[HN Gopher] The hype around esports is fading as investors and s... ___________________________________________________________________ The hype around esports is fading as investors and sponsors dry up Author : tmlee Score : 112 points Date : 2022-12-12 14:00 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com) | tacticaldev wrote: | Hasn't this happened before? Reading the History of eSports will | show 'pretty much' the same thing happening in the 80's with High | Score Arcade tournaments, then in the 90's with Console Game | Championships, etc... | | We may see another round of interest when the new wave of gaming | systems matures, but I think this will always be the case. Maybe | next time people will learn from the past? | tarentel wrote: | That's probably the main issue with esports. They don't really | have the longevity established sports do. It's really easy to | just move onto the next big thing. | nitwit005 wrote: | It seems like fewer games are being successful at becoming | competitive esports. Many of the ones people play had their | origins in mods: Counterstrike, Dota, various battle royal mods, | and so forth. | | Companies now often don't want mods, as they interfere with | selling cosmetics, loot boxes, and so on. | thaumasiotes wrote: | Much worse, companies don't want to let you play their game | without being under their direct supervision. Imagine if you | weren't allowed to play soccer outside of a stadium built and | staffed by FIFA. How popular would it be? | api wrote: | Loot boxes. Gaming is all about putting people in a Skinner box | and emptying their wallet now. | Decabytes wrote: | I really feel like Esports should have been built up slowly | around more first principles. Keep the overhead as low as | possible in the beginning. You're just going to be losing money | in the beginning so why not minimize that cost. Pay the players a | liveable wage, and cover their expenses to travel to the venues. | As they become more popular do paid meet and greets with fans. | Raffles for merch as well as other video game paraphenalia | (peripherals, consoles, games, computers etc), and start | acquiring sponsors. Have a promotional Amazon link. Make YouTube | videos documenting the process, and get the adsense. | | The two main goals would be consistent placing at tournaments and | breaking even, then becoming cash flow positive. Slowly increase | player salaries in line with the profits and larger sponsor | ships. | | But that isn't what happened. People started creating the teams | and spending millions on player salaries. This put immense | pressure from the beginning to getting cash flow positive, | placing first in every tournament etc. And now we are seeing the | ramifications of this. | | Don't get me wrong there were other external factors as well. I | wouldn't try to create an esports team around any Nintendo Ip for | example given their track record. And the collapse of OWL due | Blizzard management doesn't help. | karmakurtisaani wrote: | I think the problem with your approach is competition. If you | did as you described, a competitor would see the opportunity | and start their own league, offering bigger salaries to get the | best players. So anyone seriously trying to corner the market | kind of has to go in with the big bucks and hope that | eventually the popularity catches up. | banannaise wrote: | Esports look exactly like the venture capital industries that | propped them up. Lighting money on fire for the sake of scale | was a natural play for them, and arguably the only way they got | those ad/sponsor dollars in the first place. It's not | surprising that they reflect the environment they grew up in. | | But you are correct that now the question becomes who can | create a sustainable model in the ashes of what came before. | Macha wrote: | I think you need to compare the fate of newer e-sports | endeavours like heroes of the storm which were very heavily | inflated by blizzard support, and those that evolved a bit more | from grassroots like starcraft or dota to see what's | sustainable. The starcraft scene has weathered its decline as | blizzard lost interest and while it's shrank to a more | manageable size, is still clearly capable of continuing without | blizzard doing more than not shutting down the game servers | (the SC1 scene, not even requiring that much). While heroes of | the storm collapsed without Blizzard, as will overwatch. | leetcrew wrote: | > I really feel like Esports should have been built up slowly | around more first principles. Keep the overhead as low as | possible in the beginning. You're just going to be losing money | in the beginning so why not minimize that cost. | | that was also tried. on the surface, it looks like eSports has | come out of nowhere, but people have been trying to make the | economics work out for decades now. the earlier attempts looked | a lot more like the scrappy model you are describing. | | disclaimer: this is a counterstrike-centric history bc that's | what I was interested in at the time. I understand the | starcraft (for example) pro scene was a bit more stable. | | CPL was started in 1997, and distributed a mere $3mm in prize | money between then and its 2008 demise. then there was CGS, | which weirdly tried to replicate the American football TV | experience. that league was notable at the time for actually | paying players a salary (though only about $30k iirc). then | things were mostly dormant (in terms of capital investment) | until twitch took off and the game companies themselves took a | more active interest in the scene, leading to the massive prize | pools and tournaments you see today. | | maybe we just haven't hit the right moment for esports to be | economically viable, but to me it seems like something is | fundamentally broken with the idea. it's telling that top | twitch streamers make more money than the world's best | competitive players of that game. imagine a world where ray | lewis in his prime could make more money live streaming random | pickup games and reading donation messages out loud. the NFL | could not exist in that world. | Workaccount2 wrote: | The only game I really see viable as a true nationally broadcast | e-sport is counter-strike. Dead simple concept, intuitive | mechanics even to laypeople, and the meta game can be explained | in 10 minutes. | | Maybe besides COD, everything else is too complex and requires to | much prerequisite knowledge to really get into. I could probably | get my dad to watch counter-strike. He would probably wouldn't go | for valorent. Almost certainly not something like overwatch. And | definitely would never watch something like league or dota. | | Sure, there is money in e-sports catering to the communities that | form around the games, but I think for most games they'll never | reach outside their player community. | kentonv wrote: | I don't know, plenty of "normal" sports have complexity that | most people don't understand. Like, how many people really | understand the batter-pitcher duel in baseball? That's the very | core of the game but most people just see "pitcher throw ball, | batter swing, random result". | ChicagoBoy11 wrote: | During the pandemic real reacecar drivers turned to the | e-version of their sports and there was even some coverage of | mainstream racing channels of those virtual races given they | couldn't do the real thing. | | For anyone who has tried virtual racing (especially with high- | end setups), the level of authenticity of the experience is | actually incredibly high, and racing simulation is even | actively used as part of real life driver training and car | development. I think there's a healthy community in virtual | racing as is and I can easily see continued and growing | investment in it... its an incredibly compelling way to bring | people into the sport and can easily be a revenue generator in | its own right. | yummypaint wrote: | I still think drivers should remotely pilot cars with about | half the mass of the current ones that wouldn't be designed | around protecting an occupant. They could go 300+ mph and | show us a new frontier in human driving skill. All the "too | dangerous" racing technologies would be allowed, and the | track would have loops and crazy features like a video game. | There would be no restrictions on car design aside from size, | weight, a 360 3d camera array, and a standard telemetry | interface. | crooked-v wrote: | In all seriousness, Hot Wheels would probably offer some | premium sponsorships there. | [deleted] | [deleted] | boringg wrote: | E-sports is essentially advertising for computer games. More | people that sub to that the more sales a company can get for | computer games/hardware etc. Same goes for Twitch - yes there | is community that is build aruond that but it is for the | underlying reason of making more sales for the businesses. | yamtaddle wrote: | I only got a small glimpse into this world (specifically, | esports betting), but the thing that makes the most sense to | me is that esports is driven by _gambling_. That 's the | economic engine under the hood. | | Might be wrong, but it kinda looked like that was what was | going on, just from some of the numbers floating around, and | seeing that was the first time esports-as-an-industry made | any sense to me at all, as far as how the economics might | work out. | banannaise wrote: | > E-sports is essentially advertising for computer games. | | No more than live sports are advertising for sports | equipment. The real money in sporting events is in the events | themselves: advertising dollars, gate receipts, and | merchandise. Esports isn't terribly different, except that | the gate receipts and merch sales are much lower. The revenue | of the game itself is secondary, especially since the | publisher rarely plays a major role. | HDThoreaun wrote: | Esports and sports have extremely different revenue models. | The differentiator is that no one 'owns' traditional sport | games. Anyone can make and sell a basketball, but blizzard | has a monopoly on over watch. Sport leagues only indirectly | make money when people play their game, but for esports | it's extremely direct and also easier to measure. | | League of Legends makes multiple billions of dollars a | year, not from esport receipts, but from people buying | content in the game. The NFL doesn't make a dime when you | play football in your backyard. | nerdponx wrote: | Dota is kind of fun to watch even if you're not that well- | educated, but the announcing/casting style needs a serious | overhaul, and general popularity needs a lot of "support" from | good production: information overlays, slow-motion replays, | giving casters the ability to zoom out to a full-map view and | draw arrows, etc. | | Look at hockey, American football, and road cycling for | examples of complicated sports that are somewhat hard to | understand without prior knowledge, and people really enjoy | watching those, too. | TheAceOfHearts wrote: | At one time DotA2 had a noob friendly stream that would | explain what was going on in greater detail, but it's a hard | balancing act. DotA2 allows in game spectating which actually | means you can click in items to figure out what they do. It | would be cool if streaming platforms had embedded item and | hero information for users to be able to expand on demand. | | Complexity is something that affects League and DotA2. It's | hard to know what all the things on screen even mean, and why | they're important. | ericmcer wrote: | Do they have good camera angles for Counter-Strike? Showing the | game through a series of first person perspectives seems like a | waste vs some kind of isometric or even interactive camera. I | also don't really know of a game that has been designed to look | good from the perspective of a spectator instead of just for | the players. | whack24 wrote: | They do. Just as they have professional casters, there are | some talented folks who specialize in smoothly transitioning | to camera angles above, as well as switching first person | views so that you don't miss key kills, etc. | [deleted] | MentallyRetired wrote: | Not Rocket League? The inverse may be true... I became a rocket | league player after watching esports. So while I was outside | the player base, I'm in it now. :) | Workaccount2 wrote: | Yeah, rocket league too. I didn't think of it. Although I'm | iffy on anything with non-reality physics, since people have | to learn a new intuition. | rspeele wrote: | As a longtime FPS player one area of complexity that is easy to | forget is the maps. | | When I play the game, I can learn a new map pretty quickly. | | When I _watch_ a game played on a map I 'm not familiar with, | it takes me much, much longer to develop the same | understanding. It doesn't load into memory the same way. | Similar to remembering the route to a new location as a | passenger vs a driver. | | The broadcast might flip back and forth between two players, | hunting for each other in different parts of the map, and | unless I know it pretty well I could be totally lost until they | actually meet. | | The broadcaster can help by using third person / freecam. But | at the same time, an FPS loses a lot of the tension and visible | skill when combat is viewed from freecam. So finding the right | balance of camera time between individual players' views and an | overhead view is challenging for a broadcaster, far more so | than in traditional sports where we're accustomed to seeing a | wide open field and perhaps some tracking of the ball. | | Edit: | | To give a practical example, I used to dabble in Quake Live. I | was never any good, but there are some maps I know well: dm6, | ztn, dm13, t7. Even though I'm not a big eSports fan, I don't | watch streamers or whatever, I've seen some VODs played on | those maps that really held my attention with suspense. I've | been surprised at how entertaining it was watching top players | duel. | | At some point I watched a Quake Champions duel match between | Rapha and Cooller and while the gameplay was quite familiar, | not knowing the maps made it _far_ less entertaining. I just | couldn 't follow the significance of the player's positioning | nearly as well. Before that I totally underrated how much my | familiarity with the maps was adding to my enjoyment of the | Quake Live tournaments. | switz wrote: | This is genuinely the biggest barrier to a new viewer of CS. | Until you physically play on a map, it is very hard to | understand by watching alone, especially as the perspectives | are largely first-person. It can take dozens of hours to | build a proper mental model of a map so understanding the | game as camera angles change in a flurry is very difficult. | | Traditional sports all have the same (or routinely similar) | "map", and they're mostly made up of a simple geometric shape | that can generally fit in a single overhead frame. | avisser wrote: | I've never gotten into FPS eSports for this reason. To me, | Starcraft is the perfect eSport - imperfect knowledge for the | players. Perfect knowledge for the casters and viewers. It's | a great moment when someone tries to hide something on the | map, and it _almost_ gets scouted. Or to see a reaction in | the player-cam when they discover what their opponent is | doing. | | I've played thousands of hours of Overwatch in the past few | years, but have 0 interest in watching OWL. | scythe wrote: | >Maybe besides COD, everything else is too complex and requires | to much prerequisite knowledge to really get into. | | I think the FGC would strongly object. It's not always easy to | know what options a player has at a particular position, but | it's always pretty obvious whether someone is doing well. And | it's not like the theory of football is that simple either. | rspeele wrote: | > It's not always easy to know what options a player has at a | particular position, but it's always pretty obvious whether | someone is doing well. | | I really need to have at least a basic intuition for "the | options a player has" to enjoy watching. As somebody who has | never gotten into fighting games, watching one is about as | fun as watching election results come in for Dog Catcher of | Backwater County. Bars move until somebody wins, but hell if | I know why or what was so great about what the winner did. It | might as well have been random. | | Same goes for a MOBA with 150+ playable champions. Every | fight is just a mess of colorful abilities that mean nothing | to an outsider. You could watch a 40 minute game and maybe by | the end of it understand what the champions do, but then the | next one will use new champions. These games can be great fun | to play, but they will never have spectator appeal broader | than the player community. Which is fine. | Klonoar wrote: | You might need those options explained to you, but plenty | of people are fine watching in ignorance. | | You could liken it to Boxing or MMA, which people will | watch without understanding the intricacies of the sport. | Similar to Football, it's easy to tell overall who's | winning or if theres a big swing. Fighting games definitely | have this factor. | Narew wrote: | Maybe I'm too conservative but I don't think Counter-strike or | fps in general could make on a wide broadcast. (It still people | killing other people) We would have more chance on politically | acceptable game like (Trackmania, Rocket League, ...) but they | have smaller audience in general. | starky wrote: | It is a real shame that Ubisoft Nadeo hasn't really marketed | Trackmania outside of Europe (they mostly focus on just | France). Streamers have been driving a ton of growth in the | game (particularly in the US) because it is so intuitive and | enjoyable to watch. | | Unfortunately the competitive scene has quite a bit of | catching up to do as it is still very France and Germany | centric. They are making strides to do that with the new | world tour but it is going to take awhile before some new | players get up to the level of the primarily European | professional base. | markandrewj wrote: | The thing is these player communities are huge, more people | have watched worlds in the past then the Super Bowl. | | https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/14/league-of-legends-gets-more-... | | It doesn't make sense to focus on a game with a declining | player base like CS:GO, when you have games like Fortnite, that | on average have between 2.9 - 4 million people playing at any | given time. | oreally wrote: | Unfortunately it's boring as hell to watch over the long term. | In a game like CS there is little setup and watching someone | getting instagibbed in short engagements is no fun. But maybe | the players around it can initiate some drama that keeps people | talking, similar to wrestling, but then it's no longer about | the game and more about the drama. | symlinkk wrote: | It's similar with F1, it's extremely boring to watch long | term, most of the time it just looks like the cars are | following each other, and it's even worse live where you can | only see a sliver of the multi mile long track. Yet it's | still a global phenomenon somehow. | Apocryphon wrote: | Watching the Netflix series ( _Formula 1: Drive to Survive_ | ), the drama between the racers and the corporate teams | that sponsor them do add that personal connection, that | keeps all sports going. I am amused to learn from it that | Red Bull is somehow allowed to sponsor multiple racing | teams (Red Bull Racing and AlphaTauri). | sheepybloke wrote: | To me, the round structure of CS is what makes it most | engaging. I watch a lot of League and CS, and having many more | rounds to play in CS makes comebacks a lot easier, and so, it | makes crafting a game narrative and excitement a lot easier. | League is exciting, but a lot harder to get out of a hole than | with CS, so barring some crazy plays, it's a harder to make a | comeback. | Ekaros wrote: | Also many of the rounds in game are miniarcs themselves. | First the lull waiting for new round, then the setup, next | build up maybe one or two players dying. Then it entering the | crescendo and that is either it or we have post plant | scenario with an other build up potentially coming to save by | single player. | jedberg wrote: | > Dead simple concept, intuitive mechanics even to laypeople, | and the meta game can be explained in 10 minutes. | | Do you feel like this applies to American Football? I don't, | but yet it's the most popular sport on TV in America. | | What I'm saying is that I don't think your requirements are | necessary for a sport to be a popular spectator sport. | Workaccount2 wrote: | The thing about computer games that I think will put off most | people is that they exist in a custom reality. | | In regular sports people can rely on their intuition to know | what can and can't happen, to some degree. No football player | is going to start flashing yellow while taking off down the | field. A lot of video games are packed to the brim with | custom physics and mechanics. No solid intuition, you really | just have to learn them. | | CS benefits from more or less functioning exactly how even a | 75 year old lady would expect it to. A sniper is a sniper. A | pistol a pistol. An assault rifle is an assault rifle. | Bullets kill quick, and bombs go boom. | specialp wrote: | The difference with American Football is although there have | been subtle changes in the rules, it has been mostly the same | for over 50 years. With esports (like in the case of | Overwatch) they do not have that lifespan. So unless you are | someone who is currently playing that game, you don't know | how it works really. And if you were someone once playing | that game 5 years ago, as in the case of Overwatch 1, they | literally shut it off and it can't be played anymore. | rchaud wrote: | The other difference is that American culture lives and | breathes football, right from pee-wee to middle and high | school, to the state college team level. | | It's easier to build a multi billion dollar business around | something people have been exposed to since birth. | abfan1127 wrote: | American Football is extremely simple game relative to other | games. It also is piece-wise fast paced. The game goes really | fast, then gets a small break. it lends it self easily to | television broadcast with its timeouts, changing of sides, | etc. I am not of fan of american football, but I can see how | it became popular. | jerf wrote: | "Do you feel like this applies to American Football?" | | Honestly, yes. Protestations that it's too difficult to | understand seems to me to stem from people who literally want | the game explained in three seconds or less. | | The core is simple. Team have ball. Team want move ball that | way for points. Other team want stop them. Work out the legal | ways for them to score points and move ball around as you go. | The super detailed lacunae of what penalties are for what | exist in all sports, it just isn't generally noticed. The | FIFA rules for soccer run 144 pages: | https://www.amazon.com/Official-Rules-Soccer-U-S- | Federation/... Not a huge book, probably not huge pages, but | a great deal more detailed than you'd try to "explain" to | someone just learning what soccer is. | | Most of the meta around passing plays versus running plays | can be explained easily. | | It really isn't that complicated. | | To the extent that it is, all the sports are. At the top end | everything gets complicated, hence, Moneyball and that sort | of thing. Basketball is a simple sport of putting the ball in | the hoop while dribbling it, but at the top end you start | talking about matchups between this guy and that guy and how | being 3% better at three-point shots affects this team's | matchups against that team... but that's not something you | have to care about to watch it, any more than you have to | care about what the name of every position is in every sport | initially. | jedberg wrote: | But you could say the same for most video games: Here is | the object. Team shoots their way through until they | accomplish the object. The rest is just arcane knowledge of | experts. | jerf wrote: | "But you could say the same for most video games:" | | For games that involve shooting at people, I'd agree. A | particular first-person perspective may be difficult to | follow but the core is simple and you can pick up the | pieces as you go. Quake deathmatches have a lot of | interesting arcana to dig into if you want to play at top | level, but you can just watch one without any particular | skill. From there you can incrementally pick up that | shooting someone before the player even saw them is | impressive, or that identifying, acquiring, and plinking | them with a rail gun in <500ms is pretty impressive. The | speed of these things might be inaccessible, but it's not | the rule set that is. | | Most things have a novice-level entry ramp. My sons | seemed to pick up the basics of American Football in | about 5 minutes when they were 8. It really isn't that | hard. They didn't encounter their first "safety" until | quite a while later, for instance, but their lack of | knowledge of what a safety is didn't bother them. I've | been watching for a lot longer and still couldn't simply | whip off the names of all the positions or anything | myself. | | Not all esports have that, though. I can say from | personal experience though that DOTA is impenetrable if | you don't know what's going on. I've been at a local | restaurant that was playing some matches for whatever | reason. I know about video games in general but know | nothing about DOTA. I suppose you could say I understood | what it was I didn't understand, but I had no idea who | was winning, what a good play was, etc. | tyree731 wrote: | I disagree here. I've watched professional sports a fair | bit in my life, and I've watched eSports (and played | their respective games) a bunch, and from my experience | eSports are far more difficult to pick up. | | To try and give a reason others haven't really mentioned, | professional sports tend to have predictable camera | angles and pacing, making it easier to get a complete | picture of who is doing what and when. In eSports, the | arenas are typically strategically complex, requiring | similarly complex camera angles, making it difficult to | get a sense of what's going on at any point in time. | johannes1234321 wrote: | > In eSports, the arenas are typically strategically | complex | | I think that is a key point. In most sports the arenas | are quite simple. Most ball sports have some rectangle | and you can judge intuitively whether a team is likely in | a better position than another. And even in marathon or | triathlon or such the course itself may be complex, but | you can reduce it to "X meters till finish line" and | "athlete A is in front of B" to get a good enough | understanding on the situation. | | Of course all sports allow for some amount of tactics, | when to play a bit more passive, when to attack, ... but | you don't need those for some basic experience while | watching. | | In eSports the arena is complex and hard to preceive, the | physics aren't exact as we all know them, the virtual | equipment (weapons, boosters, ...) are unknowns. | | And then eSports typically are quick, which makes | learning hard. | lapetitejort wrote: | For newer class-based games like Overwatch, the classes | behave so differently and exuberantly that people are | going to want to know what ever new flashy effect means. | In football, the "classes" blend together and share a | common goal. The difference between the Offensive Guard | and Offensive Tackle are minuscule to the layperson. | However the difference between Reinhardt and Winston are | huge, both in terms of playstyle and presentation. | Compound this with games adding new classes sometimes as | frequently as every three months. That's hard to keep up | for the casual viewer. | | However you are correct that the objectives in games are | usually simple. Push this thing from here to there. Don't | let enemy stand here alone. Shoot enemy until no enemy. | philodelta wrote: | I mean, at least with real life sports there are no hacky | obtuse contrivances because, it's real life, not a | videogame with a meta that includes knowledge of engine | exploits or intimate knowledge of map geometry. Someone | pixel-aligning themselves to throw a blind smoke that | bounces off of invisible above-the-map geometry to | eliminate a sightline or someone blind firing though a | wall-bang because they've counted the seconds since round | start and judge someone might be there _is obtuse_ to | anyone onlooking via a stream. In football, or golf, or | soccer, all the elements of play can be observed all at | once without multiple angles needed to explain what 's | happening. | chomp wrote: | You could trivialize any sport/game down into 3 simple | sentences. The problem is that in American football, | there really is only 2 type of players that have | different rules: QB, and non-QB. Maybe kicker. Same with | soccer too, goalie and non-goalie. | | In League, there's (at the time of this writing) 140 | players (champs) that each have different rules and | capabilities assigned to them, because they have | different abilities and are used differently | strategically. Top/mid/bottom/jungle really doesn't | matter much more than player placements like tight-end, | offensive tackle, howver. | | Counter-Strike has 1 character type, 2 teams, and is so | simple to explain. I can explain counter-strike to my mom | in one sentence. The places where one should get anxious | or excited are immediately obvious to a layperson. | Explaining the goal of league is easy, however I'd | struggle to explain enough of league to my mom so that | she can understand why she should be excited when one | specific champ is getting fed, or why the enemy team | should be careful about clustering, because of a unique | situation in this one specific match that is not always | going applicable to a different match. | | I'd probably be done explaining a handful of characters | by the time the match is over, and she'd forget within 10 | minutes. I know this because I've been trying to explain | Pokemon since the 90s. She 100% understands football and | baseball, however. | syntheweave wrote: | The difference lies in the fact that a really popular | spectator sport mostly comes from a game people have | already played at some point or could naturally conceive | of(e.g. auto racing as an extension of driving, MMA as an | extension of street brawls), and therefore don't need | explanations for. Although Counter-Strike has a huge legacy | among video games, it hasn't entered the school curriculum | like baseball/basketball/football AFAIK, and it's only | loosely related to a kind of live combat scenario that few | people witness in person. | | There's a step-function there where if a major educational | institution started pushing a video game, it'd have the | awareness to be a sport. But they don't, so the path | forward is tied to the whims of the market. | | It may work out that the 20th century pro sports model is | just not going to be part of this. That model came from an | era combining fast travel, broadcast media, and a small | number of large sponsors. At first it was teams who | travelled by rail and had their games casted over radio. | Later, jet planes and TV. But nowadays, with the streaming | model, it's diffused to being able to watch live speedrun | attempts, an activity which can resemble watching paint dry | at times, but which does bring in some income within a | long-tail niche audience. | tokai wrote: | Esport is on the curriculum in some schools in Denmark. | Mainly continuation schools (efterskoler) or certain high | schools. I guess how it turns out is going to be an | interesting experiment. | listenallyall wrote: | American football in 20 seconds: You have 4 opportunities to | advance the ball a cumulative 10 yards, upon doing so, your 4 | opportunities reset. Advance past the goal line = 6 points + | opportunity for 1 additional. Fail to move 10 yards? Ball | possession transfers to opponent. If it's 4th down (final | opportunity) you can hedge -- punt the ball (transfer | possession, but about 40 yards further away) or attempt a | field goal (place kick through yellow uprights), which is | worth 3 points. | | Obviously there are nuances but that's 90% of it right there, | in a lot less than 10 minutes. | spillguard wrote: | Not to entirely disagree with you, but comparing football to | Counter Strike is kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison - | you're comparing an introduction to something new with | something that most American viewers have probably known for | their entire lives, so that factor of "explainability" | doesn't exactly apply to it. | tarentel wrote: | As someone who has worked for several European companies | try explaining american football scoring to a non-american | and let me know how easy that is. That's basically just | scratching the surface of it. | | Saying you can boil it down to one side moves a ball the | other side tries to stop them is pretty disingenuous. You | can boil down basically any game to that. Counter strike | you just kill the other team, mobas you just destroy the | other teams base, etc. I know you didn't make that point | but that's what most of the arguments in this thread are. | johannes1234321 wrote: | The difference: I have an intuitive understanding how | hard it is to catch a football if a bunch of people runs | towards me. Even if I never touched a football in my | life. I have no intuition on what the eSports player can | and can not do with their controls and the physics | engine. | cruano wrote: | Eh, I'm not American and I found American football pretty | straightforward, at least until you start looking at the | play-calling and formations and all of that. | | And you could say the same about CS, your market is | probably "anyone who has played a first-person shooter" | 8note wrote: | Cricket would be an alternative example that most Americans | don't already understand | ElevenLathe wrote: | Football is dead simple, even simpler than CS: One team wants | to go one way with the ball, the other wants to stop them, | drive them back or, ideally, get the ball away from them and | go the other way. They get four tries to go at least 10 yards | and if they don't the other team gets the ball. If they make | the 10 yards, they get another 4 tries. | | There are a lot of fiddly details in offsides rules, | incomplete passes, extra points, etc. but they aren't | necessary to understand and enjoy watching a game. | johannes1234321 wrote: | You can even simplify even more. "They have to cross the | line" instead of discussing 10 yards. And as humans have a | rough understanding of the world we are in, even somebody | with no prior knowledge of football can understand how | complicated it can be to catch the ball. Input to eSports, | which buttons there were to press at which time and how the | game's physics model would react isn't as intuitive. | com2kid wrote: | > They get four tries to go at least 10 yards and if they | don't the other team gets the ball. If they make the 10 | yards, they get another 4 tries. | | Born and raised in America, I never knew this. First time | I've seen it explained this way. | | To my mind, Football is overly complicated, with crap tons | of breaks, weird jargon, and a countdown clock that | apparently means nothing. | dylan604 wrote: | >Do you feel like this applies to American Football? | | As someone that grew up in the US and watching it with | family, no, it's not the same. What is the same is watching | Cricket. It probably has an even larger viewing audience than | American Football in the US. As someone that has grown up | with it, and they will start spewing rules at you that might | as well be spoken in Klingon for the sense they make, but are | perfectly understood by those that grew up with it. To be | fair, reversing the conversation for me to explain rules to | them is met with looks like I have 2 heads. | | Video games are similar. I grew up in the "golden age" of | home console games starting with Atari 2600, NES, and through | today. However, I still spent time doing other things other | than games. So to me, sitting around watching other people | play video games is a non-starter. Maybe if I was at a bar | and it was on the screen, but usually I just find a different | screen. For people that are younger that don't have memories | of playing outside and only know "playing" involving a | computer device of some sort, then this seems perfectly | reasonable that's what they'd rather watch. | WHYLEE1991 wrote: | just curious, how old are you that you think current youth | have no memories of playing outside? what an amusing and | out of touch statement, have you been outside in the past | decade? Maybe not in a populated area because I see kids | playing outside basically everyday. I also don't believe | that you've never watched someone play a game, you didn't | have siblings or friends growing up? | cruano wrote: | Well, yes ? | | Try to get to the end zone, if you do you score 6 points. You | have 4 attempts to move forward 10 yards, if you don't, the | ball goes to the other team. If you have more points, you | win. | | That's it, that's all you need to know to watch it and enjoy | it. Sure, there's more ways of scoring and the details of | each position, the routes they are running and play-calling | in general is interesting, but it's not needed to just watch | the game. | jedberg wrote: | Ok but you can say the same about Counterstrike. The object | is to diffuse the bomb. You shoot your way through the | enemy until the bomb is diffused. The rest is just details | for experts. | HDThoreaun wrote: | Which is why OP said CS is the game most likely to become | popular. It's the simplest/most realistic esport. | musicale wrote: | > The object is to diffuse the bomb | | I assume in this scenario the terrorist team is trying to | plant and detonate the bomb, thereby diffusing its | (perhaps damaging, poisonous, or radioactive) components | over a wide area, while the counter-terrorist team is | trying to defuse the bomb and prevent it from exploding | in the first place. | rg111 wrote: | American Football watchers _grow up_ watching American | Football. | | Compared to that number, nobody grows up watching Dota. | Ekaros wrote: | American football to me sounds very messy and extremely | overly complicated? Like sometimes they throw, sometimes they | kick, there is some goal but not goal thing. And stopping all | the time? Like why not immediately get up and start running | away? Or just dripple the ball all the way across the field? | What is the point anyway? | simmerup wrote: | Both teams work within the same constraints with the goal | of beating the other. Same as any other sport. | | They stop after a play because that's part of the rules of | the game. | vlunkr wrote: | You could probably find a video or article and understand | all this in a few minutes. You have four attempts (downs) | to move the ball 10 yards or you lose possession. Nearly | everything else makes sense with that context. | banannaise wrote: | It's important to note that Counter-Strike's massive popularity | (and funding) comes largely from the skin betting industry, | which is entirely built around underage gambling. I'm not sure | their viewership would survive a proper reckoning with that. | pattrn wrote: | Do you have any source for this? I've been playing Counter- | Strike since the original beta, and it's been popular since | its creation, far before skins existed. As far as the funding | goes, I have no idea, but would love to see some numbers. | winkeltripel wrote: | I don't belive that there are public numbers disclosing the | funding sources for tournaments. Valve throws in a bit, and | betting sites are often sponsors. | | CS was totally popular before skin's. I recall the riot | shield being particularly fun for me. | Workaccount2 wrote: | Counter-strike was massively popular even a decade before it | had skins. | banannaise wrote: | I wonder what else this will start happening to. The massive VC | boom had a knock-on effect of pumping huge amounts of advertising | spend into everything advertising dollars could be spent on. | | In a lot of places, the slack is being picked up by sports | gambling (one of the few VC sectors with an actual revenue | model), but how long will that last? Particularly when their | services are only legal for about 1/3 of the US population, and | of questionable value in the first place? | Double_a_92 wrote: | For me personally it's because there are too many random events | for all the different games. There is no one big tournament that | many people could focus on and talk about. | | E.g. even if I was interested in some particular event, it would | not feel appropriate to mention it to my friends because they | most likely will not care about it... so there is no community | feeling. | johnny22 wrote: | i don't personally care about DOTA, but isn't "The | International" that for DOTA? | | I do watch SC2, and blizzcon (and now IEM) is the world | championship for that. | barbariangrunge wrote: | Esports is as strong as the popularity of the games they are | based on. I used to follow a few and it was always because I | played the games heavily, sometimes at a decently high level. But | if I stop playing the games, I stop watching the streams. | | Is that true for you as well? | fsdjkflsjfsoij wrote: | > But if I stop playing the games, I stop watching the streams. | | Definitely true for me as well. I can sit down and watch a | basketball game, which I haven't played in years, but if I'm | not playing a video game regularly I have no interest in | watching a pro game for more than a few minutes. | bobobob420 wrote: | All major sports generate massive amounts of revenue due to in | person sales and broadcasting rights. Sports also drive other | avenues of revenue especially in big cities. Esports will not be | on major television networks for a long time. Esports also do not | have leagues with good in person attendance. Games and audiencies | change too much and the best they can do is tournaments. Venture | capitalists invested massive amounts of money based on hype and | now are struggling to get ROI, let alone profit. The influx of | cash will slow down as the venture capitalists face the | consequences of their actions. Esports will not die but actually | increase. Viewership numbers about League of Legends are showing | decline because the game is in its late stages for competitive | play. Valorant is the new rising star and others will follow in | its path. Counter Strike has stayed pretty consistent which is | impressive. Simply put investors will need to come up with a new | strategy that is more traditional if they want to invest in this | industry. To not invest though is simply an opportunity for | better investors | mjr00 wrote: | I've been a fan of esports since I was downloading RealMedia | replays of Boxer's Brood War games in the early 2000s, and still | watch pro League and Dota2. Have gone to the EVO FGC tournament | most years, as well. Plus some live League/Starcraft events in | Korea. | | The hype is fading because it was vastly overhyped and | oversaturated to begin with. Games that should have never been | made esports were turning into esports. One end of the spectrum | was just bad games getting esports leagues prematurely. Remember | Infinite Crisis, the DC Comic-based MOBA that had a full "season | 1 championship" in beta, then the game itself ended up lasting | only 5 months before getting shut down?[0] On the other hand you | have games that are popular, but are really bad spectator sports. | Fortnite and Rocket League are great examples of hugely popular | games which have attempted an esports scene but failed to gain | much traction, especially relative to their popularity. And then | there's the ugly, which is Blizzard's massive investment into | Overwatch League. Despite all the shady metric-gaming in the | books (they used to automatically embed OWL Twitch streams into | the Blizzard launcher, meaning anyone who launched a Blizzard | game while OWL was happening counted as a viewer) OWL has looked | pretty bad. They've even had to change the game rules multiple | times to "fix" staleness in pro play, and Overwatch 2 is heavily | targeted at adjusting pro play as well. | | You can't just throw money at a game and have it become an | esports phenomenon like Blizzard has tried; a _lot_ of things | have to go right with the game itself. The map and game state has | to be easily readable to a viewer, which is why MOBA, RTS and | fighting games to a lesser extent have done a lot better than FPS | historically. The balance needs to be there; the GOATS[1] (3 tank | 3 healer) setup in Overwatch made the game miserable to watch. | The pacing needs to be right; it can 't be too slow-paced _or_ | too fast-paced. This includes both any fighting that happens, as | well as the overall pace of _when_ fighting happens. If any of | these factors aren 't quite right, pro play is going to be a | mess. | | And sometimes, even with all those boxes ticked, it just doesn't | take off. Heroes of the Storm is a great example here, where it | was _mostly_ pretty good as an esport on paper, though perhaps a | bit slow-paced with too much healing. But the game never really | took off in popularity and thus Blizzard killed its esports | league. | | Investors get tricked into thinking they're investing into the | NBA or NHL with esport pitches, when in reality they're investing | into the XFL, USFL or a lacrosse league. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Crisis_(video_game) | | [1] https://www.polygon.com/2019/2/25/18239845/overwatch- | goats-m... | nluken wrote: | You've got some great points here about companies trying to | bootstrap esports out of nothing. Ideally, the activeness of | the community would determine what games can support | professional play; bottom up, not top down. | | As for pacing and viewing experience: I'd whittle your list | down even further if we're talking about the ideal esport. Most | MOBAs are way too visually complex for non-players to | understand what's going on. I always thought that fighting | games made the most sense for a mass audience. Even if you | don't have intimate knowledge of how a particular fighting game | works, it's easy for anyone to understand what's going on and | parse visually. You can see the entirety of the action instead | of having to jump around from player to player. And some | fighting games (looking at Smash Bros, Mortal Kombat, Street | Fighter) are wildly popular already. | mjr00 wrote: | > Ideally, the activeness of the community would determine | what games can support professional play; bottom up, not top | down. | | Yep and this is how it's happened for the most successful | esports. Brood War was turned into a competitive game by | KeSPA with minimal support from Blizzard (and active | interference later on). EVO was self-organized and had | minimal outside support for a long while. Even League, which | was supported by Riot from the start, had a very | bootstrapped, labor-of-love feel to it, probably reflecting | the actual small indie company Riot was at the start; the | season 1 championships are lovingly referenced as having | taken place in Phreak's basement, and the season 2 | championships were an absolute logistical mess. The huge cash | investment and sponsorships didn't come until way later. | | > Most MOBAs are way too visually complex for non-players to | understand what's going on. | | Definitely, especially if you haven't played the games and | know what items or abilities do. But at least as a spectator | you have a full visual of the playing field and largely see | the same thing the players see. | Macha wrote: | Yeah, some of the more recent attempts (especially out of | blizzard, ironically), come out of companies going "Hey, | the MBA/NFL is super financially successful, we could be | the MBA/NFL if this goes well, and since we have ultimate | control of the game, we can even take a larger share than | the central orgs for those sports", but without the | grassroots support (even the NFL took decades to become | large), it's only sustainable while they pour money in. | dagw wrote: | Fighting games have to compete with watching actual people | actually fighting. Sure the UFC has less backflips and | fireballs, but no Street fighter tournament will be able give | a fight fan the same visceral excitement as watching an | actual fight. Much in the same way that very few people who | enjoy watching football (any kind) enjoy watching eSport | football. | nluken wrote: | True, but it never really seemed to me like the two were | competing with each other, except maybe in the case of | something intentionally gory like Mortal Kombat. The | detachment from physical injury makes it feel less like a | fight and more like a non-combat sport. Could just be my | bias showing since I've never liked UFC. | mb22 wrote: | There is way less team loyalty. Teams are not geographical, so no | physical attachment. Teams change players too much for me to | become a fan and buy their merch. | nordsieck wrote: | > Teams are not geographical | | Some teams are geographical. For example: Overwatch league. | | > There is way less team loyalty. | | My only real experience is with Dota. There is a lot of | nationalist sentiment in tournaments, but you're right - most | people follow players, not teams. | | In Dota, in particular, Valve has tried to make changes to | encourage team stability, but the fundamental problem is that | pay is so heavily stacked towards winning a few top tier | tournaments per year, that people become very mercenary. | | I think the big challenge is that it really doesn't cost very | much money to run an esports tournament. There is no need for | an expensive stadium (except to sell tickets to fans). | Basically anyone can create the new premiere tournament by just | paying a bit of money to organize the thing and have a prize | pool bigger than the current biggest prize pool. | | This really cuts into the power that a franchise model could | potentially have - they'd have much less power to control the | sport in the way that the NBA controls basketball or the NFL | controls football. | trynewideas wrote: | > Some teams are geographical. For example: Overwatch league. | | OWL never made it to a full home-and-away season; they | planned one in 2020 but never executed it. Are there any | esports leagues that play in home-city venues? | nerdponx wrote: | > In Dota, in particular, Valve has tried to make changes to | encourage team stability, but the fundamental problem is that | pay is so heavily stacked towards winning a few top tier | tournaments per year, that people become very mercenary. | | And ironically, Valve is the organization that created this | problem. | sophrocyne wrote: | Similarly, my only real experience following is Dota - I | blame my teenage years in War3 mods with that fascination. | | Aside from the payout & incentive structure for players, the | game is very much dependent on aligning player skillsets, | heroes in the meta, and player attitudes/communication styles | -- So much so, that some teams thrive some years, and | completely disintegrate the next. | | Plenty of examples of teams feeling they're being brought | down by 'those one/two players', while they keep the | "streaming stars" for the player fan base. | Ekaros wrote: | > Some teams are geographical. For example: Overwatch league. | | Haven't checked the latest status, but I understood before | that didn't really work out. | Bilal_io wrote: | Maybe we will see national eSports teams if the fan base blows | up over the years. But as for the existing teams, they're more | like soccer clubs, and shouldn't be restricted by region, it | allows money to be invested to bring in the best players, which | is a good incentive for players to shine. | Ekaros wrote: | Regional isn't so much about the players. But that they play | every week or every other weak in same stadium with same core | group of fans easily being present. And on smaller clubs at | least in Europe there is clear pipeline for juniors to the | main team players. Thus bulk of the players can be locals. | jameshart wrote: | Soccer clubs aren't regional? | smcl wrote: | I think they mean that if you are, say, Real Madrid you can | sign a player who was born in Sevilla, Brazil or Turkey or | wherever. | jameshart wrote: | Okay, makes sense. | | Doesn't seem to restrict the ability of soccer clubs to | build fanatical fanbases though | smcl wrote: | True but remember most of these teams have existed for a | long time before it became possible for fans to support | or follow teams abroad via TV and internet. So teams in | smaller markets (eg Scotland, Belgium, Netherlands, | Denmark, Sweden) have had the chance to build a local | support base without necessarily "competing" for their | loyalty with those in bigger markets (eg England, | Germany, Spain, Italy). | | Note that I've put "competing" in quotes because I'm | talking about fanbases and therefore money to build and | develop their teams. Interestingly in the past when they | did compete on the field things were much more equal. | Before the explosion of TV money thumbed the scales in | favour of the bigger players, it wasn't such a huge shock | for, say[0], Dundee United to beat Barcelona or IFK | Gothenburg to beat Internazionale that it would today. | | [0] in fact both of these results happened, in the | semifinals of the 1986/87 European Cup | Ninjinka wrote: | There are some geographical teams, my brother-in-law loves the | Dallas Fuel, but yeah they aren't all. | efsavage wrote: | Agreed, it seems odd to be a fan of a team when they aren't | "your" team, as in you can go and actually see them on a | regular basis. | | Racing and golf are examples of successful sports that don't | have geographic ties, and they're both mostly individual- | driven. Racing has teams, but nobody really cares about them. | fernandopj wrote: | > Racing has teams, but nobody really cares about them | | Italians and Ferrari would strongly disagree with you | Semaphor wrote: | On the one hand, yeah. On the other, I know many Germans | became Ferrari fans while they had Michael Schumacher. | Godel_unicode wrote: | Yeah, people not caring about the teams is really just | applicable to NASCAR in my experience. | jameshart wrote: | I'm assuming by 'racing' you mean motor racing. | | 'Nobody' cares about racing teams? | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tifosi | IceHegel wrote: | Starcraft II was really the only esport I ever cared about or | watched. I think it is also widely considered the first esport. | Make of that what you will. | Kranar wrote: | Definitely not the first eSport. People played Warcraft 3 | competitively, not to mention you also had arcade game | tournaments like Street Fighter 2 that go back to the 1990s. | fourseventy wrote: | SC2 was absolutely not the first esport. Quake3, counterstrike | and Starcraft 1 were all big (relatively) esports back in the | day with professional players and teams. | htag wrote: | I participated in several online leagues and in person | tournaments for Counter-Strike and Quake III before Starcraft | II was released. The Evo Moment 36 [0], still one of the most | iconic fighting games match, happened in 2004, six years before | Starcraft II's release. Starcraft Brood War and Warcraft III | both had tournaments and world rankings. There's been a culture | of in person tournaments at arcades and lans for as long as | there's been arcades and lan ports. If these aren't esports, | where are you drawing the line to say Starcraft II was the | first? | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Moment_37 | endominus wrote: | Who considers Starcraft _II_ , of all games, the first esport? | Was it ever even considered as competitive as the original | Starcraft? | rollcat wrote: | I think OP confused the role / status of 1 & 2; SC1 was | almost immediately huge in Korea, had its own TV channel(s), | kids would play nothing else in the Internet cafes, etc. | Casual LAN was also huge: you needed only one CD key to host | a local game with up to 8 players (although TCP/IP was only | added a bit later, with a patch). | | Even if you disagree that SC1 created esports, it is | definitely the one game that drove esports' early popularity | like no other game could. | | Then in 2010 Blizzard released SC2, and in an effort to | promote it, tried to undermine SC1's success, since it saw | its continued popularity as SC2's competition. SC2 was never | as popular, other (often more casual) e-sports started | getting popular... and a couple of scandals among very high- | profile players (match fixing) drove the nail into the | coffin. | | Both SC1&2 scenes are still remarkably healthy (for a 24&12 | year old game, respectively), there are premier tournaments | with cash prizes, games continue receiving balance tweaks | (although SC1 mostly through map design), etc. I play | competitive SC2 casually and I can usually find a 1v1 match | in less than 10 seconds (or about 1min for team games). It's | never too late to get into it ;) | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft_in_esports | Macha wrote: | I think it's fair to say SC1 did introduce esports to | Korea, but it was SC2 that introduced them to the west in a | big way. And certainly in the west SC2 was larger than BW, | probably even once you include the korean brood war scene. | I think you're diminishing SC2 a bit _too_ much in your | effort to point out the contribution of SC1. | htag wrote: | Yeah, Starcraft II is as competitive or more than the | original Starcraft. The introduction of the ladder means more | players play SCII competitively, and the pro scene is just as | good, if not better. Here's the commentary for the final | match of the last in person tournament in SC2 [0]. | | Starcraft II did a lot of things to make controlling the game | easier (Reassignable hotkeys, being able to select larger | armies, screen position hotkeys). This made it easier for new | players to get into the game, but the pro players were just | able to find new ways to use their precious attention and | keyboard presses and the skill ceiling remains as high as | brood war. | | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WbXgaLr_eA&list=PLoBxKk9 | n0U... | nemo44x wrote: | Well, Brood Wars had a huge esports following too. It still | does have a niche following. | | SC is such a perfect game for esports but it's probably just | too complex for many people. You really have to understand the | nuance of the game for it to be enjoyable to watch. But if you | do, it's dramatic. | Ekaros wrote: | SC does have some issues. One is huge variance in map length. | Either it is couple of minutes or maybe 10 of some cheese | tactic or then half an hour hour long grind. Which makes | reliable format rather hard to implement. | FartyMcFarter wrote: | The first Starcraft was already huge at least in Korea, and | Doom / Quake were pretty big online in the 90s including some | professional events: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esports#Growth_and_online_vide... | pier25 wrote: | The problem is that there's not enough audience. It's a niche | thing compared to big sporting events like F1, La Liga, Premier | League, NFL, NBA, etc. | helen___keller wrote: | It makes little sense to directly compare esports to traditional | sports, aside from the name and the fact that competition is | involved. | | Esports' biggest issue is that the only real reason someone is | going to start watching is because they play the game and want to | see pros play it. Esports are usually not much fun to watch if | you don't already love the game (neither are traditional sports). | | The main reason to watch a sport is because you love the game on | one hand, or you love the teams/players on the other. Traditional | sports get a lot of the latter because there's history and | inertia. | | You don't have to love football to cheer for the Pats when you | live in Boston. But you aren't going to cheer for the Boston | Uprising (or even be aware that they exist) if you don't love | Overwatch. | HDThoreaun wrote: | I think you've misread why people watch sports. The biggest | reason to me seems to be nostalgia/family tradition. It's a way | to bring people together for a few hours. Beyond that I'd say | second biggest reason is the thrill of competition. Related to | "love of the game" but I think it's much more about the human | condition and struggle we all go through than you seem to | think. Most people can relate to dedicating their selves to | something and having their hard work pay off, and seeing that | happen is a large part of the intrigue of sports. | helen___keller wrote: | This is actually my point. People by and large don't love the | game in traditional sports, they love the team and players | because the history of the team is interwoven with their | personal life (nostalgia/tradition) | | In esports this tradition doesn't exist because esports are | new. So you only watch if you love the game. | cnntth wrote: | Overwatch is a particularly interesting example to use here -- | the reason the _Boston_ Uprising exist is precisely because | Blizzard went with the city based team model of traditional | sports. I agree with the premise of your comment, but /most/ | games have teams dissociated with locale, and OW is the outlier | in that regard. | | To your point, the Boston Pride are in a traditional sport and | not as well known either. I'm sure Boston has a soccer club too | but I wouldn't know their name. | rchaud wrote: | Note to all financiers drunk off zero-interest capital: not every | new thing has to be jammed into 'unicorn' clothing. Some things | can just exist as cottage industries. | | I first saw a televised StarCraft competition in South Korea in | 2001. That still exists AFAIK. Maybe it can't expand too far | beyond that, but at the same time, maybe it shouldn't? | | Trying to manufacture celebrity gloss and betting markets around | eSports like it's professional field sports is just sad. How many | actual fans want to see the industry go that way? | jerf wrote: | This synergizes with several other comments, but I think you're | looking at another victim of the interest rates rising above 0%. | It isn't just the easy availability of the money for esports | themselves, it's the easy availability of money for sponsorships, | ad spend, hardware, no immediate need to show profitability on | the chance that maybe someday it will, a whole bunch of things. | With the rising interest rates, that all disappears at once. | mlinsey wrote: | As far as I can tell, two groups are making plenty of money off | of esports: | | 1 - The companies that make the game. Whether it's Riot and | Blizzard selling slots in their leagues for eight figures, Valve | using their annual tournament to sell in-game cosmetics, or all | the companies ultimately owning broadcast rights to their game, | this is the biggest difference between esports and traditional | sports. | | The New York Yankees and Los Angeles Dodgers make money because | they sell their own tickets and broadcast rights to their games; | even though MLB does control the streaming revenue, they share it | out to teams and ultimately have to bow to the wishes of a | majority of team owners. What you don't see is a single company | MLB inc that owns the copyright to the game of baseball, sells | broadcast rights to all teams themselves, charges teams to play | in the league, and can kick teams out of the league at a whim. | That's the situation in esports. | | 2 - Individual players, with streaming. Players can first make a | name for themselves in competitions, then stream on their own | Twitch channel for revenue. This is not that different from | athletes acting as social media influencers and signing | endorsement deals, but the biggest difference is that by | streaming on Twitch, they appear side-by-side with tournament | broadcasts. It's as if LeBron's instagram account where he | streamed his workouts and pickup games were just one change-of- | the-channel away from ESPN, and people would consider it normal | to flip between the game and individual player streams. | | Lots of esports orgs, as part of signing players, get a big cut | of the player's streaming revenue. But the revenue for an | individual player's twitch stream, while great for an individual, | usually isn't going to be significant enough to maintain a whole | organization, and when a player brand does get big enough that | their stream could sustain an org - that's when the player will | be heavily incentivized to go independent, and make more money | from streams than they do from competing. | | Ultimately, I think esports has a bright future - overall total | viewership continues to rise, even though some games like League | of Legends - which is more than a decade old now - are starting | to fade. It's just the business models of the offline sports | world don't carry over, and that's especially apparent with these | organized teams. | yamtaddle wrote: | 3) Esports gambling companies | TheAceOfHearts wrote: | The latest League Worlds was gigantic and viewership peaked at | 5.1 million. These big finals are the eSports equivalent to the | Super Bowl, and a lot of people tune in even if they're not | active players. | | My favorite moba is Heroes of the Storm but I still check out | League Worlds and DotA2's The International, despite not | playing either game. | | StarCraft 2 is a decade old and viewership is still pretty | solid for big events. Brood Wars is two decades old and they | still get thousands of viewers! | somehnacct3757 wrote: | eSport viewership numbers are untrustworthy because the games | incentivize players to tune in with special in game rewards. | | Also for reference the last Superbowl was watched by 100M | viewers. | axus wrote: | Aren't the rewards cheap for the company? Advertising costs | plus the artists salary? | jcranmer wrote: | > Also for reference the last Superbowl was watched by 100M | viewers. | | Getting precise numbers for marquee sporting events is | difficult, especially outside of the major US sports | leagues, but the Super Bowl is on the shortlist for most- | viewed single sporting event. Comparing only among US | sports leagues, the Super Bowl has more viewers than the | final game of the next several leagues _combined_ --the | next largest finals seems to have somewhere around 20M | viewers. | | By contrast, the smallest of the "big" US sports leagues | can only manage around 5 million viewers for its final | games. | stryan wrote: | How much sports game viewership is just TV's with the game | on for background chatter, or people watching the Superbowl | for the half-time show? I think viewer rewards is something | to take into consideration (I certainly used to idle in OWL | twitch streams for free skins) but I think it's a bit | disingenuous to claim all of them are untrustworthy. | rchaud wrote: | The difference is that people will be talking about | football well after the game is over. There is | SportsCenter, there are the blogs, the social | media....all of these things matter to advertisers, | perhaps even more than the base metric of how many were | watching the live broadcast. | ptudan wrote: | There's definitely derivative media in eSports too. | Replace SportsCenter with youtube and twitch channels, | and the rest is the same | darkwizard42 wrote: | Yes, I don't see anything wrong with that or why that might | discount the viewership numbers. It is the equivalent of a | giveaway during a presentation. | | The cost of in-game rewards is in most cases marginally | zero in software. | Semaphor wrote: | > and a lot of people tune in even if they're not active | players. | | Do they? I played (completely casually) till 2013, and | stopped watching after the 2014 championship. I didn't | understand it anymore. Too many new champions, meta changes | that I didn't keep up with. Patches that changed the | behavior. I have a hard time seeing how inactive players keep | being interested. | Karrot_Kream wrote: | Sticky social networks. | | I grew up watching a lot of regular sports but also playing | some games. Same deal, once I became busy and decided to | stop keeping up with meta changes, champ changes, etc I | stopped watching. But I had younger friends who had more | time who kept hyping these events so I felt pressured to | watch. Then their younger friends would hype up the events | and watch. I also have some actual streamers in my friend | group so they socially pressure me to watch as well. I've | finally gotten old enough that most of my friends have | largely stopped watching eSports for fun. Funny enough I | still watch regular sports because the meta really doesn't | change that much at all. | Kranar wrote: | Can you cite figures for SC2 viewership? I sometimes watch it | but from what I've heard from announcers on Twitch, SC2 | viewership outside of Korea is basically dead. The last SC2 | event was last month, Dreamhack Atlanta and it only managed | to get a peak viewership of 26k for the finale. The average | viewership for SC2 was 15k. | | That's abysmal, it's not even on par with people who watch | competitive hot dog eating. | | [1] https://escharts.com/tournaments/sc2/dh- | sc2-masters-2022-atl... | nosianu wrote: | Home Story Cup still was 5-10+k viewers for the last time | very time I looked. Half that for other larger tournaments. | I think it still is surprisingly solid, myself I watch only | very infrequently these days. | | I'm reporting what I see in the channel counter. Since I'm | still subscribed to some major SC2 channels I see the | numbers even when I don't watch myself. | | Tp me this is far from "dead", but I don't care about tens | of thousands of viewers and lots of commercial activity. | Just look at what this kind of "success" did for soccer. | Maybe a bit more would be better, mostly for the Korean | casts by the Tastosis duo, which unfortunately disappeared | from Twitch and one has to go and watch it deliberately. | | The other one I watch is Back2Warcraft (my only WCIII | channel, so I name it directly instead of the game - but | it's the biggest one anyway). 1k regularly, a few times | that for the bigger events. Even the casters could not | ignore the disaster that WC III Reforged was, and in quite | a few ways still is. | Kranar wrote: | Fair enough but at least we can quantify what people mean | by solid. | | I think for most people, viewership of 5-10k is | absolutely abysmal, basically dead. You can get 5k people | to watch almost anything, including people eating copious | amounts of junk food. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | Point two reminds me of how some university professors make | most of their money doing consulting and serving as expert | witnesses. While their university salary pales in comparison to | what they get from their other activities, it is their status | as professors at reputable universities that makes the other | income possible. | mocha_nate wrote: | 100% agree. I started getting into Twitch during the beginning | of the pandemic and got to know a lot of people who make money | via online tournaments. The main channels I watch are Call of | Duty and Super People. It's fascinating watching these | streamers compete. | | If I could invest as an average joe, I would. | Pwntastic wrote: | https://archive.vn/LhQEa | ninth_ant wrote: | Esports doesn't _have_ to mimic traditional sports. My family | watches a monthly Minecraft competition together, featuring not | the best in the world but participants who are already popular | streamers outside that context. | | The competition is streamed from the perspectives of the | participants, the teams change every month, and there is no prize | money. Regardless of all these factors it's still a fun, | competitive event that delivers a good sports watching | experience. | | It doesn't have the money or professionalism of major league | sports, but for us it entirely doesn't matter either. | tareqak wrote: | Given the timing coincides with rising interest rates, I wonder | how much of these investor and sponsor decisions revolve around | cutting costs as opposed to any change in esports and their | audience. | humanlion87 wrote: | I don't follow esports much except for Age of Empires 2 | (Definitive Edition). It is a comparatively small community, but | nonetheless very impressive for a 20+ year old game. I have been | surprised by the increasing number of top-level tournaments (with | good prize money) that are being organized. Very excited for the | future of this game. | avisser wrote: | Man, the AoE folks and the Starcraft folks really need to team | up to keep things going. 20-year old games for the win. | runnerup wrote: | MarineLord and BeastyQT might agree! | rvba wrote: | I would ask another question: if the "hype" about traditional | sports, like football (soccer), basketball, NFL, car racing is | worth the money sunk on advertising there? | | I have a gut feeling that most of the money spent on investing in | sports seems to be wasted - with relatively low returns. "Brand | building" is just an empty promise and much better results could | be achieved spending this money in a better way. | | It feels that companies invest in advertising in a particular | sport only because the CEO likes that particular sport; obviously | the consulting companies will come with some bullshit slides to | defend it. | | E-sports never really managed to get this hype - and in e-sports | the companies more often try to track return on investment, which | is probably low. | | In regular sports we have companies like Gasprom spending | hundreds of millions on advertisements - why? (I mean less money | for tanks at least) | | On a side note: for e-sports some companies spent money so much | smarter, say some graphic card companies sponsor weekly | tournaments (costs them peanuts - say 1 graphic card per week) - | which is probably lower cost than spending one time on some big | ticket event, or sponsoring a team, about which nobody cares | about - because viewers track particular players. | | In general most money spend on marketing is poorly tracked and | effectively wasted; anyone who actually looked more into it can | see how the agencies barely even bother to track real stats. | Investment in sport feels especially unprofitable - mostly vanity | projects of decision makers. For example Chevrolet sponsored | Manchester United - for millions, while not selling their cards | in Europe.. Ewanick was fired for that deal. | yesimahuman wrote: | I'm a pretty regular esports watcher (Apex Legends is my game of | choice) and I thoroughly enjoy it. But it's also clear that it's | a terrible investment at the moment. Seems the only ones making | money are game companies themselves (obviously), the rare org | like TSM, and pros that have large Twitch and YouTube followings. | themodelplumber wrote: | I hope things keep going with esports and that the hype doesn't | fade too fast. It's interesting to compare with the rise of | American football like the NFL here in the US, since everybody is | saying we are repeating the early 1900s in general. | | Some 10+ years ago I helped a friend's son get a full ride | esports scholarship, and it really stood out as a huge new | benefit for kids like him (with a certain set of skills!) at the | time. Totally launched his career in software too. | | My own boys randomly announced recently that they are part of | their school's esports club, and I feel the same way...they enjoy | gaming and no matter how this goes, they have a new option, a | group activity to belong to. Whether they really get into it as a | career or not, it has been a clear pro for them. | [deleted] | sylens wrote: | As someone who played a lot of Starcraft back during SC1/SC2 | Wings of Liberty days, Starcraft was a game I loved watching | other people play - mostly due to fog of war knowledge asymmetry | in the audience. | | If I was someone who didn't play video games, I think Rocket | League would be the title I would be interested in watching | others play. | | I just can't fathom any non-gamer ever finding Call of Duty, | League of Legends, DOTA, Overwatch, Valorant, etc. interesting | enough to watch. I played many of those same games at some point | and even I don't find them interesting to watch. First person | shooters in particular seem so confining in terms of spectating. | themanmaran wrote: | Agreed. Starcraft in particular is fun to watch because you can | see some longer term strategies at work. | | Compare to CSGO or COD. I have no idea what's going on, only | that one side has better mechanics than the other. I know these | games have strategies / formations as well. But they're a lot | less apparent to me, and engagements are so quick I can't grok | what's happening. | Kranar wrote: | I play SC2 and watch from time to time. I don't see how you | can claim there are longer term strategies at work when the | average game lasts about 6 minutes, and the first minute or | two of the game are basically "filler". I think one reason | SC2 is kind of boring to watch is because you get maybe 1-2 | minutes of actually interesting game play, and the rest of | the 4-5 minutes is just repetitive. | SgtBastard wrote: | Each race has 8-10 viable "standard" openings and 2-3 | "cheese" openings... sure, if you just watch one player who | leans heavily on "skytoss" or "1-1-1 Terran" it gets | repetitive, but also watching how each player responds to | the increasing info about their opponents build from | scouting is also interesting. | TheAceOfHearts wrote: | One of the problems in the eSports scene is that there's not a | lot of room left for grassroots events to grow. Too much of | eSports is propped up by deep pockets hoping to become the next | money printing giant. Then when the return isn't happening, they | just kill everything off. Why would anyone invest in something so | volatile? Looking at you ActiBlizz, with the suddenly cancelled | HGC. | | I'll continue to watch Brood War and StarCraft 2. The prize pools | might not be as large as they once were, but the games are still | amazing. | Ekaros wrote: | I think there is lot of room for grassroot events. But those | events will be small and local. Maybe couple hundred people | being present and couple thousand viewers. Not that much to | monetize and most teams playing will be amateurs. | Raidion wrote: | Heroes of the Storm was a lot of fun and had a great community. | IMHO, that's one of the big problems with e-sports: They're | clearly at the mercy of the publisher. | | Even more recently: Halo Infinite came out, was supposed to be | the next best thing. A bunch of people changed games to play | that, expecting a huge scene. It failed to really make an | impact on the market and left a lot of players high and dry. | | I think the best way (but not the most profitable way) is for | companies to commit to a certain number of years with a base | prize pool, and then sell team cosmetics that have a large % of | the price added to the prize pool. Too many professional | careers are based on streaming income, and there is very little | way for a viewer to support the scene other than watching. | Doorstep2077 wrote: | There are several risks to consider when investing in esports | gaming. Some of the key risks include: | Investment in esports teams and organizations is largely | unregulated, so there is a higher level of risk compared to | traditional sports. The esports industry is still | relatively new and rapidly evolving, so there is a higher level | of uncertainty and potential for volatility in the market. | Esports players have shorter careers than traditional athletes, | so there is a higher level of risk associated with investing in | individual players. The esports market is highly | competitive, with many teams and organizations vying for a share | of the market. This can make it difficult for investors to | generate a return on their investment. Esports is | still a niche market, so there is a limited pool of potential | investors and a smaller market for teams and organizations to | generate revenue. | dogleash wrote: | With the benefit of hindsight, I think esports are more similar | to the model set by the World Series of Poker than pro sports. | | Well attended in-person attended always felt like a non-starter | to me. I go to NFL and NHL games a few times a season, even with | bad seats the field is big enough that you only look to the | monitors for the replay. For a computer game you're not watching | play on the field, just the monitors, so you have the same | problems as a movie theater. | | I get the social aspect for your tiny tournaments, or once-a-year | events. But that's just not as big of an audience. I still go to | the movie theater too. But unless you're there for the hype of | being in a loud crowd... why go often? | khiqxj wrote: | i think the top e-sports games are terrible: cs (the recoil | system is a literally a hack), fortnite (F2p crap[1] and its not | really a real game, you can feel the OOP system while you're | playing as it takes several round trips for any action other than | moving/shooting to happen), pubg (bloated amateur project). then | theres valorant which aside from being F2P is largely boring as | hell in the same way as overwatch. ive been told that my | assumption that LoL is wonky RPG-esque metacrap is correct. only | the starcraft games look alright, those are the only big games i | havent played yet. | | there's very little happening in the world of multiplayer games. | the only ones with consistently decent netcode are COD and BF. | after their first few flops (like BF2) they finally mastered it. | everything else is downhill from there. theres not much you can | do to make your game good when it has no substance (at the very | least you need a solid implementation, let alone interesting | graphics, which Lol, Overwatch, and Valorant lack) other than | hype it up. | | 1. fortnite was acceptable for an alpha quality project in the | first few months, then they got skins and the FPS dropped by 3/4 | for any causal hardware, and it was all downhill from there | mamonster wrote: | As someone has followed the industry for quite some time, I would | say that the hype isn't really dying down, but rather that teams | are finally having to address the elephant in the room: Pro | player compensation is completely out of whack with regards to | where franchising revenue/merch sales are. Salaries need to come | down maybe 50% in the West for the numbers to make sense. | Godel_unicode wrote: | That's essentially the thesis of the article, yes. Hype here | refers not to the players or the fans but rather to the | business side. Investors are looking for returns and not | finding them. | PaulHoule wrote: | The flip side is that compensation is not terribly attractive | to the players. | | I've heard that players are dropping out at young ages not | because they can't play anymore but because it is not a good | living. | | I had a LoL habit for a while. I was definitely a fan of | Yiliang Peng but spent a lot more time playing LoL than I did | watching the pros. I don't think I generated much if any | revenue for his team. There is not a big money train like there | is for the NFL. | loganriebel wrote: | The reality is that top players can make more from | streaming/content than playing. To take your Doublelift | example he has been full time streaming for 2 years but is | coming back to LCS this year. He's taking a massive paycut by | playing LCS vs. full time streaming/content. | | These inflated pro salaries are good for the lower tier | players who don't have the entertainer personality | bitwize wrote: | ketzo wrote: | No need for the weird shot at women. Streaming makes more | money than esports, period. | runnerup wrote: | Indeed. The top woman streaming on twitch ranks #64 and | the second most popular woman does not break the top 100. | spinach wrote: | Is it simply a shot at women? As the only way women can | make money that way is if there is an audience of men | willing to watch and spend money on them. | IntelMiner wrote: | misogyny isn't cool | tashoecraft wrote: | I only follow pubg esports, but I'm just not seeing how a pro | player in an expensive country can afford to make a living. | The competition is brutal, the hours to be at the top are | very high, and unless you're a top streamer the income is | very low. | | Now this can all be hand waved away with "they're just | playing a video game, they're lucky" but I think that misses | the point. To be a pro at one game, you have to dedicate | everything to that game. Revenue sharing has to go up for | longevity of esports. | wingerlang wrote: | Isn't the very definition of 'pro' that they get paid to do | it? Prize money, sure, but also sponsors. | michaelt wrote: | You can get paid without getting paid _well_. | | Take [1] as a random example - 18th in the pubg global | championship, and they've made $53k split between 3 | players in 2022. | | How many hours of practice do you think they have to put | in, to be 18th in the global championship and earn $17.7k | per person? | | [1] https://liquipedia.net/pubg/BBL_Esports | wingerlang wrote: | Aren't they getting a salary for those hours of practice? | That's what I mean with pro, as in professional, as in | having gaming as their profession. | | Honestly, $17.7k for _18th_ place, in PUBG of all games, | seems very high to me as a prize. But I am sure they | split a lot of that with their organization, coaches and | whatever they have, and taxes on top of that. | | Even so, people work for minimum wage so it all just, | depends. | tashoecraft wrote: | A lot of the teams aren't organizations, and the ones who | are can sometimes get pretty low salaries, from what I | understand. With how much movement there is in the | leaderboard year to year, the team who came in first in | 2020 placed last in 2021. | | For how many hours of time played, it's well below | minimum wage. And of course it is different, playing a | game has plenty of benefits, I'm just thinking about | longevity of esports as a whole. | tashoecraft wrote: | I don't believe that's per person, that's total for the | team. So <18k for 4 players and a coach. The tournament | went for 20 days, so missing out on any income you could | generate from another job during that time, excluding the | coach that's 4.5k per tax, on the largest money making | opportunity all year. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | I don't know anything about e-sports, but I know | something about professional sports - and the prize money | at the top end is small compared with the endorsements. | Tiger Woods only made 10% of his fortune in prize money, | for example. | nigerianbrince wrote: | > and unless you're a top streamer the income is very low. | | For rocket league, the content creation scene is much | bigger than the pro scene. As a developer once said, is | very GIFable. Combined with the flexibility of the game | itself, you see nearly endless possibilities for content | creation. More than half of the top content creators for | this game are "casual" players[1]. Casual is quoted because | they're still grand champion level but nowhere near the pro | level. There are also pros turned content creators that are | familiar with unreal engine and create really cool stuff | (eg lethamyr). On the other end of the spectrum is sunless | khan who creates video essays about rocket league[2] | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rocket+lea | gue&s... | | [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuV2SGAZaig | kgwxd wrote: | Rocket League is very watchable by people unfamiliar with | it too. It's just Pong in 3D. It's 3v3, and you can | manipulate the paddle in very creative ways, but it's | basically just as simple. | | I was pretty much done with gaming until I found Rocket | League. It's one-of-a-kind in so many ways, I'm not sure | it'll ever be outdone. If it can't survive an industry | crash, I don't think any eSport game will. | Macha wrote: | The flip side is that the earning potential of the top players | are incredibly lopsided, whether that be the top competing | players in terms of winnings, or those most able to be a | personality in terms of streaming. It's not clear the teams | themselves contribute much to either of those areas - training | is most often self directed or with play groups that may not | align with teams, and it's not like e.g. soccer where there's | big physical infrastructure like stadiums that clearly the | players need an organisation to provide. Instead the venues for | in-person events are provided by the tournaments, not the | teams, and pretty much everything else the players need to earn | money is online. | rwnspace wrote: | I believe Faker was the first million dollar salary in eSports | on 2017, IIRC LoL moved to a franchising system for it's | leagues, which brought in a ton of 'naive' capital, the | combination caused a gigantic inflation in NA player salaries | and a significant one in EU. | | This was recognised as a bubble by veterans in the industry and | talked about on various talkshows at the time. | | I completely agree with your point about salaries and really | just want to add that this has been expected for years. ESports | is still growing, it's just the rate will seem more sane to | those in the know. | Ekaros wrote: | And on other side popular players can possibly make same money | as streamers or influencers with less risk and effort. | deelowe wrote: | To me, this is what's changing and it's not just changing | esports. | makestuff wrote: | Yeah you see it in the NBA/NFL with a lot of players | building their personal brand via | Youtube/TikTok/Podcast/etc. It will be interesting to see | how this plays out over the next decade. Will businesses | keep dumping money into influencer advertising, or will it | die down and go back to just the mega stars getting deals. | | I know right now even people with 10-20k followers on a | platform can still get brand deals because it is a new form | of targeting. I think the hard thing to solve for is how do | you measure the ROI besides use code "XYZ" for 20% off your | first month or whatever. | beckingz wrote: | So the classic sports model? | | Step 1. Be good at a sport and become famous Step 2. Convert | Fame into money by endorsing products. | HDThoreaun wrote: | This is true for soccer, but almost all American athletes | make the vast majority of their income off team salary. | Godel_unicode wrote: | In most sports leagues the vast majority of player income | is salary from their team. There is something approaching a | power law around endorsement money, even in the NBA it's | really only the top 10 earners who make more than 20-30% on | their non-basketball revenue streams. | ptudan wrote: | Not really. Endorsements and Advertising are a good cut of | the money but most of the big money in streaming is coming | directly from fans, whether through premium subscriptions | or donations. | epolanski wrote: | There is one huge problem behind esports: their viewers are | always going to be limited by the actual game's userbase. | | As no game grows forever at some point the popularity of the | esport is also going to fall. | | Esports are here to stay but the dreams of any videogame being | able to catch and retain viewers for decades is just never going | to be there. | pastacacioepepe wrote: | Or at least until competitive games become as enjoyable to | watch as, say, a soccer game. It's true that most competitive | games just look like a mess if you haven't played them. I guess | game devs should start optimizing animations, camera and | effects for viewers, rather than just for players, perhaps with | a "viewer" mode that is different from the player mode. | jmcgough wrote: | > I guess game devs should start optimizing animations, | camera and effects for viewers, rather than just for players, | perhaps with a "viewer" mode that is different from the | player mode. | | They've put a lot of work into this for league of legends. | nickff wrote: | > _" There is one huge problem behind esports: their viewers | are always going to be limited by the actual game 's | userbase."_ | | Is this true? I know many people who watch e-sports of games | they don't play, and professional outdoor sports are often | watched by people who rarely if ever play the game (football is | a good example of this). | 8note wrote: | Minecraft is the obvious eSports example | jmcgough wrote: | This is true for a lot of games, but less true in evergreen | games that can continue to update in perpetuity forever. | | League of Legends has been around for over a DECADE and the | esports scene for it is bigger than it's ever been. | thinkmcfly wrote: | I've been watching pro StarCraft Broodwar since 2005. 2 decades | soon! If they had released new mechanics since then they would | have killed the community. Modern esports lack the locked in | balance that leads to nuanced play and decades of viewership, | save for games like Cs and starcraft bw that avoid chasing the | 'next gen' marketing ploy. Blizzard did it's part to try to | kill scbw esports but they failed | s_dev wrote: | The core problem of competitive games is that they're "owned" by | someone. Imagine if "soccer" or "tennis" was owned by a | corporation. | | This is what's happening when you watch a competitive game of | Counter Strike (Valve) or Starcraft (Blizzard). | | Sure there are institutions like FIFA and Wimbledon but nobody | owns football/soccer. | | My proposal would be for a game to be competitive it must be open | source by default -- a generous license like MIT. | pier25 wrote: | I don't know. There are many racing competitions but F1 is | owned by the FIA. | intrasight wrote: | From a business practical standpoint, FIFA does own | football/soccer. | | But you make a good point about open source. It would have the | added advantage of being open to code review to find flaws that | allow cheating. | Reubachi wrote: | Not sure the case for "older" sport like soccer/football, | | But in US, MLB owns baseball. NFL owns American football. What | I mean is, they literally own the mechanism of play for these | two sports and allow the individual teams to compete in the | leagues, which they must make many concessions to be a part of. | aA "copy" of MLB can't pop up and play the same exact game, MLB | owns every part of it. | | IE; your "problem" with competitive gaming infrastructure is | exactly how competitive sport is and has succeded. Apples to | oranges of course tho | s_dev wrote: | That's not a good example. Here's why: | | How many kids play baseball in the US and don't pay royalties | to MLB? How many kids play football and don't pay royalties | to NFL? | | All these same kids -- when playing Starcraft have already in | someway paid Blizzard money. You cannot play Starcraft | legally without paying them money. You can play football in | your backyard whenever you want. | Tenoke wrote: | SC2 is f2p so you can. | | You also typically will pay some manufacturer for | basketball equipment before you play. | bena wrote: | That money doesn't go to the leagues however. | | You don't have to pay the NBA. Hell, you don't even have | to pay Wilson, the official basketball manufacturer of | basketballs for the NBA. You could buy a Spalding, or any | random brand. | TulliusCicero wrote: | Yeah, instead of price it'd make more sense to talk about | centralized control. | TulliusCicero wrote: | > when playing Starcraft have already in someway paid | Blizzard money. You cannot play Starcraft legally without | paying them money. | | Strictly speaking, you can: both StarCraft 1 and StarCraft | 2 have free versions. | | You do need to pay for the HD graphics for SC1 though, and | for SC2 you'd have to pay for some campaigns or co-op | commanders. And it's quite common for eSports to be free to | play, with mostly just charging for cosmetics. | | I get what you mean, though: even if there are free | versions, it's still explicitly under the game developer's | control. | bena wrote: | You're right and wrong. | | The MLB doesn't "own" baseball nor does the NFL "own" | football. Both of them are gestalt entities comprised of the | member clubs. | | The NFL are the 32 member clubs. MLB are the 30 member clubs. | You can't start a football team and compete in the NFL | because the 32 member teams don't want to play against you. | | Any concessions a team makes "to the league" is really a | concession made to the other teams. For the NFL, every year, | the 32 owners get together and vote on various rule changes. | Same with the MLB. | | MLB is a little weird in that it does have a government | allowed monopoly on professional baseball, but no other | league does. Like, you could start a rival baseball league, | but MLB could take whatever action it wanted to squash your | league (assuming all those actions were legal otherwise). But | nothing except very anti-competitive practices are stopping | you from starting your own baseball league. Just, good luck | airing your games, or finding fields that can seat more than | 500 people, or being able to sell tickets online, or | advertising. MLB can make agreements to exclude rival leagues | from everything. | | The NFL can't do that. Which is why you get the USFL, the | XFL, the Spring League, the AAFL, the XFL again, Arena | football, etc. It's just that no one is capable of putting up | the money to compete with the NFL. You're either overpaying | what any NFL club would pay for a player or fielding players | no NFL club would take. And that's not to dismiss any of | those guys in terms of athletic ability. Being in the top 1% | of athletic ability is still pretty fucking good. But the NFL | would be more like the top 0.1%. | | But no one is doing that. Average salaries for all of these | leagues were under the average salary for the NFL of the | time. There just isn't the money because there's no base. And | it's because the NFL has built its brand(s) over decades. The | NFL makes money hand over fist because they've gotten there | over the years. And they essentially got in when the | competition was on their level. New competitors on the scene | have a much harder path. | | The biggest difference is that professional sports leagues | are essentially team owned and team run. Collectively, but | still. | | A better analogy would be Wilson, Rawlings, Nike, Spalding, | etc. Wilson make a football called "The Duke". It is made to | the specifications set forth by the NFL. They also make the | NBAs basketballs. Rawlings makes the baseballs for the MLB. | Wilson/Rawlings gets exactly zero input into how the game is | played. The people who agreed to play each other do that. | | Whereas in eSports, the maker of the equipment (essentially) | is the one dictating how to play the game. It would be like | if the US Playing Card Company decided to start dictating how | the World Series of Poker was run. | | So what you have is that eSports is seen as advertising for | the game rather than the product itself. That's what | separates other leagues from eSports. Every other | professional sports league treats the competition as the | product. Mainly because they have to. Riot, Epic, Blizzard, | Valve, WotC, etc. all see their "professional" leagues as | advertising avenues for their "actual" product. | bbanyc wrote: | The USFL exists. It doesn't really compete with the NFL but | that's more due to NFL teams having much more money with | which to buy nearly all the top talent. | [deleted] | marcelluspye wrote: | The closest thing to this at the moment, I think, is online | Chess. | helen___keller wrote: | It might be interesting to note that during Starcraft Brood | War's heyday as a major esport in Korea, it wasn't really | touched by Blizzard. They weren't pushing out updates or | expansions, or leveraging control of the IP e.g. involving | themselves in managing the competitive scene. | | Blizzard basically treated the game as "done" and the | competitive scene turned into a major esport organically. | Verdex wrote: | Long term, I think esports are going to be fine. However, I think | it's too early for them to really take root and embed themselves | into any sort of mainstream or stable culture. | | Physical sports have been around since forever and even if we're | talking about some of the biggest games around at the moment | we're talking about things like football which was invented in | 1863. Plenty of time to shake out all the details such that | everyone understands the game and some stability evolves. | | Not only are videogames much newer, but the medium is up to the | whims of large corporations with a history of making crazy | decisions just to squeeze another dime out of the consumer. | | Give it a couple of generations and I'm sure it'll earn it's | place and become a staple of lazy sunday afternoons. | wasabi991011 wrote: | I was thinking along the same lines, but on the other hand, | will specific video games be able to have as much staying power | as physical sports? | | The way I envision longevity playing into the sports industry | is by having generational playing and viewership, with parents | teaching their children about the game rules, playing with | them, and explaining while watching a broadcast game. It's not | the only way people get into (traditional) sports watching, but | I believe it is the main underlying word-of-mouth mechanism. | | However, with videogames being driven so much by graphical | improvements, gameplay evolution, and other trends, will there | ever be an eSport which stays in vogue for long enough? | | Quick research on eSports: | | Tetris is the oldest at 30 years (for the World Championship | version), still a popular game with a competitive scene. Smash | Bros Melee is 20 years old and very popular as an eSport, as | well as StarCraft with a lesser but still decent viewership as | I understand, though Quake and Street Fighter 2 from around | that time are not drawing much viewership (nor casual | popularity). 20 years ago was also the appearance of | CounterStrike which is massively popular, but has had multiple | titles, with only the latest version of 10 years ago still | being played. All other major eSports are from that time period | of 10 years ago or newer as far as I see. | thefaux wrote: | Physical sports also have a purpose that esports cannot | adequately address: the need to discharge physical energy and | aggression. There is something primally satisfying in defeating | someone in say basketball that cannot be matched in my | experience by non-contact activities. | silisili wrote: | My main argument against esports is somewhat similar, though | in a different direction. It's odd to me to watch something | anyone can do, with minimal investment. Why watch when you | could just play? | | With baseball, football, or basketball, I'd have to not only | find a field or court and a bunch of willing participants, | but also be in good enough shape to run a bit. | | Watching Esports is essentially watching someone sit at a | computer - something anyone can easily do. I don't mean to | discount whatever skill is involved in being a good player, | only talking about barriers to entry. | lmm wrote: | The barrier to entry for football is very low. Someone | brings a ball, put down a couple of markers for each goal, | and there you are; kids play street games all the time. | Being out of shape might stop you playing _well_ , but it | doesn't stop you playing. | | Even owning a gaming PC at all is a much higher barrier (a | lot of people watching esports will be doing so on phones). | TulliusCicero wrote: | While that's true, there are also advantages to being non- | physical: | | * You can play way, way more of the game on a daily/weekly | basis because you don't really have to worry about | endurance/recovery in the same way. | | * With a few clicks you can grab opponents and teammates of | comparable skill near-instantly, at any time, whereas finding | a game for a given sport is much more beholden to schedules | and other logistical difficulties. | | I suspect eSports works better for the long tail because of | that second point: much harder to develop a critical mass | when people have to be local. If you think about how many | different sports vs competitive video games you could find a | match for with modest effort in the coming week, video games | would probably win by a least an order of magnitude, maybe | two orders. | HDThoreaun wrote: | This is the correct take I think. So much of sports is about | tradition and routine. Esports needs the build up that base of | "I watched this league every sunday with my dad growing up and | he watched with his dad when he was growing up" etc. to be | taken seriously. Will probably take another 40 or so years, and | esports will continue to improve in the meantime too. | | Importantly this requires long lasting games. Currently most | people switch the game they watch every 5 or so years. Having a | long lasting league that can create generational fandoms | requires a game that can be enjoyed for a lifetime. MOBAs might | satisfy that, remains to be seen, but that type of commitment | is absolutely a pre-requisite. | the_duke wrote: | I think you have provided an argument against eSports: a | popular sport is "timeless" and is played for generations. | | Games are ephemeral. It's very rare for a game to be popular | for more than 10 years. There might be popular franchises like | Counterstrike, but they are still different games that will | eventually be replaced by something better. | | That means you can't build up the same history, traditions and | attachment. | lmm wrote: | Starcraft is something close to timeless; I'd bet there are | some second-generation players around by now. | zlqart wrote: | Online chess tournaments have been sponsored by FTX and obscure | poker companies with Malta ties. | | It is pretty embarrassing how chess pros and streamers hyped | bitcoin and online poker. The image will take a while to recover. | s1artibartfast wrote: | I have seen this criticism for some other video games, but it | doesn't really resonate with me. | | At least for the examples I was aware of, they didn't so much | hype them as simply take money as funding or normal | advertising. | | I was surprised by how strong and negative the reaction by fans | was. | Raidion wrote: | FTX sponsored the World Series and F1. You can't fault random | streamers from accepting money from a company that's doing ads | at the Superbowl. They're not professional auditors. | | Hyping crypto is a bit awkward, but that's how bubbles are. | | I don't get at all how it's awkward for people to hype online | poker. Far better than slots or blackjack, and a very strategic | game. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-12 23:00 UTC)