.

　　Consequently, it feels like what Riot Games wanted was to cover their bases. But why? Some naysayers were quick to use the Giants and Yankees rivalry as an example of competing teams co-existing and to point out that Riot Games' policy was equatable to asking Lebron James to quit his amateur flag football league. Similar protests were made in regards to the restriction on alcohol, smoking, guns and so forth.

　　The last is easiest to explain. League of Legends isn't just a game for adults. According to informal polls, a large amount of the game's demographic are below legal age. If these surveys are to be believed, there's also a surprising number of Summoners under thirteen. Given mainstream media's penchant for villainizing video games, it stands to reason that Riot Games may want to avoid being accused of promoting illegal material to the underaged. A streamer might be lighting up a cigar of their own volition but that doesn't change the fact it may be intentionally taken as tacit endorsement from Riot Games. It might be a long shot but it's still a bullet in an unknown gun.

　　Or, you know, they could be attempting to minimize substance-related shenanigans.

　　The sprawling list of prohibited games presents a more complex story. On the most basic level, Riot Games was probably trying to prevent other companies from capitalizing on the popularity of its LCS teams, an unsurprising decision given that developers such as Hi-Rez Studios and Turbine have leveraged League of Legends players to promote their games in various capacities. Money talks. As ridiculous as randomly abandoning League of Legends might seem to its most devoted fans, it may be good to remember that Riot Games' flagship product featured 32 million monthly registered users in 2012. Conservatively speaking, at least half of that number could be easily swayed to pursue another game. And given the audaciously low amounts many pro-gamers are currently being paid, it's not far-fetched to imagine them doing everything they can to fully profit from a new income source.

　　Which brings me to the crux of the argument. Riot Games' initial decision was, by any definition of the phrase, ham-handed and possibly also an infringement on player rights. But it seems to be operating on the understanding that games like League of Legends are not flippant pursuits; they're time-sinks built on hours and hours of personal investment. Unlike the Mets fan who suddenly finds themselves interested enough in the Yankees to start attending playoffs or the Random Joe who begins favoring Nike over Reebok due to an allegiance to their favorite athlete, the League of Legends player turned Dota 2 convert is going to spend more than just a handful of weekends on their new passion. Under most circumstances, the inclusion of a second game in the picture wouldn't be a big deal. Many balance their Mario habits with their League of Legends pursuits just fine. But the thing about MOBA games is the fact they demand a player's complete attention. If a League of Legends fan, one who has already invested considerable amounts of time and money into the game, finds themselves inclined towards moving to a rival title, chances are it was neither an idle decision nor a reversible one.

　　What is good for esports is not necessarily what is best for Riot Games and that's where the problem lies. In an ideal world, each and every corporation and individual would be working together to develop an utopian esports scene, filled with competitive salaries and enough diversity to satisfy the growing crowds. But the truth about businesses is they are ultimately self-serving. Though the public may demand more of them, corporations are only really responsible to one entity: the profit margin. To abuse a tired old adage, esports is growing. More critically, its potential as a money-making machine is growing. And companies are going to want to do what they can to protect their interest especially since each customer represents a permanent revenue source.

　　In the eyes of the public Riot Games may have overstepped their jurisdiction but this is not going to be the last attempt from someone at controlling the market. In the future, as the industry expands in terms of profitability, we're likely to see companies imposing subtler but no less restrictive exclusivity clauses on their players. Whether the community, built as it is on a platform that exemplifies free speech, is going to allow for it to happen is another thing entirely. Things may change. But for now, we're going to have to contend with the fact that was just business, that Riot Games' somewhat indelicate conduct is not evil but representative of the other side of legitimacy.