Economist article: Pros clicking at war.

[Cry Havoc]

http://www.economist.com/node/17363780?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/clickingatwar

THE first round is over and 32 of the world’s best professional computer-game players are through to the next stage of the Global Starcraft 2 League being played in Seoul, South Korea. Over the next two weeks the players, including the reigning champion, Kim Won-ki (better known by his online moniker “FruitDealer”), will marshal their armies, ponder their strategies and crush their foes. The finalists will play in front of an audience of thousands (and hundreds of thousands more online) for an $87,000 first prize and the respect due the best Starcraft 2 player on the planet.

This is e-sports, or professional computer-gaming, at its highest level. Just like football or baseball, computer games can be played competitively and in front of paying spectators. South Korea, where the original Starcraft game was released in 1998, is the spiritual home of e-sports.

South Korean fans watch games broadcast on cable television and the players are celebrities. Teams flush with sponsorship money pay stars salaries on top of their prize money. (One player, Lee Yoon-Yeol, aka “Nada”, is rumoured to earn around $200,000 a year; a journeyman player might make $20,000). Now Activision Blizzard, the California-based company that developed the Starcraft games, is keen to spread the popularity of e-sports in the West.

Will it work? Professional computer-gaming in the West has been around for several years, with outfits like the Electronic Sports League in Europe and Major League Gaming in America. But it has never taken off to the extent that it has in South Korea. Activision Blizzard thinks that will change as faster broadband makes it easier to broadcast games over the internet. The company designed Starcraft 2 with spectators in mind and has flown famous Korean players to America to play an exhibition match. GomTV, the Korean firm that runs the league, is providing English commentary on games and it has opened the tournament to any non-Korean player that can manage to qualify.

Advertisers are attracted by the ability of e-sports to target an audience with plenty of spending money; Sony Ericsson is sponsoring the tournament in Seoul. The average American gamer is in his 30s and well-educated. With sponsorship comes the money necessary to attract players to pursue computer gaming as a career, says Sean Plott (better known as “Day[9]”), an American player-turned-commentator. Intel recently sponsored a European tournament with a $15,000 prize pool. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to exporting e-sports to the West is a lingering belief that playing computer games is not a proper job—an idea that would no doubt sound familiar to pioneers of professional sports from tennis to snooker.
----

I can honestly say that it is not out of the realm of possibility to turn on your TV in 5 years and see a full Starcraft tournament broadcast. :ihit Amazing.

[DarkReign]

[url]I can honestly say that it is not out of the realm of possibility to turn on your TV in 5 years and see a full Starcraft tournament broadcast. :ihit Amazing.

..and I would disagree. Gaming will never be a profession for thousands of people in my lifetime, anyway. Just my opinion.

[Cry Havoc]

..and I would disagree. Gaming will never be a profession for thousands of people in my lifetime, anyway. Just my opinion.

Perhaps not a profession, but I could still see it breaking through enough to be televised for the major events.

I mean, really, is Starcraft any less ridiculous than Table Tennis, from a spectator standpoint? Or curling?

[velik_m]

The major problem is the games (and with it the rules) keep on changing.

[Cry Havoc]

The major problem is the games (and with it the rules) keep on changing.

Right. Like the NFL is devoid of that. What's the rule this year for hitting a player crossing the middle, again?

[Dex]

They already have TV shows on ESPN about people playing Madden, so I don't see why this is that far off.

[leemajors]

..and I would disagree. Gaming will never be a profession for thousands of people in my lifetime, anyway. Just my opinion.

Yeah people have been saying it for years, I doubt it will happen. Not much widepread TV appeal for it. People may tune in in numbers for a live internet broadcast, but not TV.

[leemajors]

Right. Like the NFL is devoid of that. What's the rule this year for hitting a player crossing the middle, again?

cs:quake::futbol:football

[Cry Havoc]

Yeah people have been saying it for years, I doubt it will happen. Not much widepread TV appeal for it. People may tune in in numbers for a live internet broadcast, but not TV.

But what is TV?

TV is no longer a solid state item. It IS the internet. The future of television involves microprocessors, hard drives, and on-demand media, not Larry King, schedules and cable.

If there is an internet audience for an event, there is a TV audience for it. Do you think sponsors care if you're watching from a computer monitor or a plasma screen?

Consider that children born in the mid 1990s or later may never experience a time in their lives they can recall when they are more than a few miles away from broadband internet access speeds. Consider that the computer has already supplanted the television as the most used item in many American households, something that increases every year.

Internet spectating in the past was nearly impossible. There was no infrastructure and precious little bandwidth. How can you broadcast a CS 1.6 match full of Cal League college kids when most of the country still has to hear that screeching sound of a modem to get online?

The internet is changing culture faster than anything that has ever existed before, maybe all things that have existed before combined. It is easy to say that people will never turn their TV on to watch a video game -- and that's true, for baby boomers and most Gen Xers.

However, we are now in the videogame revolution. Gen Yers and beyond are not going to view videogames as "antisocial" or "nerdy", in fact now it's considered passe to not have a gaming system lining the wall of your dorm room or apartment for most young males. As many young people play video games these days than sports, IMO (obviously a guess here, but still). And since you nearly always see cultural lag with this kind of momentum shift, we are just now starting to see games filter into the mainstream public consciousness. 40+ year old soccer moms might see them as evil or at least a negative force, but what about people who played the SNES growing up? The Ps2? The Wii?

I think we're on the verge of a cultural shift toward mainstream gaming acceptance. It's obviously almost impossible to see right now, but that's the way it always is with these kind of things. If you had said 25 years ago that the computer would overtake television as the primary form of entertainment for many people by the year 2000, you would have been called a lunatic.

And this is to say nothing of the way that media could view gaming. Think of it... does a company that signs the NFL to a contract on TV have to worry about developing new shows or plots for their network during the football time slot? Of course not, because the sport creates the drama. It's not necessary to invent lies, betrayal, drama, humor in a sport because that sport continually provides a new source of entertainment. E-sports is the same way. A continuously changing, continuously marketable product that, if it sells, will continue to sell because it's a medium that sustains itself, unlike TV shows that can have excellent reviews and poor ratings (Friday Night Lights) or a fanbase that completely abandons it (Battlestar Galactica).

[DarkReign]

As you probably well know, it isnt that I dont want it to happen, its just that I dont *think* that it will.

[leemajors]

But what is TV?

TV is no longer a solid state item. It IS the internet. The future of television involves microprocessors, hard drives, and on-demand media, not Larry King, schedules and cable.

If there is an internet audience for an event, there is a TV audience for it. Do you think sponsors care if you're watching from a computer monitor or a plasma screen?

Consider that children born in the mid 1990s or later may never experience a time in their lives they can recall when they are more than a few miles away from broadband internet access speeds. Consider that the computer has already supplanted the television as the most used item in many American households, something that increases every year.

Internet spectating in the past was nearly impossible. There was no infrastructure and precious little bandwidth. How can you broadcast a CS 1.6 match full of Cal League college kids when most of the country still has to hear that screeching sound of a modem to get online?

The internet is changing culture faster than anything that has ever existed before, maybe all things that have existed before combined. It is easy to say that people will never turn their TV on to watch a video game -- and that's true, for baby boomers and most Gen Xers.

However, we are now in the videogame revolution. Gen Yers and beyond are not going to view videogames as "antisocial" or "nerdy", in fact now it's considered passe to not have a gaming system lining the wall of your dorm room or apartment for most young males. As many young people play video games these days than sports, IMO (obviously a guess here, but still). And since you nearly always see cultural lag with this kind of momentum shift, we are just now starting to see games filter into the mainstream public consciousness. 40+ year old soccer moms might see them as evil or at least a negative force, but what about people who played the SNES growing up? The Ps2? The Wii?

I think we're on the verge of a cultural shift toward mainstream gaming acceptance. It's obviously almost impossible to see right now, but that's the way it always is with these kind of things. If you had said 25 years ago that the computer would overtake television as the primary form of entertainment for many people by the year 2000, you would have been called a lunatic.

And this is to say nothing of the way that media could view gaming. Think of it... does a company that signs the NFL to a contract on TV have to worry about developing new shows or plots for their network during the football time slot? Of course not, because the sport creates the drama. It's not necessary to invent lies, betrayal, drama, humor in a sport because that sport continually provides a new source of entertainment. E-sports is the same way. A continuously changing, continuously marketable product that, if it sells, will continue to sell because it's a medium that sustains itself, unlike TV shows that can have excellent reviews and poor ratings (Friday Night Lights) or a fanbase that completely abandons it (Battlestar Galactica).

Broadcast TV in the US. Reaching the masses in the US. People have been saying this since the late 90s, when the CPL was founded and started hosting tournaments. It hasn't caught on in over 10 years, and it's very unlikely that it will.

[velik_m]

Right. Like the NFL is devoid of that. What's the rule this year for hitting a player crossing the middle, again?

First off: NFL analogy for European? I don't know any rule in NFL :)

Different games bring much different rules. Imagine if the rules of size of pitch, goal size, number of players, play time, maybe even number of balls would change every year or two in football.

But the problem with different games is also that pros have to jump to the next thing early or risk being left behind in a game nobody cares about anymore. There is a lack of established stars and you need stars and heroes to really sell the sports.

It not that the pro sports won't happen, they already happen and surely will happen, it's just very doubtful one of them will get very big.

[leemajors]

First off: NFL analogy for European? I don't know any rule in NFL :)

Different games bring much different rules. Imagine if the rules of size of pitch, goal size, number of players, play time, maybe even number of balls would change every year or two in football.

But the problem with different games is also that pros have to jump to the next thing early or risk being left behind in a game nobody cares about anymore. There is a lack of established stars and you need stars and heroes to really sell the sports.

It not that the pro sports won't happen, they already happen and surely will happen, it's just very doubtful one of them will get very big.

This

[Cry Havoc]

Broadcast TV in the US. Reaching the masses in the US. People have been saying this since the late 90s, when the CPL was founded and started hosting tournaments. It hasn't caught on in over 10 years, and it's very unlikely that it will.

How would it catch on in 2000 when broadband was scarce and the gaming community was still figuring out how to organize itself? To say nothing of the fact that the entire e-business market was about to completely destabilize.


Different games bring much different rules. Imagine if the rules of size of pitch, goal size, number of players, play time, maybe even number of balls would change every year or two in football.

Most of the rules of each genre are relatively similar. Command & Conquer is not all that drastically different from Starcraft 2. With good, informative commentary, they can close the gap even more and make it understandable.

How many people watch the NFL each week without any real sense of the rules of the game? I bet the number is higher than you think. And a lot of the rules in a game are far less esoteric than say, illegal man downfield, or what constitutes as a "holding" penalty. To say nothing of the rules of traveling in the NBA. :lol


But the problem with different games is also that pros have to jump to the next thing early or risk being left behind in a game nobody cares about anymore. There is a lack of established stars and you need stars and heroes to really sell the sports.

Which is exactly what leagues like MLG are working to develop now. Guys like Idra and BoxeR and are becoming well known to most gamers, not just the ones in the Starcraft community.


It not that the pro sports won't happen, they already happen and surely will happen, it's just very doubtful one of them will get very big.

I never stated that e-sports would ever compete with baseball, basketball, or football. The question is how big will it be, and can it reach even partial mainstream acceptance?

[leemajors]

How would it catch on in 2000 when broadband was scarce and the gaming community was still figuring out how to organize itself? To say nothing of the fact that the entire e-business market was about to completely destabilize.

The quake community was extremely well organized even in 1998, and battle.net was chugging along pretty good too. Angel didn't exactly endear himself to that community though. He decided to shun quakecon, which was a big mistake.

[Cry Havoc]

The quake community was extremely well organized even in 1998, and battle.net was chugging along pretty good too. Angel didn't exactly endear himself to that community though. He decided to shun quakecon, which was a big mistake.

Well, it might have failed, but that does not mean for sure that it's a precedent.

[z0sa]

CH, as much as I love a true "gaming channel" concept, I doubt it happens.

Take your "curling" and "table tennis" analogy. These are very simple concepts, that literally anyone can understand within seconds.

Or even basketball, or football, etc. Intricately complex, but on the surface, simple and easily understood by a casual viewer.

Now take an extremely indepth strategy game like SC2. Where does one who has no clue about the game, or any real want to play it much, even start in understanding what's happening? Sure, they can watch people build stuff, eventually catch on .. but the abilities and micromanagement and build orders etc would be totally lost and foreign to someone with only a passing interest, IMHO.

I think, eventually, it will happen. Just not soon. It is relegated to an online-only concept, at this point.

[Cry Havoc]

Now take an extremely indepth strategy game like SC2. Where does one who has no clue about the game, or any real want to play it much, even start in understanding what's happening? Sure, they can watch people build stuff, eventually catch on .. but the abilities and micromanagement and build orders etc would be totally lost and foreign to someone with only a passing interest, IMHO.

That's the point, though. Online gaming isn't for Gen X. Some of them game, but Gen Y was really the first group to take up the controller and start stomping on goombas.

Gen Z is now coming of age, and games are not a foreign concept to them. Quite the opposite, really. Most kids are going to play some variance of RTS during gaming, especially due to the prevalence of SC2, which is already gaining some of the widest appeal of any competitive VG in America. An RTS like Starcraft would be absolutely impossible for a non-gamer to really understand or appreciate. However, how many non-gamers are there left? I'm willing to bet that around 50% of the male population under the age of 25 plays videogames. Even if you take a harsh, conservative approach, say, 25% of 20-somethings, that's still a relatively huge audience with a lot of investment and commercial potential.

You guys are looking at this from the wrong angle. It's not, "Could SC2 beat Monday Night Football in ratings?", it's "Could e-sports viably survive as a market base in the United States against the competition that they'd be up against?"

Put them on late night. Weekend nights after the college football games wrap up and there isn't anything worth watching on TV. Put them on at 6pm when people are just getting home and the big time programming hasn't taken hold yet. I think it would do respectably well in ratings if it was intelligently produced and stuck in a favorable time slot.

[RandomGuy]

..and I would disagree. Gaming will never be a profession for thousands of people in my lifetime, anyway. Just my opinion.

Tell that to the guys who make a living at Texas Hold 'em. :lol

[RandomGuy]

But what is TV?

TV is no longer a solid state item. It IS the internet. The future of television involves microprocessors, hard drives, and on-demand media, not Larry King, schedules and cable.

If there is an internet audience for an event, there is a TV audience for it. Do you think sponsors care if you're watching from a computer monitor or a plasma screen?

Consider that children born in the mid 1990s or later may never experience a time in their lives they can recall when they are more than a few miles away from broadband internet access speeds. Consider that the computer has already supplanted the television as the most used item in many American households, something that increases every year.

Internet spectating in the past was nearly impossible. There was no infrastructure and precious little bandwidth. How can you broadcast a CS 1.6 match full of Cal League college kids when most of the country still has to hear that screeching sound of a modem to get online?

The internet is changing culture faster than anything that has ever existed before, maybe all things that have existed before combined. It is easy to say that people will never turn their TV on to watch a video game -- and that's true, for baby boomers and most Gen Xers.

However, we are now in the videogame revolution. Gen Yers and beyond are not going to view videogames as "antisocial" or "nerdy", in fact now it's considered passe to not have a gaming system lining the wall of your dorm room or apartment for most young males. As many young people play video games these days than sports, IMO (obviously a guess here, but still). And since you nearly always see cultural lag with this kind of momentum shift, we are just now starting to see games filter into the mainstream public consciousness. 40+ year old soccer moms might see them as evil or at least a negative force, but what about people who played the SNES growing up? The Ps2? The Wii?

I think we're on the verge of a cultural shift toward mainstream gaming acceptance. It's obviously almost impossible to see right now, but that's the way it always is with these kind of things. If you had said 25 years ago that the computer would overtake television as the primary form of entertainment for many people by the year 2000, you would have been called a lunatic.

And this is to say nothing of the way that media could view gaming. Think of it... does a company that signs the NFL to a contract on TV have to worry about developing new shows or plots for their network during the football time slot? Of course not, because the sport creates the drama. It's not necessary to invent lies, betrayal, drama, humor in a sport because that sport continually provides a new source of entertainment. E-sports is the same way. A continuously changing, continuously marketable product that, if it sells, will continue to sell because it's a medium that sustains itself, unlike TV shows that can have excellent reviews and poor ratings (Friday Night Lights) or a fanbase that completely abandons it (Battlestar Galactica).

I would agree.

I would also fully expect to see the military leveraging on this for remote controlled vehicles.

Why risk a tank/truck crew when you can use telemetry and robotic controls?

It isn't a new idea by any means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath_tracked_mine

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/ARV-A-L.jpg/799px-ARV-A-L.jpg

I can even imagine something similar to a terminator robot being remotely driven by a rather sophisticated skinsuit.

You can bet your ass the same thing has occured to DARPA.

I can imagine a blurring of the line between entertainment and reality, in which games are put out there, ala The Last Starfighter" (click for reference) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Starfighter).

Won't that be a skull fuck?

[RandomGuy]

We already have working prototypes of powered combat armor:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/US_Army_powered_armor.jpg/380px-US_Army_powered_armor.jpg

Starting to look a bit like the Space Marines from Starcraft 2?