Pro Video Game Leagues — Another Economic Casualty

Anonymusing writes "Not long ago, professional video gamer Emmanuel Rodriguez earned a base $30K salary plus prize winnings in the Championship Gaming Series. However, with the economy suffering, sponsors like DirecTV and News Corporation are backing out, leaving Rodriguez with a more typical job for a 23-year-old: store clerk. After the demise of the CPL and the Championship Gaming Series last year, the only major pro gamer league left is Major League Gaming, though it expects to turn a profit this year — some of its players earn more than six figures from the $1 million in prizes given throughout the season, while others are putting off college to work on their gaming careers." A recent story in the LA Times discusses how the games industry slow-down is hitting game developers hard as well. Conversely, the used game market is seeing significant growth — it'll be interesting to see what publishers learn from this.

Comments

What will they learn?

[Evil_Medic1]

Probably...
"The used game market is canibalizing our sales, they must be stopped!"

Re:What will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

only after repaying stimulus funds.... oh wait

Re:What will they learn?

[Stepnsteph]

What they SHOULD learn is that they need to lower their #&@%ing prices. We're not talking rocket science here: People buy used games because they're - gasp! - not $60 or more. $30 to $40 is a far more realistic price range for games, and thus that's what most people are going to pay. Basic economics is a little too difficult for these people though. They'll just panic and blame used games for "cannibalizing their sales", or go on blaming piracy, or make some other inane excuse.

Re:What will they learn?

[GodfatherofSoul]

Huh? Are these gaming leagues taking in tax payer dollars in the form of stimulus packages that would give the government some say in what salaries are? Oh, they're not? So, STFU.

Re:What will they learn?

[0WaitState]

WTF? Mod parent down for gross stupidity.

Re:What will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

The used game market is canibalizing our sales, they must be stopped!

Simple enough. Sell your games through Steam (or similar) so that the resale of used games is impossible.

What is the right of first sale to stand in the way of corporate profits?

Re:What will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

PC games are not legally resalable anyway. Software is licensed, not sold, and the license is non-transferable.

Re:What will they learn?

[lgw]

The White House *has* actually considered capping CEO pay in *all* publically held companies. I don't know how seriously this was considered, but the GPP isn't just crazy. I was quite surprised at how seriously the "let's make veterans pay for medical care for their war wounds, that will save money!" idea was taken by the current administration (with even Pelosi roundly criticizing it), so nothing would surprise me.

Re:What will they learn?

[jez9999]

What they SHOULD learn is that they need to lower their #&@%ing prices. We're not talking rocket science here: People buy used games because they're - gasp! - not $60 or more. $30 to $40 is a far more realistic price range for games, and thus that's what most people are going to pay.

When did you become a communist?

Re:What will they learn?

[mistermiyagi]

Oh please, Like playing ball and stick or bouncing ball in hoop is worth 24 million.

http://www.insidehoops.com/nbasalaries.shtml

I would rather watch someone run a map with 20-30 kills and no deaths over shaq consistently missing freethrows 9 out of 10 times.

The market( you and me ) decide what is worth what.

Re:What will they learn?

[BoberFett]

Supply and demand is a capitalist concept, not communist.

If that was an attempt at being funny, you failed miserably.

Re:What will they learn?

[Mr_Silver]

What they SHOULD learn is that they need to lower their #&@%ing prices. We're not talking rocket science here: People buy used games because they're - gasp! - not $60 or more. $30 to $40 is a far more realistic price range for games, and thus that's what most people are going to pay. Basic economics is a little too difficult for these people though.

The price of games has no relevance to to levels of piracy.

If it did, no-one would have swapped C120 cassettes of £2 Spectrum games and the Amiga would have had no "scene" existing around people's desire to get a £20 game for nothing.

Or to put it in a more modern concept, there wouldn't be a group of people willing to avoid paying 99p for an Apple Application Store download.

Re:What will they learn?

[filthpickle]

Like playing ball and stick or bouncing ball in hoop is worth 24 million.

There's a bit of a difference there. (oh say 30-90K live audience that is willing to drop a decent amount of money on a ticket, and some seriously overpriced concessions...not to mention the TV take, which is where the NFL/NBA/MLB really make their money)

The market( you and me ) decide what is worth what.

Which is why "playing ball and stick" or "bounching ball in hoop" pays significantly more than playing "guns of shooting" or "weapons of blasting" or whatever of whatever the latest fps is (I love video games too).

And, I know it was just hyperbole, but Shaq has been much better on his FT's this year, 61%. Give the big Aristotle a break.

Re:What will they learn?

[amoeba1911]

Steam is already actively stopping it: "you may not transfer games you already own" as stated here.

You can buy it, once you use it, it's yours... forever! You can't give it, you can't donate it, you can't sell it. Game over, man! Game over!

Re:What will they learn?

[amoeba1911]

That's just some bull shit they keep trying to slap around. Amazon's Kindle is doing the same jack shit too, once you buy a kindle book it's yours forever. You can't give it, you can't donate it, you can't sell it. You gonna tell me now books are also not legally resalable? Come on buddy, that road ain't going nowhere. Let's just sit here while they slowly take away our rights so they can make more profit with less work.

Re:What will they learn?

[TheSambassador]

So what you're saying is... if games were already free, for some reason people would pirate them?

More so, you're saying that if people could get 2 or 3 games for the current price of 1 game, that EVERYBODY would still continue to pirate?

Gimme a break! Of course there will still be people who pirate the really cheap games... I know friends who have pirated Gumboy. But to say that there's NO relevance at all is... just silly. Even when you earn $10/hr, a $50 game means 5 hours (more with taxes) of me working just to buy a game (I won't even go into quality). I'd buy more games in a heartbeat if they were a much lower price ($15-$30 I think is fair).

Re:What will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is true. You buy a game to play one time and it's hard to justify the $60. $30-$40 is much more realistic like you said.

Re:What will they learn?

[mistermiyagi]

"Which is why "playing ball and stick" or "bounceing ball in hoop" pays significantly more than playing "guns of shooting" or "weapons of blasting" or whatever of whatever the latest fps is (I love video games too)."
"There's a bit of a difference there. (oh say 30-90K live audience that is willing to drop a decent amount of money on a ticket, and some seriously overpriced concessions...not to mention the TV take, which is where the NFL/NBA/MLB really make their money)"

I know . My point was at the bottom.

People decide what stuff is worth paying someone tons of cash to do. Gaming has an audience. Small as it is, it is able to pay these few guys as ton of money even though it is boring as hell to watch on TV. If the gaming league was able to get as big as even the smallest televised sport there would be guys making upwards of 5-10 million.

In any case TV and competitive FPS gaming do not mix. If MLG wanted they could( and I think should) get the devs of the big tourney games (Hollow 3, Shotguns of War,RTS#35) to create online "Stadiums" which people could use to move freely about the map and watch how they want( follow a player and view his/her(HER who am I kidding for the most part competitive gaming is a total sausage party) current/overall stats and support it with small ads or implanted ads that the competitors can't see but spectators can.

Fighting games / RTS can be televised the problem comes in finding the best way to present the match. There is no John Madden for color commentary to any FPS at least not on TV.

when does Guns of Shooting come out it sounds AWESOME.

Re:What will they learn?

[Patch86]

They've already learned that lesson.

"Buy our new game, only $80! You can install it three whole times, on any computer you want!"

Re:What will they learn?

[4x4lo8o]

"Fighting games / RTS can be televised the problem comes in finding the best way to present the match. There is no John Madden for color commentary to any FPS at least not on TV." You might want to check out what MLG is doing. It hasn't quite made it to T.V. yet(MLG had a show on USA a couple years but it was more of a documentary on the players and has some stuff with ESPN but not much as far tournament gameplay right now) but all their tournaments have live, commentated streams available free on their website.

Re:What will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

A book is legally resalable. A digital copy of a book is not, unless the license provides for it. I didn't say I agreed with it, but that's the current state of law. There is a fundamental difference between a piece of physical property and a digital copy of something.

Re:What will they learn?

[2short]

"The White House *has* actually considered capping CEO pay in *all* publically held companies"

[citation needed]

Re:What will they learn?

[Ihmhi]

Back in the early 90s, a NES cart would go fo $75 at Toys 'R Us.

$75.

And people are getting games way, way more complex for less than that?

Even so, I do agree that the price is too high. I think a lot of it has to do with the "movie box office" style of sales they employ - they make most of their money in the first few weeks of sale and then it drops off to practically nothing after that. I believe this is a non-issue through smart marketing and digital distribution.

Re:What will they learn?

[lgw]

It's always hard to find references that aren't to a political blog, but here's one. I'm sure your Google works if you want others.

The administration also will propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don't receive government assistance, Obama said.
Those proposals include:
- Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.
- Requiring nonbinding "say on pay" resolutions -- that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation.
- A Treasury-sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.

When Europe starts warning us against becoming too socialist, you've got to wonder. I still find the "make vets pay for own war wounds" thing so astounding that crap like this hardly rates.

Re:What will they learn?

[Gizzmonic]

No, ONE GAME was $75. Final Fantasy III, in 1994. That's because the cartridge cost plenty to make, because of ROMs. Most games were $50. Now, you can talk about inflation and the price of development going up, and those are both very valid points.

But the real point is that the public cannot and will not pay $60 for most games. They simply do not view it as a good deal. I've been playing games all my life and I still wince at the $60 price tag. If I wait a couple weeks, I can usually get games for $45 from remorseful buyers on Craigslist.

Maybe this means games are going to have to take a step back in terms of production values. That doesn't bother me one bit.

Re:What will they learn?

[mmiyamoto]

Let's look at it this way. A movie ticket will run you $12 for an hour and a half of entertainment. So a game that you play for more then 5 hours, is well worth it's price tag. Now ask yourself how many hours *ahem* days in actual playing time, you put into WoW or Call of Duty.

Re:What will they learn?

[filthpickle]

I know . My point was at the bottom

...in a hurry, I apologize

Re:What will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, fucking Europeans are the worst. Because of exchange rates and tariffs consoles never made much inroads until recently so they kept playing their Speccy's Amstrads and later on Amigas. Which cost more than consoles, which left them with less money for software,(less money for disk drives too, which explains all the cassette C64 games in Europe when practically everyone in America with a C64 had a 1541) so they pirated like crazy. Most of the big pirate groups back in the 80's/90's had European roots. That also explains the European shoot-em-up thing, they didn't have the storage on their C64's or Speccy's for RPG's like Americans did. so they played Dizzy and shooters.

Those fucking Euro-pirates helped kill the non-MS/DOS platforms (the c64 and Amiga especially) as commercial platforms for games.

Re:What will they learn?

[servognome]

Supply and demand is a capitalist concept, not communist.

Supply and demand is an economic concept, capitalism and communism are different methods to deal with it.

Re:What will they learn?

[Admiral Ag]

Come to Korea. I've been to pro Starcraft matches where the audience is in the thousands, and the TV matches are watched like regular sports. There's a corner store down the road from my house where people buy beer and sit and watch the live broadcasts of games on a flat screen from the tables outside.

The top Starcraft players earn a lot of money, and their sport is considerably more difficult to master than basketball.

Audiences for pro gaming will improve in the states once the kind of games that Americans play start being programmed so that they are watchable on TV. That means allowing a spectator camera that provides a dynamic view of the game, and not just following the player cams, like the current crap.

It so happens that Starcraft can accommodate a spectator cam quite easily. That's why there are a couple of TV channels here that show games more or less all the time.

Re:What will they learn?

[Admiral Ag]

WoW is a job. Blizzard should be paying you.

Re:What will they learn?

[cluke]

This is nonsense, the C64 died naturally along with all the rest of the 8-bits, and the Amiga could have been where the PC is now were it not for Commodore's colossal management blunders. Piracy had zero to do with it.

Re:What will they learn?

[2short]

Sorry, I was a bit terse. I meant:

  [Citation needed that actually supports your contention]

Any mention at all of "capping CEO pay in *all* publically held companies" would be a good start. I've no doubt you can find references to that, or anything, at random blogs because random bloggers make up BS that isn't true. Like slahdot posters.

Re:What will they learn?

[lgw]

Sorry I challenged your religious faith in Dear Leader. I won't confront you with any further painful facts. Rest content in your rosy glow.

Re:What will they learn?

[drsquare]

Koreans believe in fan death, that doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to start worrying about it.

Re:What will they learn?

[drsquare]

Who the fuck measures entertainment in hours? That's like judging restaurants based on how long it takes your meal to arrive. A good two hour movie is way more entertaining than a hundred hours collecting murloc foreskins.

Re:What will they learn?

[2short]

"Sorry I challenged your religious faith in Dear Leader."

So, you make up something that isn't true, offer a link that doesn't support it, and I'm the one with religious faith?

"I won't confront you with any further painful facts."

Well, clearly. You would have to present an initial fact before you could offer any further ones, painful or otherwise.

So now you'll resort to assuming you know what I think, and that it's irrational. Here's what I think: All this focus on executive pay is a red herring, and the administration is badly mis-serving the country by running with it; they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

If you'd said that, I'd agree, and maybe someone in the world would be persuaded. Instead you threw out some blatant falsehood and are now resorting to ad-hominems to avoid acknowledging your bad faith.

Re:What will they learn?

[lgw]

When I site "The administration also will propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don't receive government assistance" from a non-blog, and you reply with "where's the evidence that the administration is considering capping CEO pay?", I can only assume you're immune to facts. I'm very used to such behaviour from the religious whackos I sometimes associate with, but in the past 5 years or so it has been more and more common from other quarters.

This administration has just placed a >$40,000 future tax burden on every American family (some soruces claim >$100,000), and the news is repoting on how nice the First Lady's dress looks. It's hard to see why Obama would even need to used this as a red herring, assuming that was his intent. I think it's just as likely that CEOs getting paid as much as sports stars is, in his honest assesment, the biggest problem facing America today.

Re:What will they learn?

[2short]

"long-term compensation restrictions" could mean many things, including, but not remotely limited to, a pay cap. As it happens, your cite list the things it means in this case, and a pay cap isn't there.

We have:

"Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out."
Could be a reasonable refinement of insider trading rules, could be stupid.

"Requiring nonbinding 'say on pay' resolutions -- that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation."
Garaunteeing the owners of a company a nonbinding (?!?!) say on the CEOs compensation? I can't figure out if this is pointless or obvious. Not a pay cap either way.

"A Treasury-sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation."
A conference. Super-pointless. Better watch out or they might convene a study group; maybe even a blue-ribbon commission!

With lots of misguided populist rage about executive compensation around, the Obama administration is making a bunch of noise to pretend they are doing something about it. This is better than actually doing something stupid; not as good as using their bully pulpit to tell people executive pay, while possibly maddening, is not the problem.

I share your concern for the deficit, and frustration with the intrest of the press in irrelevancies. But my original point stands.

Your contention:
"The White House *has* actually considered capping CEO pay in *all* publically held companies."

is unsupported, misleading, and false. There is no reliable report they have considered this. Not even on the obvious-political-theater level they have "considered" other things they obviously won't really do or that wouldn't really matter.

Re:What will they learn?

[Ihmhi]

I very distinctly recall as a child looking at NES game prices around 1991-1992 in my local Toys R' Us. I live in New Jersey, your mileage may vary.

Prices would go $70, $75, $60, $65, $75, $75, $75... mostly $75. Nothing really higher, though.

Re:What will they learn?

[mmiyamoto]

While hours aren't an actual unit of measure it sure is a damn good comparison. And while we're at it, If the price is too high for your cheap ass then don't buy it. p.s If you're spending a hundred hours collecting murloc foreskins and you're not enjoying yourself maybe you should stop

My 3 guesses

[click2005]

Conversely, the used game market is seeing significant growth -- it'll be interesting to see what publishers learn from this.

1. That future games will be a 2Mb executable that downloads all the game content.
2. They need to charge more for games
3. Piracy is to blame.

Re:My 3 guesses

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Don't forget

4) Sue EB Games/Gamestop
5) Punish the gamers that buy the game more than the pirates
6) Come up with the lamest games possible, sell at premium(oh wait they already know this one)

Re:My 3 guesses

[GodfatherofSoul]

One problem with your first bullet. High end games are getting HUGE. That's a hell of a lot of bandwidth on the server side along with a lot of data to push through someone's cable model. Can you imagine having to wait a day or two to play a game you just bought from Walmart?

Re:My 3 guesses

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest downfall of PC gaming was when the retail stores refused to take returns. If customers were able to return that crappy/buggy game that the marketing department forced to market, maybe the developers would get the hint to stop releasing them and actually put out a solid product.

Re:My 3 guesses

[click2005]

I know and with the game industry seeming to love wasting more and more effort on cut-scenes and unneeded HD content its only likely to increase. Valve's Steam has shown it can work well (especially with being able to download locked games before they're released that unlock at a certain time) although 20-30Gb games will use up some people's bandwidth allowances.

I suspect in a few years we'll all be getting most of our entertainment (games, tv, movies, music & pay per view events) online with ISPs doing deals giving faster/better/earlier access to certain content.

Re:My 3 guesses

[crashumbc]

WoW is up to 14+ gb rith now I think

Re:My 3 guesses

[Anonymous Coward]

wow. Why do people here on slashdot hate the gaming industry so much? At least, it seems that way. I guess my first argument is, if you don't want to pay 60 dollars for a game, then don't. I personally find 60 dollars to be worth it for games I get a lot of reply value out of (like Left 4 Dead, damn that game is good). To me, it's more insulting that a 90 minute movie at the theaters is 10 dollars per person and that popcorn and a soda is $7.50.

But, in truth, that's not even what bugs me about Slashdot. It's that people bitch about the $60 dollar pricetag today, then tomorrow someone posts about Gamestop making craploads of money and we'll get a whole new handful of fervant negative rants modded +5. It's like, people here just don't like anything.

Re:My 3 guesses

[bFusion]

>> 1. That future games will be a 2Mb executable that downloads all the game content.

Finally! Games on floppy disks again! No more need for cumbersome and easily damaged CDs!

Re:My 3 guesses

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The problem there is that people would just copy the game and return it.

Re:My 3 guesses

[mistermiyagi]

It would be interesting to see but what of the telco's move toward tiered pricing and low usage caps. I can't imagine someone wanting to pay even more to download COD 9 - OUT OF AMMO if it comes in at 8GB (~2 dvds).

Re:My 3 guesses

[SBacks]

It's like, people here just don't like anything.

You must be new here. And, by "here" I mean, the internet. Cuz people bitching and whining is the same everywhere. Except some places they post pictures of ambulances and call you a crybaby.

Re:My 3 guesses

[jgostling]

Which is why you will buy it online directly from the publisher's site or console maker's store (so they can blame your ISP for throttling/capping your connection), and they will make extensive use of P2P technology to deliver the content (thus not paying for the bulk of the distribution channel and further encouraging your ISP to throttle/cap).

Sigh...

Re:My 3 guesses

[FrostDust]

I guess my first argument is, if you don't want to pay 60 dollars for a game, then don't. I personally find 60 dollars to be worth it for games I get a lot of reply value out of (like Left 4 Dead, damn that game is good).

I'd be hard pressed to agree that every $60 game out there is at least as good for L4D.

Re:My 3 guesses

[filthpickle]

Valve's Steam has shown it can work well (especially with being able to download locked games before they're released that unlock at a certain time)

That Peter North sized upstream phatpipe they seem to have helps also. Glad I don't live where the bandwidth is metered (yet), I get anything I can on steam.

I've never been angry with how long I had to wait for a game to dl thru steam. Although I'm more than willing to be the exception to the rule there.

Re:My 3 guesses

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it would be just like when i bought half-life 2 on release day..took nearly two days to "activate", and that was after having to re-install 3 times after realizing the installer fails an hour in if counter-strike source isn't selected to install.

Re:My 3 guesses

[Gizzmonic]

How about $60 games like Mirrors Edge or Beautiful Katamari, that take about 4 hours to complete? And they still have the gall to nickel-and-dime with add-on maps that are on the disc itself, but cost extra money to unlock. Fuck that noise.

Re:My 3 guesses

[nbates]

I think you were being sarcastic, which is why they should have tagged you Funny. I mean... there is no way that you (a slashdot user) expect point 1 to stop piracy?

Pizza always tastes better the next day too

[Anonymous Coward]

Conversely, the used game market is seeing significant growth -- it'll be interesting to see what publishers learn from this.

Clearly they need to go straight to the "used" market. It's like "straight to DVD" in movies.

It is the drug testing that killed it

[Anonymous Coward]

And the fact that all our cherished heros and their records were really just the products of big pharma.

if only...

[Digitus1337]

If only we had some players that were -really- good at "fix the economy" games. I'd grok to that.

Re:if only...

[TheRaven64]

Get those people who are earning more than six figures each, out of a total of $1,000,000. They seem to have managed the whole 'wealth creation' thing. Or they measure their income in cents...

Re:if only...

[DamienNightbane]

Well, I'm fairly good at balancing the budget in Sim City games. The secret is to lower taxes to encourage growth and cut spending so that you have a surplus that you can use for projects later.

Re:if only...

[filthpickle]

and, of course, that more roads just make more traffic :)

what will publishers learn

[CannonballHead]

used game market is seeing significant growth -- it'll be interesting to see what publishers learn from this.

Ooo oo oo, I know, pick me! Publishers will learn that they should publish used games! ... hm, wait...

Re:what will publishers learn

[v1]

No, what they'll learn is to install even more offensive DRM that prevents you from reselling your game, so they can sell more new copies.

oh wait they're already starting to do that aren't they?

Curtain call

[oldhack]

Stories like this make me feel *OLD*.

Take my lawn.

Sports Celebrities

[Aladrin]

He's just a sports celebrity. That's all. You don't hear anyone crying because nobody can get sponsors for curling, do you?

If people wanted to watch other people play video games, the economy would have very little effect on his life.

Though, honestly, I've never been sure why people want to watch other people play any other sport, either.

Re:Sports Celebrities

[KatAngel]

Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, do. Those who can't do either, watch and wish they could.

Re:Sports Celebrities

[steelfood]

It's the same reason as why the ancient Romans liked to watch gladiators do battle.

When you watch a sports team play, you are watching the fruits of countless hours of training and practice being put into use. That kind of dedication simultaneously generates awe, wonder, and respect, deservedly, I would say. And it may have been among your many unrealized childhood ambitions to do what they are doing now, or it may be one of your current fantasies, but that bit of empathy that every person has at least a little of puts you into the athlete's shoes if only for a moment. And the brief adrenaline rush from that is extremely satisfying.

That's why people watch sports of any kind. Some are more interesting to watch, depending on how well people are able to relate to it.

Personally, I'd agree with your unspoken sentiments, that it's probably more interesting to be the player than the spectator. I don't watch for entertainment any sport that I play, and I only watch critically the sports that I partake in seriously. It's why I find competitive gaming to be absolutely boring to watch. But this may not be so for others.

Re:Sports Celebrities

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not a sports celebrity. Video games are not a sport. At best they're a skill.

Of course I argue the same about golf, while recognizing that at the "pro" level the athletic aspects of the game play a significant role. (I'm a bit more split on curling, as anybody who's ever tried to balance on ice and throw a huge rock can attest...there is _some_ athleticism there at any level.)

In any case, if one more fat kid who spent too much time living in his parents basement needs to find an actual job...I don't see this as a major loss.

Re:Sports Celebrities

[ptelligence]

That has absolutely nothing to do with why I watch women's beach volleyball.

Re:Sports Celebrities

[CyberLord Seven]

Mod this guy UP!

Re:Sports Celebrities

[Anonymous Coward]

And then down.

Re:Sports Celebrities

[steelfood]

I fail to see the difference; you're also watching that which you can't touc^H^H^H^Hpartake in, and with no small amount of wonder, awe, and respect, I'll bet.

Re:Sports Celebrities

[Anonymous Coward]

And then up and down and up and down! Yea! Look at those "mod points" bounce!

Re:Sports Celebrities

[British]

I feel the same way about women's flat track roller derby. :)

Re:Sports Celebrities

[masmullin]

I remember something from the discovery channel (probably daily planet, but I cant remember exactly) saying that when you watch someone participate in sports the sections of the brain relating to motion start activating as if the watcher was playing too. Thus watching others play is kinda like playing yourself. Add the tribalism of professional sports and its rather easy to understand why people watch pro sports.

Re:Sports Celebrities

[DreadPiratePizz]

"It's why I find competitive gaming to be absolutely boring to watch. But this may not be so for others."

I think this true in general, for a variety of reasons, but there are certain games that make great spectator sports. We tend to like FPS games here in the states for competition, and games like Halo 3 are some of the big names at MLG. Unfortunately FPS is not a good spectator sport, since it's not easily watchable. The games don't have a visual progression: you did and respawn, die and respawn, etc, so at a glance there's no indication of who's winning and why. Second, there really isn't a good viewpoint for the spectator. You could have a floating spectator camera, or the view of a player, but neither of those can give you a sense of how the game is going overall.

Two game types that do very well for spectators are RTS games and Fighting games. Fighting games are great because the perspective is easy to watch, and you can see the match progress as a spectator. You can even jump right in mid fight and know who's winning and why. Furthermore, the actions have an indicative permanence that FPS games don't. You see a move, and it takes off life, and every action is quickly relatable to the overall whole flow of the match. The problem, is that matches tend to be short. A three round match can last maybe a few minutes.

RTS games are of course perfect, which is why Starcraft is the most widely watched E-Sport in the world. Games can be longer than fighting games, yet it has an easy perspective for spectators. At a glance you can see what buildings and units a player has, their map control, etc. Being a fan of Pro SC myself, I can say that it is very exciting to watch. Unfortunately for whatever reason, in the States we tend to like games that aren't spectator friendly, which may be a large reason why Pro gaming is not as big here as in Korea.

Re:Sports Celebrities

[jgostling]

Did you miss the part about "unrealized childhood ambitions" or about "current fantasies"?

what publishers learn from this

[moose_hp]

[...] Conversely, the used game market is seeing significant growth â" it'll be interesting to see what publishers learn from this.

That DRM is good and they should disallow the selling of used games.

What? they were supposed to learn that their bussiness model can be better? that most new games cost way too much? that is not required to have a great studio spending millions of dollars to make a great game (World of Goo comes to mind, their "studio" was pretty much any coffe shop with free wi-fi)?

I may be wrong...

Re:what publishers learn from this

[Anonymous Coward]

What? they were supposed to learn that their bussiness model can be better? that most new games cost way too much?

That is irrelevant when the main retailers take the view that they should push used sales over new sales. If they sold new games for $10, the retailers would just push used games for $9.50 (and give no money whatsoever to the developers and publishers, and less than $5 to the person who traded it in).

Re:what publishers learn from this

[servognome]

What? they were supposed to learn that their bussiness model can be better? that most new games cost way too much? that is not required to have a great studio spending millions of dollars to make a great game (World of Goo comes to mind, their "studio" was pretty much any coffe shop with free wi-fi)?

They are learning how to improve their business model. Games as a service, whether subscription like MMOs or micropayments for upgrades (tied to an online account), are becoming more popular. Companies have much more legal power to control selling of accounts on their server than they do plastic discs.

Ob

[edittard]

We kan haz baylowt?

Re:Ob

[furby076]

We kan haz baylowt?

G@m3rz b@yl0wt b|ll p@ss3d by cash4gold.com

Re:Ob

[Anonymous Coward]

1 h4d N0 1d34 My g01d j3w3lry w4s w0rth S0 much m0n3y+$

What they'll learn?

[drsquare]

Perhaps that in a recession people cut back on luxuries, and that a computer game is less important than a mortgage repayment.

Re:What they'll learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the computer game is a necessity, it's clearly an important piece of the American dream, therefore something every American has a right to own. The government can step in and cover the mortgage repayment.

Re:What they'll learn?

[esocid]

or that people will buy games frugally. In the depression (the 1930s one), I think escapism helped some entertainment industries boom: clubs, movies, variety shows. While people now are less inclined to leave their homes or go somewhere where a TV isn't present, they still need something to escape their daily lives. Studios should bite the bullet and price their games down 8%, or whatever, and see that maybe their sales might increase, rather than the standard $50 game which hasn't seemed to change for a couple years.

Re:What they'll learn?

[evilkasper]

Agreed, and I also see hard copy video games sticking around for a different reason. The major ISP's are playing with transfer caps, and quite frankly, even on the best connection available to me (15Mbps) download a multi Gig game still takes longer than driving to the store. So until our infrastructure is beefier I do not foresee the death of hard copies.

Re:What they'll learn?

[KingAlanI]

batches of trading cards are also evidently less important. My Magic the Gathering business has gone way down for the October 2008 and February 2009 expansions, the April 2009 one might be the same. :(

Re:What they'll learn?

[servognome]

As long as the old ones are still worth something. With my 401k tanking, the boxes of cards collecting dust in my closet are my only hope for retirement.

Re:What they'll learn?

[KingAlanI]

prices of existing cards don't seem to be crashing; they're following relatively normal pricing patterns; it's just that people seem to be cutting back on buying *more*.

No surprises there

[godfra]

The problem with competitive gaming is that it's more exciting to play the game than it is to watch someone else, even if they are way better than you.

The way to keep people interested is to involve them. Simply presenting video gaming in the same manner as a football match isn't really enough.

Re:No surprises there

[evilNomad]

You must be an expert, because the users, more than 200.000 unique a month, on my site that is dedicated to broadcasting Counter-Strike matches, sure beg to differ with your conclusion..

Re:No surprises there

[megaditto]

Link? I am kind of curious what it looks like.

(By 'it' I mean both Counter-Strike matches and your servers melting down.)

Re:No surprises there

[evilNomad]

Well since you ask, http://www.hltv.org/ - I do believe my servers will keep up just fine though.. :)

But note that you cannot watch matches without having Counter-Strike installed, which in turn makes the spectator numbers even more impressive if you ask me..

Re:No surprises there

[Qetu]

No, it only makes your spectators a subset of the millions of CounterStrike players.

Re:No surprises there

[ZachPruckowski]

No, it only makes your spectators a subset of the millions of CounterStrike players.

Yes, but it means that people are watching CounterStrike precisely at a time & place when they could instead be playing CounterStrike. So it's not like people watching while unable to play. Thus, there exist at least some conditions under which it is more interesting to watch good CS players than playing CS oneself.

Re:No surprises there

[holmedog]

I played pro CS for years (with the guy who went on to buy http://teampandemic.net/). And, I have to say, the people watching the matches are generally the people who harbor dreams of playing in the matches. It's not like your dad watching football knowing that he won't ever be able to compete at a pro level. It's people who believe that at some point they will be as good as the people playing.

Recession proof?

[isa-kuruption]

You mean video game playing adult isn't a recession proof job? Who woulda thunk that?!

Pro-Video Gamer???

[WTF Chuck]

The thing that I find to be most outrageous is that there are pro video gamers in the first place. Last I checked, they weren't showing up anywhere on ESPN. WTF, was that just some sort of feeble attempt by the game publishers to get more people buying their warez? "Oh, if you get really really good, we will pay you to play video games all day long. (You gotta be in the top 0.0000005% to get that though, in the meantime we will still take your $$$)"

Re:Pro-Video Gamer???

[ahabswhale]

How is pro video gaming any different than pro golf or pro football? The bottom line is you're being paid to play a game and that's it. Neither is a productive activity. You also need to realize that pro gamers take their craft very very seriously and dedicate many hours a day to improving their skills. These aren't kids goofing around for a couple of hours a day to beat on their friends. They are as serious about competitive gaming as any pro athlete is about their sport. To be even a good amateur gamer takes quite a bit of effort.

Re:Pro-Video Gamer???

[WTF Chuck]

About the only professional sport I like to occasionaly watch is hockey. The other pro sports, while I'm not all that fond of them, I do understand why people would want to watch it, with the exception of basketball. I can't fathom how people enjoy that sport, court is too small, scores are too large.

I am completely unable to grasp the reason there is a large enough potential audience to make pro video gaming profitable. No doubt that the gamers are serious about what they do, I fail to see where the leagues or sponsors are making any profit on their investment. No profit for leagues or sponsors == no pro gaming. Shit man, if I'm gonna spend the time watching someone else play a video game, I may as well be playing it myself.

A little help

[Useful Wheat]

To be honest, I've never really understood how the pro gaming leagues really made any money. I understand that sponsors will give money to anything (re: Pizza hut advertising on a NASA rocket http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2202), but this is no excuse. At the very most I'm indifferent about how well other people play the games I play, and I'm pretty sure most of my friends are the same way. The economy is just a useful scapegoat in this situation. Let's take a survey: How many of you enjoy watching other people play video games? How many of you have dismissed players that dominate you as having spent way too much time playing video games? What's your favorite kind of cheese? I'm partial to those Kraft American Singles.

Re:A little help

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bite!
1) Do you enjoy watching other people play video games?

If its a round robin passing of the controller I'm down.

2) How many of you have dismissed players that dominate you as having spent way too much time playing video games?

Far too many to count.

3) What's your favorite kind of cheese?

Smoked Swiss.

I wold also like to add this question:

4) When was the last time game you had purchased that had replay value?

Last year, Little Big Planet

Re:A little help

[Narishma]

I suppose you are talking about competitive video games. If that's the case, then yes I enjoy watching how others play. It's no different than watching a match of tennis or chess. Do you also wonder why people watch those instead of going out and playing the sport themselves?

Re:A little help

[NigelT]

I can see how you might find it hard to understand video games as a spectator sport...but usually, The people watching are avid gamers themselves, they know the mechanics of the game involved and at least in my experience, enjoy watching others demonstrate their ability, or sometimes inability to do well in whatever the game of choice may be. Nevermind the whole competition aspect of it...

Re:A little help

[Fozzyuw]

(re: Pizza hut advertising on a NASA rocket http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2202 [spaceref.com])

Off topic to the article, but to your point about sponsors... KFC is actually spending money to fill pot holes and spray-paint their logo on them. Complete with Col. Sanders standing around with a bright green jacket.

Re:A little help

[CyberLord Seven]

i) How many of you enjoy watching other people play video games?

You do know that IN THE BEGINNING we used to stack quarters on the machines and wait our turn. If some bastard was really good he could keep the crowd waiting until people started to give up and pick up the quarters and leave.

Damn, that used to feel good! :)

Oh, wait, you wanted to know if I enjoyed watching other people play.

The answer is Hell, yes! How do you think I ever learned to play the original Street Fighter? You remember, the one with the HUGE red pads you smacked real hard to hit your opponent. And then the damn things started to get brittle and crack and break.

ii) How many of you have dismissed players that dominate you as having spent way too much time playing video games?

Everytime some ass-wipe beats me, unless it's one of my nephews. Then I just threaten to look at his grades for the last semester. If the grades are not up where they belong it keeps the trash talk to a minimum. :)

iii) What's your favorite kind of cheese? I'm partial to those Kraft American Singles. Extra Sharp Cheddar. Goes good on cheese-burgers, pizza, chili-dogs, nachos, and most anything you put in your mouth with the exception of a nice, warm teat.

And to answer the anonymous coward:

iv) When was the last time game you had purchased that had replay value?

Sad to say, Perfect Dark 0, and Kameo. Too bad the crappy XBox360 died on me.

Re:A little help

[JMZero]

I don't understand how people watch, say, Halo 3 or Street Fighter (though I love playing Street Fighter).. Certainly there's strategy in those games, but much of it is not apparent in the default view, and is often eclipsed by execution skill that isn't entertaining - at least not after a while.

On the other hand, a game like Starcraft is made to be watched (and many, many people do including myself). With a good observer (and commentator helps too), you can really get a feel for the strategy involved.

I get owned if I play Starcraft online, but I seldom feel any animosity towards the person that beat me. Starcraft is a game where the learning-over-time curve takes a long time to flatten out, and I'm very near the start. I think people who've spent time getting very good at it have been doing something that's satisfying and lot of fun.

Re:A little help

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you also wonder why people watch those instead of going out and playing the sport themselves?

Well, I do. I find that playing the game/sport myself is infinitely more satisfying than watching someone else play it. I've never understood what's so fun about watching a bunch of sweaty dudes run after a ball. But whatever, to each their own, eh?

I guess the point of the story is that nobody puts "virtual" sports on the same category as "real" sports, and so they fall victim to the current economic climate first.

Allow my to advance an hypothesis full of prejudice: the people that would enjoy watching or playing video games are very different than the people that would enjoy watching or playing real-life sports (AFK sports?). In that the former are a bit more, huh, cerebral, and have an easier time moving on to something different now; whereas the latter are much more reliant on whatever more primal instincts are satisfied by sports (belonging to a crowd / defeat of your enemies / whatever).

Yeah, I don't know either.

Re:A little help

[Machtyn]

Last I checked there were about 5 television stations that broadcast poker championships (ESPN, ESPN2, A&E, ...) And, people watch that even though that is an easy game to play (note my choice of words, it's not an easy game when you throw in the human dynamic).

In any case, I enjoy watching poker because it is interesting to see the tough decisions a person has to make with money on the line. Likewise, in computer gaming, the player has to make a virtual life-or-death decision to win the game, that may also win or lose him/her a lot of money. I find that interesting.

Also, as someone mentioned before, I also watch games I play (I don't play poker, btw) to improve my skills, whether it be racquetball, basketball, or computer gaming. Though, none of these skills will ever be truly useful to me, hehe. (Except maybe computer gaming... I almost became a sponsored gamer years ago, but chose to do IT work instead, not as exciting, but more mind expanding, imo.)

Re:A little help

[shermo]

HP Blllaaaaacccckkkkkbird.

That's why.

Re:A little help

[Hatta]

To be honest, I've never really understood how the pro gaming leagues really made any money.

I've never really understood how the pro football leagues really make any money.

What's your favorite kind of cheese? I'm partial to those Kraft American Singles.

That's not cheese.

Cliff's Notes:

[OMGcAPSLOCK]

King of Kong finds himself over a barrel in the current economic climate.

Obligatory Penny Arcade Comic

[Yvan256]

Ad Infinitum.

Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade Comic

[oldspewey]

WoWoW

Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade Comic

[Chris Mattern]

Actually, the PA comic this made me think of was this.

XPL Is Starting...

[BountyX]

XP League just started up, they were formerly HTGN. They are advertising cash payouts, similar to CPL.

Re:XPL Is Starting...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's comming December 2008"

Spellchecker please.

Short career

[HalAtWork]

Wow, that's a pretty short career for this kid...

Too bad, so sad

[WhoIsThePumaman]

This guy makes more than I do with his salary, sponsors and winnings than I do in a year, and I'm a video game developer. I never understood "Major League Gaming". I can understand local tournaments at arcades and pizza parlors, at least there you get outside and be sociable with the rest of the world and have an in-person experience. But watching a screen depicting someone else watching a screen? How much more recursive can we get? Professional Major League Gaming Watching? Physical contact sports I can understand. We're essentially watching athletes who hone their bodies engage in feats of physical endurance and skill, and we admire such classical expositions of strength. I can understand professional Chess tournaments to a lesser extent; great minds coming together to wage war on a physical board in a centuries-old game of intellect. But paying out six figure salaries to people who can click (or button-press) very fast in an order that is more efficient than his/her opponent? Major League Gaming truly is the product of fat and decadent times.

Re:Too bad, so sad

[TheRaven64]

I'm not sure why watching someone excel in one skill, be it running or playing chess, is more interesting than watching someone excel at another. Unless you believe that button pressing is intrinsically non-skilful (but isn't your job just pressing buttons in the correct order to produce games?) People watch professional snooker or darts, and they're really just tests of your hand-to-eye co-ordination and ability to approximate trigonometry; what's different about a computer game, other than the fact that it's often testing reflexes as well?

I don't have any desire to watch people play computer games, but then I've never really seen the attraction in watching sports (or chess). Playing, yes, and with most sports that has the beneficial side effect of getting you outside and getting some exercise, but watching them just strikes me as dull.

Re:Too bad, so sad

[ChayD]

I concur. Whilst I understand there is a lot of skill required to be a gamer, I couldn't personally convince myself that it's a true sport (in much the same way that I couldn't see 'professional hotdog eater' as a sport). Along the same lines, I've noticed that poker is also becoming more of a spectator sport. Curious times indeed.

Re:Too bad, so sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Video games, when played on a level as high as said professionals play them, require a hell of a lot more skill than you suggest.

We could just as easy exaggerate the characteristics of gamers' play and downplay physical sports, in direct contrast to what you've done.

The publishers didn't much care.

[EWAdams]

For the most part the pro-gaming leagues were set up by random entrepreneurs, not game publishers. Yes, they represented publicity. But the jury is still very much out on whether people will pay to watch other people play video games. They do in Korea, for sure, but not in the USA. So it was never obvious that the PR they represented was really worth the expense of running them. That's why it wasn't the publishers that set them up.

Re:The publishers didn't much care.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, to be honest I'd say most companies were actually against it. Valve regularly would push updates that you were forced to use that completely shifted or broke gameplay.
The only exceptions would be Blizzard and ID, both of which run their own tournaments.. but they both keep their competitive play second to attracting new players.

Frankly as a 'pro-gamer', Im glad its crashing down. The scene is awful. Bunch of 16 year old kids who bitch about tourneys not having >$5k purses. Pro gaming used to just be enthusiasts having fun trying to be the best. People would go out of their way to enter tournaments even though they knew even if they won first place, it wouldnt pay for itself. They played because it was fun and they enjoyed it. Youg ot to meet a lot of great peple and have experiences most peple never get.

Now its just people saying "GG BAD EPIC FAIL LOLOL" not wanitng to build any kind of community. Maybe once the money is gone it can go back to people actually looking for enjoyment?

Re:The publishers didn't much care.

[2short]

"People would go out of their way to enter tournaments even though they knew even if they won first place, it wouldnt pay for itself. They played because it was fun and they enjoyed it."

If it didn't pay for itself, you weren't a pro. That's not meant as a slam, just a definition.

Re:The publishers didn't much care.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the AC was a true gamer/bohemian.

Re:The publishers didn't much care.

[Admiral Ag]

They have the wrong model for the games that North Americans like to play. Like I said above, games like Halo 3 don't have a good spectator mode, so they suck to watch.

But, the economic model is also wrong. Pro teams on salary is stupid. It should be all comers and prize money only. That way the audience will have more of a stake in the tournaments.

Used games or no games at all

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't even remember the last game I bought new. I've purchased games since my earliest experiences in gaming and the day they take those away is the day I stop buying games. I don't care whether its a retailer, the original publisher, or some chap on Craigslist/eBay/et al, I just want used items at those wonderful prices. And I don't mind waiting two years for those prices to become wonderful.

Digital download FTW!

[EWAdams]

If the retailers aren't careful, they'll kill off their own source of supply. Used games are a big win for them and a big win for the consumer, and a big loss for the publishers. If the retailers drive the publishers to digital distribution ONLY, they won't have anything left to sell.

You'll notice that major bookstores don't sell used books, only new ones.

Within 20 years games may become a service like cable TV, not a product you buy and take home.

Re:Digital download FTW!

[steelfood]

There are separate stores for used books. It's a separate market from new books, though used book stores may sell the occasional new book.

One reason for the difference is that people hold on to their books far longer than they hold on to their video games. So having a smaller supply, used books tend to be a much smaller market. Very old books go out of print, while old games either cannot be played (format change), or can be found via other sources (P2P). So while very old books can be worth a pretty penny, very old games probably aren't worth cents.

Re:Digital download FTW!

[SScorpio]

Within 20 years games may become a service like cable TV, not a product you buy and take home.

Last week at GDC there was a company called OnLive that set off a major buzz. Your 20 years might be a little pessimistic if the service takes off.

http://www.onlive.com/

Re:Digital download FTW!

[Anonymusing]

You'll notice that major bookstores don't sell used books, only new ones.

...and you'll notice that major bookstores are a dying breed.

Re:Digital download FTW!

[demachina]

"Within 20 years games may become a service like cable TV, not a product you buy and take home."

Multiplayer online games are already a service and probably should be. If its a game with persistence that people are going to play for a long period they almost have to be a subscription service like WoW. Two reasons:

A. It insures the developer has a financial incentive to continue to develop the game, fix bugs and run servers. When games have a burst of sales after they launch and then it tails off, the developer loses interest in supporting it, bugs go unfixed, game dies unless its really good and the developer moves on to some new big launch.

B. I am willing to PAY monthly fees for a good multiplayer online game if it means the company will run the servers and provide game admins that are paid for their work and have a least a chance at being fair and unbiased, and they will make a concerted effort to keep people from cheating.

As a concrete example the original BF2 is probably still one of my favorite multiplayer games. I still like it better than COD4, its not amazing graphics, its just fun PVP. But the BF2 business model is a disaster. EA/Dice have no incentive to fix bugs in it so they don't, and when you have the same bugs in a game for a couple years it drives you nuts. Instead they churn out bad knockoffs to get new retail sales. And they force people to band together to run their own servers which results in a hodgepodge of very badly run game servers. Admins are either biased or MIA, hackers often take over, teams are constantly stacked, rules and admin decisions are wildly variable and unpredictable.

I can't be sure it would fly, but my ideal game PVP game would be to build on classic BF2, run it like WOW with subscription service, and just hone the game they have, fixing bigs, insure balance, adding new features but preserving the important things, FUN PVP. I dearly wish it also had more persistence. Repetitive 10 minute rounds gets old. I'd like to see a PVP game that lasts indefinitely, moves over a large space, and where one side actually wins.

The other fatal problem with PC games is PC's are pretty much doomed as platform for multiplayer online games, piracy and cheating along are killing it, disparity in hardware insures the playing field isn't level. I just don't like consoles, I hope PC's survive, I just don't think they will.

Re:Digital download FTW!

[Hatta]

You'll notice that major bookstores don't sell used books, only new ones.

You'll notice that I don't shop at major book stores.

Within 20 years games may become a service like cable TV, not a product you buy and take home.

If they want me to never ever buy a new game again, that would be a good plan.

Re:Digital download FTW!

[Anonymous Coward]

It occurs to me that, people being what they are, someone will eventually figure out a way to resell their digital download licenses. A company like Valve should try to figure out a way to get in on that.

Perhaps one user can sell his Steam license to another for some percentage of the current cost to buy on Steam, with Valve and the publisher both getting a cut.

This lets the publisher get some money from reselling, lets people who won't buy games full price buy some games, and lets other people get rid of games they no longer want.

Re:Digital download FTW!

[Anonymous Coward]

PC games are dying anyway due to consoltardation and shitty kids who are more interested in getting meaningless achievements rather than getting skill.

I wouldn't be surprised that the used game market boom is due to all recent games being dumb console ports that take zero skill to be good at. Sadly the golden age of FPS is over.

Here's a theory I have. Could it be that consoles are not the real culprits but the education system where everyone gets a medal and too much positive reinforcement generation.

Re:Digital download FTW!

[s!lat]

Actually, I get most of my used books from the large used book section at Barnes & Nobles.

WSV

[Jethro]

I wonder if I can start a professional World's Smallest Violin league...

Re:WSV

[Anonymous Coward]

Should be possible once the thumb-and-forefinger mod is released for Violin Hero. As if Bach's Partita in D minor wasn't kicking my ass already.

Developing story

[lupinstel]

In light of this news EA Sports has decided to cancel their new game "Major League Gaming - The Game 2K9".

Re:Developing story

[DamienNightbane]

Fuck! I just lost.

Re:Developing story

[jonaskoelker]

In light of this news EA Sports has decided to cancel their new game "Major League Gaming - The Game 2K9".

Dammit!

I was hoping to prove that I could assemble and train a team of players that could beat the snot out of SK Telekom T1...

duh

[thetoadwarrior]

Conversely, the used game market is seeing significant growth â" it'll be interesting to see what publishers learn from this.

Quit making the same games as each other and quit making so many damned sequels and then maybe people will see value in what you produce.

What they'll learn?

[Thaelon]

They'll probably learn nothing.

But they'll probably add more DRM in the future, lobby harder, and generally give us less while attempting to charge more.

Seems to be their typical reaction to any type of change or encroachment on their nearly obsolete business models. While I don't believe hard copy game selling will ever die as long as we have walmart, it's not a market that is growing as fast as digital delivery.

Well, it's kind of like cycling.

[MrCrassic]

I am very passionate about cycling, and tried racing, but didn't like it. However, niche sports like these all suffer from the same problem:

They don't have a mass audience.

There are millions of people that will watch a game of football, baseball, basketball or soccer (especially soccer) on a (n>inf)" widescreen plasma LCD TV (or any TV, really) at home, or in the pub/bar, supermarket, while shopping, etc. I postulate that a reason for this is that the action and "spirit" of each sport caters to different, but sufficiently large, populations. Those that like lots of back and forth action watch basketball, and those that like a bit of brutality in that action watch football or hockey. (Yes, I'm generalizing here.) Those that like calculated behaviors, but sparse explosions of action, watch something like baseball. Etc. ad nauseum. Additionally, there is nothing that can replace these sports. They are popular and irreplaceable, hence they garner a large market.

Sports like cycling, on the other hand, have very little action except for possibly the end. Has anyone ever actually watched a professional bike race? They are LONG, and riders spend most of that time collaborating tactically with each other to reach and sprint for the finish. They HELP each other throughout the race; where's the competition? Unless you are a real enthusiast, you can't watch a bike race in a bar, or anywhere fun. At least for me, it's hard to even watch it at home, and I love cycling. Top that with the ridiculous amount of doping incidents (that do make the press, since ESPN cares to write about THAT than actually broadcast races), and you have yourself a mass loser.

Gaming suffers the same fate. Only gamers would want to watch gamers play. There are outliers, but they are just that. But there's a community in gaming, and gaming is a competitive activity. Competitive activities promote classification and ranking, thus justifying the existence of a professional category playing in large tournaments. Professionals spend all day perfecting their craft, and it would make little sense to not receive compensation for it, thus explaining the proliferation of sponsors and salaries.

I think that talent could be used somewhere else with a more widespread outcome, like solving difficult problems in economics. However, it must be pretty cool to live off of gaming (for the gamers, that is).

Re:Well, it's kind of like cycling.

[2short]

Cycling has a big advantage though: Take that many hour race and edit it down to a 15 minute highlight reel, and you *do* have something you can watch in a bar. Even as a gamer, even if you cut it down to a highlight reel, I can't see wanting to watch others play for long.

Admittedly, in the US at least, non-cyclists don't watch cycling the way people watch football. Which is why pro cycling gets supported by people advertising to cyclists, and football gets supported by people marketing to a wider audience.

But cyclists-who-watch-cycling is still a reasonable market to try to sell stuff to, whereas gamers-who-watch-gaming isn't.

At least, that's my impression as someone who cycles and games but doesn't play football, and of the three would watch only cycling (but only highlights)

Re:Well, it's kind of like cycling.

[lgw]

It's somewhat embarassing to admit, but I actually enjoy watching curling on TV. I'd never want to actually participate, but the recently broadcast US olympic trials caused my to see TV commercials for the first time in more than a year,

Needs better presentation

[locopuyo]

MLG does all of their videos online, live streaming and video on demand. Their presentations are good and make the game fun to watch. StarCraft is going strong in South Korea because their presentations and announcer make it fun to watch. That Gaming Championship thing was presented horribly so it failed. They showed minute long clips of people playing the games and jumped around sporaticly to different games with announcers that were far from experts on the games being played. You never had any idea what was going on. They had a women's DOA separated from a men's DOA.... There were idiots running it. It deserved to fail. Just present it like they do with succussful popular sports. You have a couple of announcers and show the game on screen. You don't jump around between 20 different things. It really isn't any different than showing something like football or basketball.

Bail out this industry

[davemabe]

The professional video gaming industry is part of the fabric of our country. It has become too important to fail.

I think they deserve a bailout.

putting off college to work on their gaming career

[jellomizer]

At least with "Real" Sports they go to college to play before they go pro most of the time. They may not get the best degrees however they are still learning new stuff, and if they don't go pro they at least have a degree to get a better job. But not going to college to focus on Video Games to go pro is just plane stupid. As your chances of being that good is slim. And just like what is happening you have no fall back.

More than six figures?

[Daetrin]

"some of its players earn more than six figures from the $1 million in prizes given throughout the season"

Either i or the people who wrote the article are not using the phrase "more than six figures" properly. I would think "more than six figures" would be the same as "seven or more figures," however since the total prizes for a season is $1 million only one player could actually earn seven figures (and everyone else would get nothing.)

So presumably by "more than six figures" they mean "more that $100,000"? So if i made $100,001 in a year i would be making more than six figures? That seems rather counter-intuitive to me. I definitely think of myself as "just" a five figures person even though i make considerably more than $10,000 a year.

Re:More than six figures?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well...I make considerably more than $50,001 a year. So I think I'll just round-up to a 6 figure salary.

There. Feel so much more successful now!

Re:More than six figures?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the author meant 6 significant figures, so they make somewhere in the $1000.00 to $9999.99 range...

Re:More than six figures?

[Anonymusing]

Well, there were a couple of problems with the submission...

• It's not "more than six figures", it should be "as much as six figures".
• The six figures are not solely derived from the $1 million; most of the six figure money comes from sponsors, not prizewinnings.

Sorry about that. Badly summarized, I admit.

Re:More than six figures?

[masmullin]

welcome to the english language.

elucidated properly? no... did we all understand (except you)? yes.

Starcraft

[overzero]

I follow the Korean Starcraft leagues fairly closely and haven't seen anything indicating that this is a problem for them. There's only one major pro league left if you ignore the most successful leagues. Unlike my impressions of MLG and their ilk, which seem like slapped-together attempts to occupy a novelty niche, these leagues have survived for the same reasons all other sports leagues have survived: the focus is always on using the games to generate stories which even non-players can sink their teeth into. Without giving their audience a reason to watch, other than being interested in a particular game at a particular time, the other leagues doomed themselves long ago. As with many other businesses, blaming their deaths on the economy is like blaming a cold for killing an AIDS patient.

Re:boohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww, someone's jealous.

Why should I care?

[fahrbot-bot]

I know... marketing, free market economy and whatnot... But

I think many people actually playing professional sports get paid way too much money. I do understand the limited lifetime of their careers and that skill is involved, but seriously - it's a game.

Paying people to *pretend* to play sports is silly. I do understand that there is some (button-pressing) "skill" involved, but seriously - it's a video game.

Re:Why should I care?

[brkello]

People don't realize how much work it is to be that good at a game. First, not everyone even has the physical ability (twitch skills) to be even able to compete. Beyond that it is learning every map, every angle, every cheap place to play. It is mastering every scenario, figuring out the timing of every item (if the game has it), etc. It requires a lot of time, patience, and practice just like any other sport. It really is no different. You just don't have to spend time in the gym.

We pay actors and actresses to pretend to be other people. We can all pretend. But we pay the ones who are best at it a lot of money. Everyone cooks, but we pay top chefs tons of money. Everyone can sing, but we pay the best singers tons of money. No difference here other than there is still a negative bias towards video games.

I think the pattern is obvious. We like to see people who are really good at stuff we are interested in. Thus they get paid well.

Times have changed, but not prices

[Jabbrwokk]

Damn. I used up my mod points already. You make a good point which companies are aware of, they're just too greedy to change. We're paying prices which have been the same for ages, from the days when gaming was a niche hobby and there were fewer copies of games created (which by the magic of supply and demand means they were probably more expensive to make). I remember eagerly shelling out $80 CAD for the first Dark Forces PC game the day it was released. That was unusual - a new release price was about $60, which continues to this day.

Pricing for console games is a little less obvious but I think it's pretty similar to PC game pricing. I remember Atari 2600 games costing about $10-20 (a lot of money for a kid in the 1980s, especially if you save up only to find out your new game is a real shitburger) Nintendo games costing about $50 (an AWFUL lot of money in the late 1980s) and today a new release on any console is $50-70. Factor in inflation and the cost is probably about the same as it's always been.

But even though the cost of making games has increased, the cost of distributing them has dropped drastically. Stamping out DVDs costs pennies and electronic distribution costs even less. I still like getting a physical copy of a game - especially when the publishers put goodies like a special manual or cloth map or figurine in the box - but I would certainly sacrifice that if it meant distribution models like Steam or WiiWare would drive down prices to a more affordable range. I like Steam and WiiWare, but I only buy Steam games on weekend deals (STALKER for $5, w00t) and only use WiiWare for something I really think is worth full price. Electronic distribution needs to be $5-10 cheaper than box copies, IMO.

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[Anonymous Coward]

if you save up only to find out your new game is a real shitburger [wikipedia.org]) Nintendo games

James Rolfe is that you? shitpickle

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[DerekLyons]

We're paying prices which have been the same for ages

Which is actually a pretty good deal considering how other prices have risen in the same time frame, including the cost to develop a game.
 
 

You make a good point which companies are aware of, they're just too greedy to change

Why *should* they change? Demand for games is largely (though not completely) inelastic - dropping the price doesn't result in an equivalent increase in sales.

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[filthpickle]

Nintendo games costing about $50 (an AWFUL lot of money in the late 1980s)

somebody else that was young back then man up with me and admit to going into your room and crying when you bought a new nintendo game and then slowly...horribly...realized that it sucked after 20 minutes or so of playing it. $50 was a LOT of money for me to come up with then, and my parents were only gonna buy me 2, maybe 3 games a year.

(dana carvey grumpy old man voice) and we played it anyway! we liked that it sucked!(/dcgomv)

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[westlake]

We're paying prices which have been the same for ages

Which means that - adjusted for inflation - prices are dramatically lower while production values are dramatically higher.

there were fewer copies of games created (which by the magic of supply and demand means they were probably more expensive to make)

No it doesn't.

Your production budget has to be be based on a realistic projection of future sales. If you want to remain in business.

I remember Atari 2600 games costing about $10-20

You remember wrong.

But even though the cost of making games has increased, the cost of distributing them has dropped drastically. Stamping out DVDs costs pennies and electronic distribution costs even less.

Distribution costs also include marketing costs - advertising. You need cable video. You may even need print.

The retail box has a broader reach than broadband.
 

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, Valve's been doing this on Steam lately. Their findings: "DO THIS NOW AND GET LOTS OF MONEY!"

Ok, so not verbatim, but they had a 3000% (three-thousand, not a typo) increase in sales after they cut the price in half, beating launch numbers. (Sorry for non-direct link - couldn't find the original article)

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[LordVader717]

Considering the budgets that newer games have, compared to what NES games cost to make, you're getting a fucking great deal.

In terms of raw sales, the gaming market hasn't had that much growth since the late 1980s, certainly not enough to offset the exponential increase in development costs. That's where all the money goes. The cost of the physical medium is and always was almost negligible.

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[Jabbrwokk]

Which is actually a pretty good deal

Maybe, or maybe it means games were always really expensive.

other prices have risen in the same time frame, including the cost to develop a game.

Very true, but instead of being happy when they sell 100,000 copies publishers are now looking at hopefully moving millions.

dropping the price doesn't result in an equivalent increase in sales.

Guess we won't know until they try! Or until those private companies release sales records about what happens when they lower prices to move those millions of copies that didn't sell for full price.

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[Jabbrwokk]

No, but everything he says about that game is true. I remember almost crying because I'd waited for so long for that game and it was so hard it made absolutely no sense. At the time I thought it was broken, I couldn't comprehend that some asshole would program a game like that deliberately.

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[Jabbrwokk]

Yeah, we should start a support group. For me that describes this sadistic shitpile of a game which thankfully my dad and I found used for $20 so the pain wasn't too terrible.

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[jshackney]

Why *should* they change? Demand for games is largely (though not completely) inelastic - dropping the price doesn't result in an equivalent increase in sales.

Maybe I'm different. I had an Atari 7800 when it first came out. I was thrilled. It could play 2600 games. I only had about 5 or 6 2600 games at the time.

A local store was selling their stock of said 2600 games for $1 each. I cleaned 'em out. I got a little over 20 unique games out of the deal. No E.T. though.

My price point lately has been around the $15 mark for most games. I won't spend more than that. I just can't justify the prices these days. It's insane!

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[Space_Pirate_Arrr]

Demand for games is largely (though not completely) inelastic - dropping the price doesn't result in an equivalent increase in sales.

Most luxury items, such as computer games, have a highly elastic demand curve.

Maybe you've got some figures that show otherwise, but until I see those figures I'm going to choose not to believe your assertion that demand is inelastic.

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[Trepidity]

Demand for games is largely (though not completely) inelastic - dropping the price doesn't result in an equivalent increase in sales.

Valve actually found the opposite when they tested the demand curve.

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[crossmr]

they're just too greedy to change

Greed is not the problem here, stupidity is.
If greed were the problem, they would have an extremely optimized pricing plan which crack analysts would put thousands of man hours into. They're too lazy/stupid/cheap to do that and thus they stick with the pricing model they've always had.

Re:Times have changed, but not prices

[Eskarel]

Harsh economic truth time.

What it costs you to make something has nothing to do with what you can sell it for.

I beg to differ

[chrisG23]

I like watching competetive starcraft matches much more than playing it. In South Korea, there are 12 professional starcraft teams of 7-14 members each, that play one another in the team pro-league. On top of that there are 3 single player tournament leagues (OSL - Ongamenet Starleague, MSL - MBC Starleague, and GomTV Invitational) that run pretty much concurrently. The games are televised, the best players make a decent living when you take their team base salary + tournament winnings + sponsorships into account (6 figure salaries for the better ones) and the level of play is unbelievable, because they have to practice 8-12 hours a day to keep their skills at a competitive level.

You can check out english broadcasts of games at gomtv.net as they hired an American to do live English commentary of their tournaments. There is a nice archive of games. However the Gomtv tournament is newer and not the best quality wise(as in the best players focus their practice on the other tournaments and their team proleague events). There are fans on youtube that take the korean broadcasts of games and tournaments and dub themselves over the korean commentary. Check out the youtube user account "violetak" or "klazartsc" if interested, there are more than a dozen more other people doing regular commentary and uploading to youtube, mostly of the Korean scene as it is superior, but also of the "foreign" scene (which in this case means any player not residing in Korea).

Re:I beg to differ

[adwarf]

Mod parent up. I too enjoy watching Starcraft better than playing it now a days. For everyone saying that pro-gaming is easy or lame or is just button pressing, you need to watch some Starcraft matches with english commentary. I can't say much for other games as I only watch Starcraft, but comparing professional Starcraft matches to your everyday game play is like comparing flag football with your buddies to the NFL.

Could be worse. Could be poker

[Animats]

Watching people play cards is now a televised "sport".

Maybe if people played video games for money....

Re:Could be worse. Could be poker

[Quiet_Desperation]

That one baffles me. My parents watched poker for hours. It was the same thing. Opening bets, cards dealt, someone goes all in. Rinse and repeat. Forget that there is a massive luck element involved that is almost nonexistent in other (read: real) sports.

I used to like going out and playing poker, but since these televised tournaments started, EVERY table has some asshole who goes all in in every other fraking hand. There's just no subtlety anymore.

What pays the bills...

[geekmux]

Perhaps that in a recession people cut back on luxuries, and that a computer game is less important than a mortgage repayment.

Ah, when you sit back and read how some are earning six figures doing this, you quickly realize WHAT is paying that mortgage...

Bottom line is whether it's 15 minutes or 15 seconds, if you're offered fame these days, you better TAKE IT while you can. Might not come around as often in this economy, but use your skillz while you still have them, and get paid well. Hand-eye coordination and reflexes aren't exactly something that sticks with you through your 30s and 40s, so good luck to those who actually think they're turning this into some sort of "career"...

We can get along....

[Doghouse Riley]

...without pro gaming leagues, scrapbooking stores, and feng shui consultants.

But when the last cell-phone-cover kiosk closes down, ladies and gentlemen, the new Dark Age truly will be upon us.

Um...

[rgviza]

>it'll be interesting to see what publishers learn from this.

People have less disposable income when the economy is in the toilet, and (duh...) games are a luxury?

It doesn't take an economist (or game publisher) to figure that one out.

I'm just a regular developer (as opposed to game developer) and I know this ;)

-Viz

Learn from car dealers

[ultravibe]

...it'll be interesting to see what publishers learn from this.

Maybe they'll start selling "Certified Pre-Owned" games.

pre-pwned?

Yep,

[kuzb]

Now he has to get a real job like the rest of us. My heart really bleeds for this guy. Really.

Pro-video gamer vs. ???

[geekmux]

The thing that I find to be most outrageous is that there are pro video gamers in the first place. Last I checked, they weren't showing up anywhere on ESPN. WTF, was that just some sort of feeble attempt by the game publishers to get more people buying their warez? "Oh, if you get really really good, we will pay you to play video games all day long. (You gotta be in the top 0.0000005% to get that though, in the meantime we will still take your $$$)"

Er, the " top 0.0000005%" eh? And how is this ANY different from ANY other professional sport in the top leagues? What percentage of pee-wee league kids are you going to see in the Superbowl in 20 years? I'd probably say it's around "0.0000005%".

IMHO, video gamers are no more "professional" than bowlers or golfers. Yes, it all takes dedication by all which I fully respect, but hitting little white balls with a stick or knocking down sticks with a ball can seem just as pointless, yet we pay them hundreds of millions to do it.

Re:Pro-video gamer vs. ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro bowlers certainly don't rake in huge amounts of money. And, they have to factor in their own travel to the various events, cost to enter said events, and the money earned becomes less, even with sponsorship. Hell, pro poker players earn far more money per event than pro bowlers do, and it's even _less_ of a sport...

What They'll Learn

[CompassIIDX]

Probably what Namco, EA and Capcom have learned. Namely, you don't have to actually let the user access the full game they bought for full price anymore. You're free to lock content on their disc, then charge them for it again later (or even on release day) via DLC. Best of all, after basically spitting in the faces of your biggest fans, they'll fall over themselves to defend you for it on the Interwebs.

Six Figures???

[ByrneArena]

Where the hell were these leagues when I could play Yar's Revenge for days on my Atari 2600?

My own personal buying habbits.

[taxman_10m]

I have an older computer that can't run most new games, but on games it can run I wait until Best Buy is selling the game new for $20. For console games my sweet spot is also $20, but rarely do any of the new console games reach $20 new, so I just buy them used at Gamespot.

Don't Forget About WCG

[Stolovaya]

http://www.wcg.com/6th/main.asp

They have a "reality" show up. Wouldn't be my ideal way to watch competitive gaming, and the style of the tournament follows the reality TV trend a bit too much, but it's still interesting.

Though, they really need to throw some nerds in there. :)

I buy used so I don't get screwed by hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclosure: It may cloud my judgment, but I don't feel that a "killer app" has come out for any system yet (I'm not a console FPS fan, sorry).

It just makes more sense to wait a few weeks after a game's release, let the hype die down, listen to word of mouth, and buy it used. You save some money, and don't get screwed by buying an awful game.

Anecdotally, my roommate has sworn off buying new games forever because of how many super-hyped games he's bought for $60 on release day this generation and had turn out to be stinkers.
I would hypothesize that paying off gaming mags for good reviews will help you in the short-term, but will be an overall negative thing for the industry because it scares off new buyers.

Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

How this is affecting Korea seems to be more relevant.
In Korea, gaming geeks are actually cool, walking around with hot girlfriends and such.
Would be more interesting to see what may be happening there where gaming is more prevalent/important.

This is a Non-Story

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem with this story is the CGS was non-viable WAY before the "economic down turn."

It was an awful business, the announcers were clueless, poorly organized, it was doomed to fail from the start.

Now if MLG failed, it would be news. CGS? Not even worth caring about.

Speaking of sports celebrities

[elrous0]

Has anyone put Fata1ity on suicide watch yet? In the last few months he's lost his gaming league, his product line...probably his girlfriend and dog too.

I have the solution

[brkello]

Game companies should buy back their games at a price slightly higher than the used game stores and sell them used at a slightly lower price off their web site. This would increase their revenue and drive the brick and mortar used shops out of business. Then once the stores are all destroyed, simply stop doing it so everyone has to buy them new again. If the used game stores come back, then start up business again. Evil and profitable.

Of course, that is just using the current model. Really, just sell your games on steam and the problem is essentially solved. Let's all just be glad that Valve came up with this and not by EA.

Perhaps...

[nog_lorp]

They will start having better multi-player. No-one wants to buy a used Blizzard or Valve game because they are afraid the CD key will be in use.

I don't understand Pro Gaming

[billcopc]

I've read the blogs, and watched the indie documentaries, but I still don't understand the point/purpose of gaming leagues. If they "turn a profit", that must mean they're charging fees or taking a cut from their members' tournament winnings. What's the incentive for a pro gamer to join a league ? Why not go solo and keep the cash to themselves ?

Or is pro gaming like pro sports, where the leagues are the ones sponsoring the tournaments and it all becomes one big dumb poker game ? The main difference, of course, is thousands of people will pay to see a good sports match, which is where the real money is made. Maybe I'm not enough of a geek, but I wouldn't pay to see people play a game. I'd pay a modest fee to attend a bigass LAN party and play (read: fail), maybe learn a few tricks from the pros, but beyond that pseudo-social aspect, I fail to see the appeal of these events and organizations.

I can't even see the value for sponsors, why preach to the choir ? It's a curious phenomenon, but it is to minuscule, I can't imagine it being lucrative. Even this sellout kid "Fatal1ty" with co-branded products, most clients stared at the box, glanced at the inflated price and walked past. One guy humourously said "It's like racing stripes on a car, only it's a douchebag on a video card. Neither makes it go faster.". Yep...

Re:I don't understand Pro Gaming

[Antony.S]

I think you are confusing leagues with teams

Leagues are sponsored and run the tournaments, which the players/teams come to compete in and win prize money

Teams are sponsored and provide their players with salaries/travel to events/hardware, whether they take a cut from players is up to them /I work for an international eSports league

Good analysis, but for one thing.

[EWAdams]

PCs will always survive because people need them for things other than games. A console is a lousy personal computer -- cheap, weak, and not customizable. Also, you don't need anybody's permission to write a PC game, and you don't have to pay the manufacturer a royalty.

There will always be PC games.

Good Riddance

[TOGSolid]

I've always felt that the pro gaming crowd has really done nothing but to spawn a really crappy attitude problem in games that tend to show up in players. Aka "Hur Hur I play in the CPL" syndrome.
I honestly would not shed a tear if the entire pro gaming circuit dried up and died. Maybe then playing online can get back to being about having fun rather than waving your e-dick around.