EPTNo word on the others, hopefully they will see the light.
Some of the Talent Pool that came back from the CGS
ksharp, moto, Method, Volcano, zid, Dominator, Stevenson, lari, Da Bears, Garret, tr1p, shaGuar, LiN
The CGS Shuts its Doors :( - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Games |
GTR
51674 Posts
No word on the others, hopefully they will see the light. Some of the Talent Pool that came back from the CGS ksharp, moto, Method, Volcano, zid, Dominator, Stevenson, lari, Da Bears, Garret, tr1p, shaGuar, LiN | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I can understand that you're bitter about the poor game choices and the fact that it ignored Europe, but you shouldn't be glad because it hurts the chances for future e-sports as well. It would be like cheering for the cancellation of all future WC3 events, because WC3 sucks. That might be true, but WC3 tournaments still benefit the e-sports scene. EDIT: Jax is a tool. | ||
|
GTR
51674 Posts
I do agree though it would have been best to hold the main coverage in Europe though. But wouldn't it make more sense if BSkyB did European coverage, DTV do US and Star do Asia/Oceania? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
1 Havanna: It's not only USA teams that we want to see back. I'm pretty sure most of the Brits want to see the old Dignitas team back in action. Can you guys imagine? New dig vs old dig.  Would be quite awesome to watch.2 Grobic: pretty sure no one gives a F U C K about dignitas | ||
|
liger13
United States1060 Posts
| ||
|
tiffany
3664 Posts
| ||
|
Colbi
United States535 Posts
On November 19 2008 06:43 Jibba wrote: Money and sponsors are necessary for e-sports to succeed, but they're not sufficient. CGS dying will make it more difficult to get sponsorship in the future. Explaining to companies that "those CGS guys didn't know what they're doing" isn't going to work, because the companies don't really know much either and CGS has better infrastructure than anyone else. I can understand that you're bitter about the poor game choices and the fact that it ignored Europe, but you shouldn't be glad because it hurts the chances for future e-sports as well. It would be like cheering for the cancellation of all future WC3 events, because WC3 sucks. That might be true, but WC3 tournaments still benefit the e-sports scene. EDIT: Jax is a tool. I very much agree with your first point about the sponsors. CGS dying will probably bring about a more much competitive and interesting scene in the more established gaming communities like CS 1.6, but its going to hurt more than ever trying to find sponsors. Major Companies will now be less prone to put forth the funds to support these gaming teams seeing how they will probably not receive much if not anything in return for their investments. I am assuming in your second point you met that it ignored Europe when CGS first came about. The CGS now or should I say did have franchises in Europe, Asia, and South America. I didn't agree much with the CGS rules or for that matter what games they picked, but I agree with what they said. They were way ahead of their time and unfortunately e-sports have not progressed quite as far as some would like to say (Korea being the exception). All I can say is that companies should listen to the fans when choosing their games, take a careful look at CGS's model and learn from their mistakes if they want to bring something similar to the e-sports scene in the future. | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
On November 19 2008 06:43 Jibba wrote: Money and sponsors are necessary for e-sports to succeed, but they're not sufficient. CGS dying will make it more difficult to get sponsorship in the future. Explaining to companies that "those CGS guys didn't know what they're doing" isn't going to work, because the companies don't really know much either and CGS has better infrastructure than anyone else. I can understand that you're bitter about the poor game choices and the fact that it ignored Europe, but you shouldn't be glad because it hurts the chances for future e-sports as well. It would be like cheering for the cancellation of all future WC3 events, because WC3 sucks. That might be true, but WC3 tournaments still benefit the e-sports scene. EDIT: Jax is a tool. Companies know alot more about e-sport than you think, AMD, Intel, razor etc has been sponsoring e-sport events for about 8 years starting with CPL. There's a reason why they are always in every event. So no i really don't buy that argument at all. If an tournament organizer KNOWS what they are doing they will sponsor it, no doubt about. But yea, they will be more hesitant with rich dreamers that don't actually know what they are doing. And no its not like im cheering for the cancellation of future WC3 events, beacuse those organizers knows wtf they are doing. Poorly run events and tournaments does not help e-sport, it only does damage beacuse the general audience believes what they are seeing. That what they're seeing is what e-sport is about, when its not, beacuse they have no references to compare it to. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
if you pick games the sponsors want, you get money, but the competive gaming community isnt going to be invested in DoA. If you pick thriving community games, you get a viewership, but no sponsors to invest | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
Males shave. Gillette makes razors. (and I guess they have a female line of products as wel ;p) Pepsi sponsors a ton of Chinese progamers (Pepsi.Sky anyone?) and sponsored a KPGA Tour way back in the day - perfect audience and no need for sponsor-tailored games. I really don't get it ;o | ||
|
white_box921
United Kingdom967 Posts
You need solid games which a fix fan base who will buy the product from the sponsor and watch the matches, but then these games don't really require any computer which you can get these days (sc for example). Also the games aren't exactly going to make more sale because the people watching would have bought the game already, unlike lets say WoW where people who have never played it before might just subscribe to it after seeing it on TV. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
There's a huge difference between a clean organization with bad games and a sloppy organization with good games. CGS was a very professional group that made e-sports look good, and were bringing in the rest of corporate America like Subway, Pepsi, DirecTV, etc. It's simply ridiculous how you can consider this a good thing. Now we're back to Intel/AMD/Nvidia (which are all getting hammered in the economy) sponsorships only, which can only support tournaments, not a league or even multiple teams. | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
On November 19 2008 07:13 fusionsdf wrote: hmm if you pick games the sponsors want, you get money, but the competive gaming community isnt going to be invested in DoA. If you pick thriving community games, you get a viewership, but no sponsors to invest Usually the sponsors want the games that gives them the most exposure for their products.. = thriving community games. | ||
|
white_box921
United Kingdom967 Posts
On November 19 2008 07:23 FrozenArbiter wrote: I don't get why you'd have to go for tech related sponsors. Most competitive gamers are male. Males shave. Gillette makes razors. (and I guess they have a female line of products as wel ;p) Pepsi sponsors a ton of Chinese progamers (Pepsi.Sky anyone?) and sponsored a KPGA Tour way back in the day - perfect audience and no need for sponsor-tailored games. I really don't get it ;o I agree, I am sure you can get Red Bull (or something similar) to sponsor. All you need to do is post a so call research claim or interview of top player saying Red bull increases your game on gotfrag and there will be stupid bitches drinking it whole day | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
no more CSS matches to watch T____T | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
| ||
|
pachi
Melbourne5338 Posts
On November 19 2008 07:23 Senx wrote: Usually the sponsors want the games that gives them the most exposure for their products.. = thriving community games. Letting Sponsors run tournaments usually = Bad tournament because Sponsors don't know how to run tournaments / Confused community because Sponsors don't care about anything but their money / Abused community because Sponsors really don't care about anything but their money. | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
On November 19 2008 08:28 pachi wrote: Letting Sponsors run tournaments usually = Bad tournament because Sponsors don't know how to run tournaments / Confused community because Sponsors don't care about anything but their money / Abused community because Sponsors really don't care about anything but their money. Yeah that is true, but sponsors don't run the tournaments, thank god. | ||
|
Realpenguin
8253 Posts
CSS was the only decent game they decided to show. DJWheat is awesome, but making him cast a game like DOA4 is just shameful. On November 19 2008 07:13 fusionsdf wrote: + Show Spoiler + hmm if you pick games the sponsors want, you get money, but the competive gaming community isnt going to be invested in DoA. If you pick thriving community games, you get a viewership, but no sponsors to invest lool, that's true | ||
| ||
