Slashdot Mirror
The Purposelessness of FPS Professionalism
Doley writes "Over at GotFrag, there's an article discussing the financial and evolutionary problems related to professional FPS gaming. The piece explains: 'Regardless of how many fans exist, how many people play Counter-Strike, how many tournaments take place, or how many sponsors participate, Counter-Strike will never truly be a sport. Never will the players make an excellent living playing the game. Possibly, in time, the top teams from each country will be able to make a decent living - a living that we are all capable of making by simply attending college. However, because the majority of cream of the crop players and teams cannot make Counter-Strike a true career, the purpose of the entire structure and making it to the top is destroyed. Until purpose is put back into our community, the situation will continue to worsen.'"
The one problem that will forever doom competitive computer gaming is that gaming isn't meant to be a spectator sport. Since the dawn of sporting events, sports have been designed around the viewer, not the player. On the flip side, comptuer games are soley designed for the enjoyment of the player.
What I don't understand is how it's gotten as far as it has. Probably a lack of understanding on my part as I can barely understand the reason of watching professional sports, but the whole idea of WATCHING someone else play a computer game for fun is just... the funniest thing I've ever heard.
The problem with counter-strike and many video games as a sport is that they can't really be watched. In any traditional sport, there's some obvious object on which to focus the camera (a ball or a puck in most cases). The action usually focuses around this one object. Similarly, there's also no walls obstructing views of all participants except a few. Most rounds in CS are won by eliminated each individual member of the other team, thus making there as many focal points as are players on the team.
You could handle this in one of three ways. First, don't watch it live and show "important" clips (where people are killed or die). That would allow fans to see all the important stuff, but would have the feel of a highlight reel in sports (you know somethings going to happen) and it fails to give context to the action. You could focus on one player the whole time, but then you'd miss stuff.
One of the most fun things about CS is the element of surprise (which is not possible in, say Goldeneye since the opponent can see your screen), but at the same time, this same innate inability to see what's going on is what makes it a horrible spectator sport.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
of a particular team unlike in sports, where people really enjoy cheering on their favorite team(usually the hometown team, but not always). It makes it a lot more "interactive"(while it isn't really interactive, cheering/booing at least gets the person involved). The teams have mascots, they have history. And finally, you are looking at human beings instead of cg generated ones. It's much harder to cheer a team of geeks than it is to cheer on a team of very athletic individuals.
Computer games are infinitely more akin to chess than to soccer or badmitton. Whereas the spectator is a large component of the latter events (which means that people are making money selling tickets) but at a chess tournament only interests an aficianado of the game who can appreciate the sublime situations that are developing on the board, or computer screen. Thats why chess tournaments aren't held in stadiums and they charge the players and admit the fans for free. I suspect that the FPS competition will survive in this form for perpetuity as the game companies will also support it for marketing purposes.
00010111 always try everything twice
It's just a game people, well seriously it is.
:).
This was the same rot that happened in the quake community. Quake & QW went through its glory days but slowly faded from favor, along came quake 2 and then quake 3, each fragmenting the community a bit resulting in the original quake/QW community demise. Ultimately it did not matter that much as by this stage other bigger and better games came along (CS) that drew in the crowds with a few stragglers left filling the excess of servers.
The only difference in the CS community is that it seems to have come on much more suddenly, this is quite probably due to the absence of any CS2 & CS3 which would have fragmented it and shifted players and popularity away subtly rather than people jumping ship entirely. And to compound the situation, with the lack of 'the next big thing' it seems that there is nothing captivating enough to for the majority to move too.
As for the future, Doom III does not seem to fill that void, and nor does HL2 even though this has a better chance. One of the problems is a surplus of games, none of which are stellar. Remember Quake was the first, and CS was a fluke, a mod with just the right ingredients. I do hope something will develop that will become 'the game' to play but until then...
As for me, I'm going to stick with my nice intimate RA3 community. No Lama's here
Old Skool
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
It's the Cyberathelete Professional League; they play more than just counterstrike.
It's a problem only if you are very competitive. As a former organizer for some high profile (relatively speaking) Unreal Tournament competitions, it's about passion in a sense. Being constrained by the things that constrain us all; work, school, etc.. means you don't really have the time to truly hone your teamwork or skills to a professional level. And the games out there today provide enough depth of gameplay that you can always take it further.
Many people want to do just that. And if it's made spectator friendly, it can even be dazzling to watch a truly stellar team do their stuff.
Restricting the competitions to only those who want bragging rights and will pay for a plane ticket to prove it means the gameplay is not as good. For many games there are currently a handful of truly exemplary teams that just dominate everyone else; that's not fun, nor interesting to watch. But if the incentive and ability to support oneself were there, there would be a whole league of top notch teams hammerring each other for hard fought victories.
Which, I imagine, is exactly the same reason regular professional sports exist. Some people want to take their gameplay to the highest possible level, and others like to watch excellence in action.
And having that top tier action should mean there is a trickle down effect; more exposure means more players. More players is good for any multiplayer game. It allows for a larger, deeper, more interesting community as well as more games.
If you've never been so absorbed by a multiplayer game that you wanted to see how far it could go, or been inspired by another player who had just done something really amazing in the paradigm of the game you are playing, then you probably just don't empathize. That's fine. But a lot of people do, which is how the CPL and WCG (World Cyber Games) and QuakeCon and those huge european LAN competitions get their purse money from sponsors.
The only question is, will the interest continue to grow to the point where a true professional scene exists? I think as games progress it's inevitable that the answer will be yes. But probably not until games are closer to simulated worlds than they currently are.
But then, South Korea shows that isn't necessarily even a prerequisite, that's just my gut feeling. They already have professional gaming, televised and popular gaming shows and competitions, and games that register entire percentage points of their population in active gameplay. So who knows?
Two opinions put forth in the article:
If I don't get paid I won't play.
If I have to give up my college career to play CS professionally I won't play.
First let us put things in perspective here. As far as I know, very few sports have been lucrative for athletes in the beginning. Did people playe soccer 100 years ago to make money? No, since there was no money in soccer then, people played for the fun of it, for love of their sport and, probably, for fame and glory. How many of todays professional athletes make enough money to earn a living? Many of them have 'real' jobs on the side to make ends meet. Of course, this depends on the sport in question.
Second, having to give something up to do the other is a common thing, often referred to as making a commitment. Many people give up their promising careers in athletics, soccer, etc. to follow a more 'standard' route to earning your living. Some of them go for it, deciding they will pursue their dreams of getting to the olympics or something similar. If they succeed, good for them, if they don't, well , good luck to them.
It is not unlikely that one day, there will be money in playing CS professionally, or any other computer based game. But it will take time and no amount of whining is going to make it happen faster, only hard work and inventive ideas on how to bring CS out to a wider audience.
'Regardless of how many fans exist, how many people play Counter-Strike, how many tournaments take place, or how many sponsors participate, Counter-Strike will never truly be a sport.
Do you know how many people take swimming lessons, ski lessons or whatever and want to be an athlete? Yeah, a lot. Probably as many as CS players.
Never will the players make an excellent living playing the game.
Neither does athletes. My cousin did windsurfing, and even tough he was #1 in Canada for many years, it still didn't pay the bills
Possibly, in time, the top teams from each country will be able to make a decent living - a living that we are all capable of making by simply attending college.
Yep, just like traditional sports, if they're mainstream enough.
So, how is CS different?
I find it amazing that people even consider FPS games and games like Counterstrike to have a future! (No, this is not a BSD is dead troll).
The bulk of the industry that put counterstrike where it is today (Microsoft, Valve, etc) are all desperately trying to kill off PC gaming and move to console gaming.
Consoles don't do FPS, nowhere near the league of pro counterstrike. Can you imagine a professional tournament for ? Where all the contestants bring in their PS2 from home and their controllers with analog sticks? It's not going to happen. There simply isn't anything professional about consoles.
But you look at the next great generation of computer games, and even those are being ported over to the console arena. Even DooM3, the same DooM that made PC FPS gaming what it is today is being released on XBox. That's how great the pressure is from the console moguls on the gaming industry. They don't want big cash prize CS tournaments. They want you strapped to your couch playing PS2. And history has shown, what the corporations want is where the market goes (See MS Windows).
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
I think there's definitely room for games to become spectator sports. As graphics start to get better, there will definitely be an interest in it. I just think people will be watching it live on their computers though rather than on TV.
Imagine your current favourite sport, but instead of just watching the picture the broadcaster sends you, you can have the main action in a little window, and be exploring as much of the game as you want in your main window. Getting in as close as you want. Or maybe just watching the whole thing from four angles at once...
An earlier poster was right that spectator sports need a centre of attention like a ball or a puck, but there is plenty of room for current sports games to be watched (FIFA Football, Madden NFL) or for mods of FPSs that involve an object (like capture the flag, or any of the sports mods for FPSs like bombing run for UT2K3).
The ideal would be a 3D version of Blood Bowl. It's understandable to current sports fans, but it's also violent and fantastical (or at least more so than real life sports).
I used to be head admin of a large, UK-based Counter-Strike league, which contained about 90 different teams from across Europe. The one over-riding message I took away from this is that Professional Gaming is killing the fun in games.
When I first took up my role, in February 2002, Counter-Strike had only made its "breakthrough" into the mainstream comparatively recently. The CPL was still a fairly distant organisation, mostly associated with the Quake series. The league I adminned offered no real prizes, other than the free use of a clan server for a few months, and even at division 1 level, was treated as "fun" by the participants.
I ran the league for about 16 months and during this time, I saw the ethos of the community, as well as any sense of fun, brutally and remorselessly stripped away by a growing focus on Professional Gaming. First of all, there was a growing clamour to adjust our rules and maplists to match exactly those used by the CPL. If we threw a slightly different map into the cycle, we'd get whinged at by teams who claimed that "it wouldn't help them practice for the CPL qualifiers. Worst of all, it wasn't just, or even primarily, the top level teams who were complaining about this. I was never a particularly brilliant Counter-Strike player; I was competent enough, in a mechanical way, but I lacked the reactions and aim necessary to be great at the game. But there were teams who I could have beaten single-handed, from the bottom division of the league, complaining that they weren't getting the practice they'd need to qualify for the CPL.
The next ugly little spawn of pro-gaming to rear its head was sponsorship. At some point in Q4 2002, it seemed that every team under the sun suddely had sponsorship. A few at the top were sponsored by Intel, AMD etc, while the rest were sponsored by Frank's Kebab Emporium or Scunthorpe Tourist Board. With money involved (even though the monthly quantities in many cases were less than I earn in a day at work), teams suddenly started refusing to accept losses, without going through as many rounds of appeals as they could get. There'd always been an element of this; I can kind of understand a team feeling hard done by after losing a very close match in which external factors such as network blips may have caused interuptions, but suddenly, everybody was convinced that if they accepted their losses with good grace, their sponsors would dump them. For the first few season's I'd adminned, I'd done a weekly roundup/commentary for the league's website. This was a pretty inoffensive document; who beat who, how the next week's fixtures might go, details of one or two of the more interesting matches. This had always been well received. However, I started getting an increasing number of complaints from a small, but growing, minority of players. I couldn't comment on a match they'd lost, because their sponsors would dump them. I couldn't comment on a match they'd won and give any kind of credit to their opponents (something I always tried to do, particularly if a team was on a losing streak), as this would diminish their victory and their sponsors would dump them. So the roundups were discontinued. Of course, this trend intensified and, before I knew it, teams were refusing to show up for matches they thought they'd lose, as they figured a default would upset their sponsors less than an actual loss.
By the time I'd been running the league for 12 months, I'd had enough. The mature, fun community I'd once known had evaporated; all that was left was a bunch of wannabe-pros, who were all convinced they were going to make a living off playing games. I was, at this time, coming to the end of my period as a student and getting ready to start a full-time job, so I was starting to understand how the "real" world worked a bit better. In a couple of cases, I actually tried to suggest to players of a similar age to myself that maybe pro-gaming wasn't going to work as a career. This didn't win me many friends.
I'm always wary of the modern trend towards e
That means no tradition in the game. It means you can't be a fan of one team for years, even if you want to, because they'll end up playing stuff that might simply not interest you. It very likely means that nobody will be able to make a career of it, and that alone shoots the whole concept to hell right there. Rules for scoring, the ideas of performance, will not simply become more advanced... they will make lateral jumps every few years.
Sure, it's possible that someone could develop a game and then propagate its rules through successive waves of technology, to provide a stable experience on which professional leagues could be built. But why the hell would anyone even begin to undertake that effort? Video games are sold largely on novelty, and that novelty is primarily looked for in gameplay-- technological advance is simply expected. Nobody except the kids who want to make a living playing games-- and probably not even most of them-- would be interested in such a thing. That's just not enough of a support base to make it happen.