|
This isn't gonna be me telling you what I think an eSport is and that you should agree, calm down and stop scrolling to write an angry post, you nerd.
I want to pose this question to the community because it seems uncertain what the majority would even agree is an eSport. I will offer multiple definitions I think are found in this community, and if one of them isn't here you can write your own, otherwise vote for it in the poll.
[1] An eSport is a video game which is played at such a level and has such a foundation (teams, sponsors, TV contracts, long-life) that it is comparable with a popular traditional sport such as football or hockey. If an eSport is not on TV and it doesn't have a contained scene of professionals with dependable salaries, filling stadiums, it is not an eSport. If it gets replaced by something with a 2 it is not an eSport. AKA Brood War was considered like this for a long time, though may no longer be given the events of the last year.
[2] An eSport is a video game with paid professionals who have dependable salaries and are watched by a large (tens of thousands) number of viewers regularly with legitimate sponsors and competitive teams. Those streams do not have to be on national TV, but can simply be streamed (because this is the nature of a sport which is a video game anyway). Production values of the broadcasts much reach a certain minimum, and player salaries and prize pools must be impressive (at least 80k at the highest tier). It can have a limited life and be replaced with a sequel. You might notice I'm basically describing SC2, and perhaps inadvertently LoL and some other very popular DOTA type games I'm not extremely familiar with.
[3] An eSport is a video game which is played at a very competitive level, has teams and players who are able to make a living through tournament winnings and sometimes branding. They don't have to have salaries. It's okay if only very few of the players make a competent living or get any kind of pay outside tournament winnings. As long as the game has a high degree of competition, attracts audiences to their biggest events, then it is an eSport. More or less what WCG terms cyber-games. If it is played at WCG it probably reaches this minimum criteria.
[4] An eSport is any video game played competitively. There is no need to judge between cyber-athletes. Teams and monetary winnings can be very uncommon. If it is streamed on the internet sometimes and people like to watch it, it is technically an eSport because the word 'eSport' is not as demanding as the word sport, or perhaps the word sport is not really even that demanding since it can include stuff like fishing and hunting and even argued chess, so we shouldn't get our panties in a knot about eSports.
You may be well aware that when marketing just about any video game, advertisements will say whatever they want about it and so will Blizzard and KeSPA and whatever. They don't decide what it means to the community, necessarily. You might have a different opinion and I'm interested. Perhaps it is just any game you personally have played competitively.
Poll: What is an eSport?[4] (38) 39% [2] (33) 34% [1] (11) 11% [3] (11) 11% Other (describe in a post) (4) 4% 97 total votes Your vote: What is an eSport? (Vote): [1]
(Vote): [2]
(Vote): [3]
(Vote): [4]
(Vote): Other (describe in a post)
|
I think most of the complication has to do with the term "Sports". As far as I'm concerned. eGames is more accurate and less tenuous. All the additional requirement of infrastructure has to do with our notion that it should be like all other mainstream sports. Which is a misplaced notion, in my honest opinion.
|
Number 3, imo. CS doesnt fit 1 or 2 and still is undoubtly an esport. Number 4 is just gaming and "esport" is a word used to distinguish something from the mere act of gaming.
|
[1], [2] is stretching it.. but i suppose...
|
I think you need to separate competitive gaming and E-Sports before dwelving into E-Sports. While they both have similarities, I think one has a much stronger legitimate support both socially, culturally and internationally then the other.
In my opinion, they should be separate terms as E-Sports encompasses a lot more and creates a strong connotation of what to expect than competitive gaming.
|
5 : a mean for a company to promote its (new) game and make money off of it until the next one comes out ...
Sadly
|
Continuing from my post above
I mean consider the alternatice. All there games played using consoles, pc, whatever of similar nature are just games. LoL, DoTA, CS, SC, etc. would fall all under as games. (I'd love to discuss the "sports" aspect but that is beyond the scope of this thread). There are paid-gamers and casual everyday gamers of certain games, just like in traditional sports there are paid-athletes and casual everyday people who play different sports, basketball, soccer, rugby, etc. To elaborate on my reluctance to "sports" consider this: when did you hear Kobe Bryant cry "Oh you are hurting sports blah blah blah" during the lockout? It is basketball and basketball only. I think the eSports and all this "community" thing has a lot to do with us nerds getting excited being in the spotlight for once and sort of a defensive counter-action after being marginalized all this time, with all the usually wrong notions that comes with it. The "community" itself is a bubble. We whine on balance, ask Orb and Destiny to be kicked or saved, hate certain organizers, etc. etc. and for what - all in the name of this glorious esports and the comunity!
Let's be honest about it. There are video games that are fun to watch, and there are more than enough people to make this a profitable venture from the point of view of businessmen. Is this a coherent and concrete whole? I don't think so. We should just let it grow and develop naturally.
|
On May 07 2012 00:10 Marti wrote:
5 : a mean for a company to promote its (new) game and make money off of it until the next one comes out ...
Sadly
I think that's very cynical. The correct way to see it would be: 5. Orienting a game towards a competitive nature that both balances the enjoyment of spectating the game being played as well as creating an aspect of skill-level and diversification to make it both accessible to play, but difficult to master (a la Blizzard). E-Sports increases the longetivity of life and worth to a game and thus, indirectly, increasing sales.
|
On May 07 2012 00:00 qqK wrote:
Number 3, imo. CS doesnt fit 1 or 2 and still is undoubtly an esport. Number 4 is just gaming and "esport" is a word used to distinguish something from the mere act of gaming.
Nah, there's plenty of games that aren't competitive or even speed run. Minecraft would be a good example (you could get competitive about building things, and there's probably design contests and stuff, but that's more making your own fun than like a competition you could go to? The more I think about it, the harder that is to define).
Torte, I don't think you can use the word indirectly there. Blizzard talked for years before SC2 was released that they wanted to make an eSport. Brood War and CS though, to my knowledge, became eSports because the community made them that, without a company pushing it. eSports today are companies trying to recreate that success. One thing I feel is that maybe there never can be an eSport until a company makes their game public domain. It killed BW, it will probably kill a lot of games just because the community can't feel like they own the sport.
|
So each new numbered definition is basically a less stringent requirement (in terms of money and popularity of the game) for a game to qualify as an ESPORT, do I understand that correctly?
It's actually a pretty damn difficult choice, though, it's quite difficult to ascertain when a competitive game becomes an ESPORT, given the lack of definition for either, plus while SC(BW/2) is very much an ESPORT, there are probably millions of fights on the internet arguing whether Mario Karts/Halo/Fifa are.
Myself I lean towards around about option 2, it is, in my mind, akin to the point in a game where first pair of Medivacs pop out.
|
Well, what a really wanna know is whether someone can like a game and not call it an eSport, or if any competitive game you're involved in must be called an eSport.
|
On May 07 2012 00:23 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 00:00 qqK wrote:
Number 3, imo. CS doesnt fit 1 or 2 and still is undoubtly an esport. Number 4 is just gaming and "esport" is a word used to distinguish something from the mere act of gaming. Nah, there's plenty of games that aren't competitive or even speed run. Minecraft would be a good example (you could get competitive about building things, and there's probably design contests and stuff, but that's more making your own fun than like a competition you could go to? The more I think about it, the harder that is to define). Torte, I don't think you can use the word indirectly there. Blizzard talked for years before SC2 was released that they wanted to make an eSport. Brood War and CS though, to my knowledge, became eSports because the community made them that, without a company pushing it. eSports today are companies trying to recreate that success. One thing I feel is that maybe there never can be an eSport until a company makes their game public domain. It killed BW, it will probably kill a lot of games just because the community can't feel like they own the sport.
I think to highlight how companies make games and situate them so they extend their period of life and thus earn more money is not only logic, but basic common sense in this world and industry. To even mention it would be to put more focus than it really deserves.
Just because a game is created with the intention to be an E-Sport doesn't mean it can't be and just because a game wasn't created to be an E-Sport, doesn't mean it won't be.
|
4. Something isn't a sport because its popular. I'm fairly certain waterpolo has worse viewership/prizemoney than sc2 and has largely part-time players, but its still a sport. If you want to claim 'videogames' to be 'e-sport', you have to extend it to any game that can be played competetively.
|
I voted 4. There are sports and there are professional sports. The same distinction should be made with esports and professional esports
|
On May 07 2012 00:14 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 00:10 Marti wrote:
5 : a mean for a company to promote its (new) game and make money off of it until the next one comes out ...
Sadly I think that's very cynical. The correct way to see it would be: 5. Orienting a game towards a competitive nature that both balances the enjoyment of spectating the game being played as well as creating an aspect of skill-level and diversification to make it both accessible to play, but difficult to master (a la Blizzard). E-Sports increases the longetivity of life and worth to a game and thus, indirectly, increasing sales.
Why is that cynical? Game Dev's main source of income is actually selling the game. One could argue that promoting "Esports" will indirectly lead to brand appreciation, which will drive future sales (a sequel), but it all boils down to studio wanting to sell current or future games.
Longevity of a game means very little to most developers, and more often than not you see big studio actively killing niche community games (server shut downs / dropping all support).
AOM had a small but healthy community till the servers were killed off.
War3 had a huge following in China yet complete lack of new ladder maps (some would argue lack of BM nerfs/UD buffs) (The patch last year doesn't count, it was way too late for way too little)
BW got sued for not paying blizzard
|
On May 07 2012 00:41 Derez wrote:
4. Something isn't a sport because its popular. I'm fairly certain waterpolo has worse viewership/prizemoney than sc2 and has largely part-time players, but its still a sport. If you want to claim 'videogames' to be 'e-sport', you have to extend it to any game that can be played competetively.
You and floor exercise make pretty good points. Sports and Professional Sports is a pretty good example of tiers of competition. Super Smash Brothers is an eSport, but SC2 is a professional eSport?
|
On May 07 2012 00:46 wassbix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 00:14 Torte de Lini wrote:On May 07 2012 00:10 Marti wrote:
5 : a mean for a company to promote its (new) game and make money off of it until the next one comes out ...
Sadly I think that's very cynical. The correct way to see it would be: 5. Orienting a game towards a competitive nature that both balances the enjoyment of spectating the game being played as well as creating an aspect of skill-level and diversification to make it both accessible to play, but difficult to master (a la Blizzard). E-Sports increases the longetivity of life and worth to a game and thus, indirectly, increasing sales. Why is that cynical? Game Dev's main source of income is actually selling the game. One could argue that promoting "Esports" will indirectly lead to brand appreciation, which will drive future sales (a sequel), but it all boils down to studio wanting to sell current or future games. Longevity of a game means very little to most developers, and more often than not you see big studio actively killing niche community games (server shut downs / dropping all support). AOM had a small but healthy community till the servers were killed off. War3 had a huge following in China yet complete lack of new ladder maps (some would argue lack of BM nerfs/UD buffs) (The patch last year doesn't count, it was way too late for way too little) BW got sued for not paying blizzard
It's cynical because you're placing an importance on something that is fundamentally obvious and normal. To state it is to admit there is something to note and generally, the understanding that developpers make games to make a lot of money has a negative viewpoint from a lot of people.
|
A game that cannot be perfectly mastered.
|
On May 07 2012 00:51 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 00:46 wassbix wrote:On May 07 2012 00:14 Torte de Lini wrote:On May 07 2012 00:10 Marti wrote:
5 : a mean for a company to promote its (new) game and make money off of it until the next one comes out ...
Sadly I think that's very cynical. The correct way to see it would be: 5. Orienting a game towards a competitive nature that both balances the enjoyment of spectating the game being played as well as creating an aspect of skill-level and diversification to make it both accessible to play, but difficult to master (a la Blizzard). E-Sports increases the longetivity of life and worth to a game and thus, indirectly, increasing sales. Why is that cynical? Game Dev's main source of income is actually selling the game. One could argue that promoting "Esports" will indirectly lead to brand appreciation, which will drive future sales (a sequel), but it all boils down to studio wanting to sell current or future games. Longevity of a game means very little to most developers, and more often than not you see big studio actively killing niche community games (server shut downs / dropping all support). AOM had a small but healthy community till the servers were killed off. War3 had a huge following in China yet complete lack of new ladder maps (some would argue lack of BM nerfs/UD buffs) (The patch last year doesn't count, it was way too late for way too little) BW got sued for not paying blizzard It's cynical because you're placing an importance on something that is fundamentally obvious and normal. To state it is to admit there is something to note and generally, the understanding that developpers make games to make a lot of money has a negative viewpoint from a lot of people.
It's not obvious and normal, making games into an eSport is a very new thing and worth taking note of because sports are usually public domain. Ya, ok, companies try to make money. That's not what he or I were saying. We're saying it's not necessarily good for an eSport to have been contrived, and that maybe if it is contrived it loses legitimacy.
|
Esport is an idea of communion between gamers which doesn't exist. It's only an expression.
Everything you described would classify as competitive gaming though.
|
On May 07 2012 00:56 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 00:51 Torte de Lini wrote:On May 07 2012 00:46 wassbix wrote:On May 07 2012 00:14 Torte de Lini wrote:On May 07 2012 00:10 Marti wrote:
5 : a mean for a company to promote its (new) game and make money off of it until the next one comes out ...
Sadly I think that's very cynical. The correct way to see it would be: 5. Orienting a game towards a competitive nature that both balances the enjoyment of spectating the game being played as well as creating an aspect of skill-level and diversification to make it both accessible to play, but difficult to master (a la Blizzard). E-Sports increases the longetivity of life and worth to a game and thus, indirectly, increasing sales. Why is that cynical? Game Dev's main source of income is actually selling the game. One could argue that promoting "Esports" will indirectly lead to brand appreciation, which will drive future sales (a sequel), but it all boils down to studio wanting to sell current or future games. Longevity of a game means very little to most developers, and more often than not you see big studio actively killing niche community games (server shut downs / dropping all support). AOM had a small but healthy community till the servers were killed off. War3 had a huge following in China yet complete lack of new ladder maps (some would argue lack of BM nerfs/UD buffs) (The patch last year doesn't count, it was way too late for way too little) BW got sued for not paying blizzard It's cynical because you're placing an importance on something that is fundamentally obvious and normal. To state it is to admit there is something to note and generally, the understanding that developpers make games to make a lot of money has a negative viewpoint from a lot of people. It's not obvious and normal, making games into an eSport is a very new thing and worth taking note of because sports are usually public domain. Ya, ok, companies try to make money. That's not what he or I were saying. We're saying it's not necessarily good for an eSport to have been contrived, and that maybe if it is contrived it loses legitimacy.
We're not talking about the same thing. It's obvious people make games to make money and will aim their products in a certain direction to which they know will make them more money. Read the quote tree.
|
All of you have such different conceptions of what it is and means. How the heck do you expect an outsider to understand it when you guys cannot even wrap your heads around it? There is no agreement between the community.
The term is too vague.
If you want to talk about SC2. Talk about SC2.
If you want to talk about LoL. Talk about LoL.
If you want to talk about BW. Talk about BW.
|
I have my own definition that I prefer.
Competitive multiplayer video game = Esport
|
3 Seems like a good definition. To me, if all of the references to games and such were taken out, it would also work as a definition of a sport.
I find that a sport or e-sport doesn't need to have huge turnouts or huge prize pools involved, they just need to have a decent level of competitiveness (not sure if that's the word) and let people actually make a career out of it. Also, the game/sport itself has to have some degree of skill gap between casual and professional.
I'd argue that the part about attracting large numbers of people to events doesn't really need to be there for the definition though. For example, let's go the invention of a brand new sport. It has the required competitive level (no, I don't know how to calculate that) and it lets its top players make a decent income. However, it has only just started out, and it doesn't have too many fans. It is still a sport, regardless of fanbase size.
|
I don't know what's with people and the term eSport. It's obviously something ambiguous and there won't be a consensus. Breaking down the term you get "e" for electronic and "sport" which can have all kinds of goofy definitions. It can obviously apply to any game played competitively.
If we're actually going to use a game's notoriety and the size of its competitive scene to define "eSports", then clearly we have a fully fledged dick size contest on our hands and that shit has got to stop.
Edit: Oh and you should be ashamed of yourselves. =)
|
At least $80k salary killed it for me on number 2.
|
Who gives a shit? If I think that something is an esport ill call it an esport - there are no concrete definitions.
|
There is no such thing as esports. There is competitive gaming.
|
Hmm. An interesting question. The way I view an esport, it must have a competitive scene, and there must be money involved and at least a few players earning enough money to live by. So maybe a [3] or a [2]?
I don't think it necessarily has to be really large like BW was, but at the same time I think it has to have at least a sizable audience for me to consider it an "esport." In my mind, an esport is not just any old game that can be played competitively with your buds, there has to be a certain level of recognition and a certain degree of professionalism involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
