When Forbes wrote the heated headline: "Why eSports Doesn't Need ESPN". There was some debate coming from both sides on whether or not the author, Paul Tassi, was making a valid point or simply coming at the topic too strongly. The author’s main argument was that the idea of eSports “needing to make it to television in order to become legitimate” was complete hogwash. When it came to whether eSports will ever be televised, the article gave a more moderate answer in which eSports may, someday, be on television, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.
That is a key highlight in regards to outlets in which eSports can be publicized. While there are a variety of avenues to produce eSports broadcasting, it goes without saying that they are not all necessary and yet, we value them even if they are an outdated form of how fans consume their favourite games. The discussion of whether eSports necessitates being on television, radio or even in the paper is pointless when businesses are already embracing the opportunity to expand, and the benefits from these efforts are already accumulating. Unfortunately, vocal communities translate eSports expanding on any outlet other than via internet streaming as a step into a heightened environment of [uptight] professionalism and an influx of curious (and sometimes skeptical) newcomers. These concerns about eSports changing and merging into mainstream expectancies is moot. It is undeniable that eSports will change as coming generational cultures shift into more technologically-focused traits; this shift also includes competitions, incorporating practices of the old into the new medium. Those who question the importance of legitimizing eSports are opinionated, and do not take into consideration the companies who have already been trying to legitimize it for many years. The author, Paul Tassi, is also victim of this narrow-minded view in which he dismisses cable television as an outdated media platform without understanding that although the current demographic consumes their favourite tournaments in-person or online, large consumer companies and products go through mainstream television to access their audience. Not to mention the cultural significance of television and that viewing habits still favour TV-watching by nearly 20 hours more than online viewing a week (MarketingCharts.com - 2013).
As the internet becomes more widespread, advertisers are turning to online livestream channels but that doesn't mean efforts to access television should be halted; on the contrary, they should be continually pursued. The disconnect between how advertisers reach their target demographic and how fans enjoy their favourite events can become further minimized. To add, broadening eSports' horizon will only create more opportunity for organizations currently starved for financial support, hopefully avoiding taking up offers from explicit companies such as from the pornography industry who have been losing advertising options more and more. From a business perspective, your produced events will have stronger marketable points by being live on national television (whether it is Sweden, Finland or North America - ESPN) than by just livestreaming for the sake of maintaining a semblance of "legitimate eSports".
A preview show for ESPN2 was produced during Valve’s Dota 2 The International 4 which, prior to its announcement, urged Forbes contributing writer, Paul Tassi, to dismiss both the television medium for eSports as well as calling it needless to expand to when your current fanbase relies on internet live streaming
It should be stated that legitimizing eSports and expanding the brands of our currently established production companies such as ESL, DreamHack and Major League Gaming are naturally one of the same. These flagships of eSports production are both representative of how attractive eSports can be for the average fan as well as the bridge to the mainstream gaming industry. While eSports doesn’t need validation from mainstream networks in a nearly exclusive online entertainment; it is heavily sought after regardless.
For DreamHack, the transition from being one of the largest LANs in the world since the 90s to becoming a fully-fledged studio as well as competitive event, has the interest of national television channels within their own country, Sweden – SVT (2009/2012) and now Finland – YLE (2014).
Likewise ESL has enticed similar national television interest with their advertised recent Dota 2 ESL ONE event at the Commerzbank-Arena World Cup Stadium. For years, they have widened their the two brands, The Intel Extreme Masters and their ESL ONE, previous EMS One, with massive events across North America and Europe. More specifically, they have been using mainstream gaming conventions to both advertise their brand as well as draw mainstream audiences into the excitement of competitive gaming including Gamescom (Cologne), SITEX (Singapore, Convention Centre), Comic-Con (New York), CeBIT (Hannover), and Fan Expo (Toronto). It’s a sort of ‘two-birds-one-stone’ plan in which ESL heightens the recognition of their branded events while also intertwining the conventions’ mainstream appeal to improve the marketability of eSports and the viewership of their own competitions.
Let’s not also discount the fact that ESL has been the frontrunner for game developers/publishers to rely on for hosting competitive events such as Blizzard’s StarCraft 2 World Championship Series (2013/Europe, 2014/North America) Titanfall at IEM Katowice (2014), Battlefield 4 at IEM Katowice (2014) and Halo at Gamescom (2014), Riot Games LCS Europe (2013), Firefall (2012), SMITE (2012) and Hawken (2012).
What’s also interesting about ESL is that their Intel Extreme Masters events attract many technology and mainstream game booths/kiosks marking that not only is competitive gaming using mainstream conventions to draw in new fans but also that technology and mainstream gaming companies can take advantage of eSports events in-person.
The progress publishers are making ranges from Riot Games’ massive budget and staff dedicated to all things LCS-related to Valve’s more long-term approach in meshing consumers with eSports fans to create cooperative businesses within competitive gaming (tickets and cosmetics that contribute directly to players, organizations or prizes at events). Together, they alleviate the risk with becoming involved in competitive gaming while also establishing a strong front for mainstream media to cover and expose both scenes (as we have seen with ESPN and The International 4 in addition to LCS World Championship on a variety of news sites)
The history in which competitive gaming has reached mainstream media stretches even farther dipping into its highs and lows with companies such as ESWC, CGS, WCG and more. This is especially true when it comes to national televised events as it is becoming the accepted norm in Asia (China, South Korea). Calling television a “dinosaur” when it has had such a relevant cultural impact in Asia for nearly a decade is just flat-out silly. ESports on television leads to better marketable numbers for tournaments, potentially more legitimate understanding and exposure of players and a step forward for generational values as generations are becoming born with access to the internet and outdated perspectives fall out. We can say that the value people put towards television is misguided especially with how impactful competitions are at conventional gaming expos. But the advantages of broadening our horizons among two audiences (mainstream gamers as well as the general population) are crucial for expanding eSports to greater heights. It answers the original article’s short-sighted question: “Why do all this work to try and expand to a medium that the majority of your fanbase may not even want or be able to access?“
What you don’t see in this image is the massive lot behind for all the booths and kiosks for other games and technology companies using eSports events to market and showcase their products.
The pitfalls from the past are always seen as two steps backwards and lessons to be learned. But these consistent outreaches from developers and eSports production companies to conventional media platforms and established gaming conventions tell us that there is a gain from continually trying to reach a wider audience; that the benefits outweigh the flaws to morph eSports to a wider accepted form of entertainment.
To Summarize:
To dismiss television is to be caught in the progress of internet livestreaming without admitting the cultural significance and habits of those who still consume a vast amount of television (not to mention how it is best to show eSports to newcomers via television, a more shared media medium) and where television still has an impact on national societies.
eSports businesses and publishers are making major headway in developing eSports into a professional, long-term and stable interest for players and fans alike. This includes integrating mainstream consumers and gamers with the hype and excitement of eSports via live interaction at mainstreaming gaming conventions: Chinese, Korean, Finnish and Swedish national television. Whether the public dismisses television or not is superseded by these years of established action.
In many aspects, eSports is a legitimate marketing platform for many companies, audiences and businesses as there is an intertwining of cross-marketing for both sides (developers to eSports and eSports with developers; discounting technology companies). That content can be further reached to advertisers who still prioritize television over any other entertainment outlet – sustaining businesses further.
Placing competitions at conventional gaming conventions may have a stronger interaction and impact on the gaming mainstream audience.
However, the question remains: at what point is eSports considered “legitimate”? What kind of measurements should it rely on to mark achievement: prize amounts? Media coverage (news, television channels, gaming conventions)? Or its influence on development companies’ business practices? It may very well be a combination of those areas and more but it goes without saying that the more eSports spreads, the higher its peak of interest and ultimately, acceptance as a showcase of the values in competitions, sports or not.
Timothy Young - Shindigs (Producer/User Researcher) Emily Gera - (Senior Reporter at Polygon) James Hu - Lemon (Finance and Business Analyst) Team Liquid User, jubil
I think someone who never saw a game like DotA2 on TV, they'd be like "What the fuck is this shit?", listen for a bit, ridicule everyone involved, i.e., "I BET THESE NERDS DON'T HAVE GFS XAXAXAXAXA )))))" and then switch to Real Housewives of Mobile, Alabama to see Jodi's crazy antics. Oh, Jodi, you so crazy, girl.
On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much?
Imperative - expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation.
The word is fine.
Torte, I take issue with two things. Your use of rhetoric to dismiss concerns seems like sleight-of-hand to ignore arguments you can't actually answer. You often hand-wave them away with extremely vague, unconvincing rebuttals. The second paragraph is especially rife with this. You make no serious attempt to detail what "legitimizing eSports" actually means, or whether there is one interpretation that should be embraced above others. This is a fairly important point as your entire article is predicated on a definite idea of what constitutes legitimate eSports.
Otherwise I think it's well-written and thought-provoking.
On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much?
Imperative - expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation.
The word is fine.
Well, it is being used very oddly, could have multiple meanings and is confusing in this context. Is it an urgent feeling to legitimize E-Sports? Is it an instant feeling? Or is it an obligatory feeling? Those words are all synonyms of imperative, as it has a broad meaning.
Even your definition makes it confusing, "the exhortative feeling to legitimize E-Sports." What?
I assume what he means is that some people believe it is imperative to legitimize E-Sports and he wants to talk about that. When I construct the sentence that way, the meaning is clear (ie very important to legitimize E-Sports). However, that same meaning in his sentence would talk about "The very important feeling to legitimize E-Sports." What is important? The feeling or legitimizing E-Sports? With it's title, this article could very well have been about some very important feeling he had after a some life event last night that made him to go on a crusade to legitimize E-Sports.
Therefore, it shouldn't have been used. But it really isn't a big deal.
On August 24 2014 04:37 BronzeKnee wrote: Well, it is being used very oddly, could have multiple meanings and is confusing in this context. Is it an urgent feeling to legitimize E-Sports? Is it an instant feeling? Or is it an obligatory feeling? Those words are all synonyms of imperative, as it has a broad meaning.
If he is using imperative in either of its two primary definitions ("absolutely necessary vs "expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation", that's perfectly fine. A word can have multiple meanings within a sentence as long as they adequately describe the subject and are complementary. It would only be a problem if we couldn't tell if imperative was an adjective or a noun: those definitions are irreconcilable.
On August 24 2014 04:37 BronzeKnee wrote: Even your definition makes it confusing, "the exhortative feeling to legitimize E-Sports." What?
That's because you're trying to substitute part of a definition as a synonym.
On August 24 2014 04:37 BronzeKnee wrote: I assume what he means is that some people believe it is imperative to legitimize E-Sports and he wants to talk about that. When I construct the sentence that way, the meaning is clear (ie very important to legitimize E-Sports).
"Imperative" is an adjective describing the gerund "feeling". Imperative would have to be used as a noun to meet your interpretation.
On August 24 2014 04:37 BronzeKnee wrote: However, that same meaning in his sentence would talk about "The very important feeling to legitimize E-Sports." What is important? The feeling or legitimizing E-Sports? With its title, this article could very well have been about some very important feeling he had after a some life event last night that made him to go on a crusade to legitimize E-Sports.
Therefore, it shouldn't have been used. But it really isn't a big deal.
The burden of clarification falls on the article, not the title. Titles are not bound to be complete summaries of their content except in certain, extremely dry fields. For what it's worth, he's being slightly sarcastic with the first interpretation. I don't see any blatant subject confusion in the title. If anything, the problem is the word "feeling" and its lack of intentionality. "The feeling towards legitimizing esports" makes no sense.
People need to realize that eSports is a thing in itself and needs no "legitimization." That argument is suggesting there's a self-aware 3rd party judge somewhere that makes the distinction between what is "legit" and what is not. The fact is that this being doesn't exist (at least not in a self-aware form) and eSports can fascinate itself with new ideas because it's young. The internet itself is still a new technology that society on a whole is only beginning to understand it's uses in modern day life - eSports is a child of the internet therefore making it even younger.
I don't mind using ESPN as a model though, but we should embrace the online platform we have - It's different and suits the culture of the games themselves.. We don't have a limited amount of air time, and in a sense, eSports can do something that "legitimate sports" competitions cannot - which is bring the feel of event to you through multiple streams, allowing you to browse more content at once. Or even allow you to watch a match IN GAME so you can see what you want to see when you want to see it from the comfort of your home.
I have other thoughts on the subject but I will leave it at that.
On August 24 2014 07:59 tshi wrote: I dont think anything will be legitimate as long as /r/starcraft is a thing =/
Certainly not my opinion or articles there unfortunately, but I digress. Vocal minorities always seem more influential than they really are. Don't disparage all of a community because of some occurences, chin up!
On August 24 2014 07:39 hoby2000 wrote: People need to realize that eSports is a thing in itself and needs no "legitimization." That argument is suggesting there's a self-aware 3rd party judge somewhere that makes the distinction between what is "legit" and what is not. The fact is that this being doesn't exist (at least not in a self-aware form) and eSports can fascinate itself with new ideas because it's young. The internet itself is still a new technology that society on a whole is only beginning to understand it's uses in modern day life - eSports is a child of the internet therefore making it even younger.
I don't mind using ESPN as a model though, but we should embrace the online platform we have - It's different and suits the culture of the games themselves.. We don't have a limited amount of air time, and in a sense, eSports can do something that "legitimate sports" competitions cannot - which is bring the feel of event to you through multiple streams, allowing you to browse more content at once. Or even allow you to watch a match IN GAME so you can see what you want to see when you want to see it from the comfort of your home.
I have other thoughts on the subject but I will leave it at that.
I think 'legitimization' is a shortcut word to an ambiguous final "we made it" that's joked around a lot. I do think there is a third-party judge but its a gradual move towards acquiring larger interest from businesses. That's my "third-party judge" and obviously people value this checkmark of authenticity differently.
I think online live streaming is embraced pretty heavily, especially as new generations are born into its accessibility. It's not like we can both accept television as its impactful status while continually utilizing livestreaming. I think you make a fair point about the qualities of livestreaming but also dismiss the context and hypotheticals of television such as watching in public places, at your home with your family, etc. This can all be substitued with PCs and a good internet connection but that's the case the majority of the time.
On August 24 2014 04:10 CosmicSpiral wrote: Torte, I take issue with two things. Your use of rhetoric to dismiss concerns seems like sleight-of-hand to ignore arguments you can't actually answer. You often hand-wave them away with extremely vague, unconvincing rebuttals. The second paragraph is especially rife with this. You make no serious attempt to detail what "legitimizing eSports" actually means, or whether there is one interpretation that should be embraced above others. This is a fairly important point as your entire article is predicated on a definite idea of what constitutes legitimate eSports.
Otherwise I think it's well-written and thought-provoking.
It is rhetorical sleight of hand. What is this "legitimacy" to you, why should I believe your take on it, how would I even know if it was gained? There's a lot of points wafting in that second paragraph that don't come together into a persuasive whole.
Publicity Broadcast medium New viewer entry Cultural impact of TV Advertiser-Viewer Monetization
However the public attitude as to whether there is an imperative need to focus on legitimizing eSports is opinionated without taking into consideration of companies already trying to legitimize it and have been for many years.
Did this fly right over everybody else's head, too? We're too opinionated to recognize attempts to legitimize (as before, what does this mean)?
The only takeaway I got was to not prematurely dismiss the TV medium for recruiting new viewers. I basically already agreed with that statement going in. The rest of the article is too muddled to grasp the main current of thought (if there is a main current of thought). It's something about TV as validation, TV as viewer recruitment, and TV as a financial boon. I detect in the background [rhetorical] fog an unspoken vein: eSports legitimacy is shredding basement LAN stigma, being considered just another sports, and its players as athletes.
On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much?
Imperative - expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation.
The word is fine.
Torte, I take issue with two things. Your use of rhetoric to dismiss concerns seems like sleight-of-hand to ignore arguments you can't actually answer. You often hand-wave them away with extremely vague, unconvincing rebuttals. The second paragraph is especially rife with this. You make no serious attempt to detail what "legitimizing eSports" actually means, or whether there is one interpretation that should be embraced above others. This is a fairly important point as your entire article is predicated on a definite idea of what constitutes legitimate eSports.
Otherwise I think it's well-written and thought-provoking.
Oh shit, I totally missed this reply! I'm very sorry and you don't know what it means to have you compliment my work.
Do you have an example of my dismissal? Initially, I wanted to keep it short so my biggest issue with all my pieces is that I don't go further. What could be dismissal may turn out to be a future topic though!
I personally think it is impossible to underling the details to what is "legitimizing eSports". That's my personal opinion, if I were to make it a thesis, it would be incomplete. To me, personally, legitimizing eSports is where it becomes equals to its main culture that it derives from: gaming and attracts similar sponsorship and businesses similar to extreme sports we see with Red Bull, Monster Gaming. I associate these events with the same as eSports events with the same amount of funding, business interest, exciting international events and content highlighting those people.
I think that may be implied by how joyious I act if advertisers moved over to online streaming, but you're right in that it lacks clear definition. Something to maybe write next?
However the public attitude as to whether there is an imperative need to focus on legitimizing eSports is opinionated without taking into consideration of companies already trying to legitimize it and have been for many years.
Did this fly right over everybody else's head, too? We're too opinionated to recognize attempts to legitimize (as before, what does this mean)?
The only takeaway I got was to not prematurely dismiss the TV medium for recruiting new viewers. I basically already agreed with that statement going in. The rest of the article is too muddled to grasp the main current of thought (if there is a main current of thought). It's something about TV as validation, TV as viewer recruitment, and TV as a financial boon. I detect in the background [rhetorical] fog an unspoken vein: eSports legitimacy is shredding basement LAN stigma, being considered just another sports, and its players as athletes.
AAH, someone nabbed a tooth!
I think, and you can ready your harpoons here, that the vocal audience that speaks about legitimizing eSports, especially in regards to television, blurs out some progress points made over the past four years just as this article barely grazes any progress made pre-2010. Granted, I may be discrediting the large lot of folks and invested fans but I think I may have overused legitimize as I am referencing examples such as ESL bumping up their attendance at major conventions as forms of converting and directly interacting mainstream gamers with the hype of competitions.
Bolded: YESYESYES. That TV, despite its coming diminished cultural impact, still plays a massive role in both acknowledgement of eSports as well as recognition that could lead to more avenues of business and interest levels on a societal level, even if met with initial skepticism (as it has been so for many years).
If he is using imperative in either of its two primary definitions ("absolutely necessary vs "expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation", that's perfectly fine. A word can have multiple meanings within a sentence as long as they adequately describe the subject and are complementary. It would only be a problem if we couldn't tell if imperative was an adjective or a noun: those definitions are irreconcilable.
The burden of clarification falls on the article, not the title.
I don't think we disagree.
It really comes down to whether or not if we can tell how he is using it? And can we? Absolutely not.
Look at the title: "The Absolutely Necessary Feeling to Legitimize eSports." Forget titles, when constructing sentences, you should be able to replace words with synonyms or their definition...for example... Discard headings, when writing one must be able to substitute words with like words. Does that make it clear? This article could have been about one of many things, including the necessary feeling we as people must have in order to legitimize eSports. But it isn't. The title as is makes sense to many because our brains auto-correct, the same way we can read the word tonite, know it means tonight. But it isn't correct.
And I'm sure we agree that any given article or book needs to be titled properly. despite the fact the burden falls on the article not the title. Therefore, the title must be clear. Good titles are thought provoking and to do that, it must be clear what the author is going to write about.
I'm getting a large feeling that I should make a sequel to this article about "legitimizing" and eSports What that entails, the end-goals should be, etc. I think it would be very opinionated and perhaps even wrong, but I'm up for the challenge as it seems to be lacking in this article: a missing cog!
Damn I hate the word legitimize and the whole discussion that come from it in the Esport world. I really feel like it's not something worth discussing at all. Legitimacy isn't something to be concerned about because it's a pointless and stupid goal.
Let's just work toward growing what we have without making compromises in what we think will help our " legitimacy" to people that don't care and won't care.
edit : My rant isn't really addressed to the article itself.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kwkQa.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gP0nY7F.jpg)
