Topic: Gamer thread

[zifnab0]

Is mocking people a sport? Typing requires dexterity, so I think it might be!

With up to 400 keystrokes per minute in 3 threads at once while making snarky decisions, and training every day, what would you call it?

[Finlay]

Professional gaming is gaming. Its not retarded, and its OK to like it.

But its Not a sport.

War hammer isn't a sport either.

[patsy02]

Outside of Korea, where can you find real pro players making actual money and not working second jobs?  Barely any watches it.  There is nothing sporting about it anymore than pro foozeball or chess.  It is cerebral, but it doesn't support much of a league.

I think I can say that this is categorically wrong. Just read up on it. The prizes aren't astronomical like they are in tennis for example, but it's substantial enough to facilitate professional gaming, as is the fan base.

[Aldaris]

If people want to do it, good.  But whenever it is pushed as a sport it is laughable.  Outside of Korea, where can you find real pro players making actual money and not working second jobs?  Barely any watches it.  There is nothing sporting about it anymore than pro foozeball or chess.  It is cerebral, but it doesn't support much of a league.

You can find Pros in plenty of countries, including the US. Most are not getting rich, but that is true for almost any sport. However, there are also dudes having made 4-500,000 in tournament winnings alone.

"Barely anyone watches?" I can tell you off the top of my head that for example the last Dreamhack in Sweden had about 1,2 million unique viewers, and that's not counting live audience.
Dude. I recommend actually doing some research before making ridiculous claims. It might help not make you look quite silly.

[MrDWhitey]

[towishimp]

Yeah, we can debate all we want about what the definition of a "sport" is, but competitive videogaming is a thing, and it's growing.  Call of Duty has a tournament coming up that will give out $1 million in cash prizes ($500k to the winners).  I subscribe to some pro players on Youtube and Twitch TV, and gaming is their living -- between prizes, their Youtube and Twitch ad earnings, and in some cases sponsorships, they can earn a decent living just off their videogaming.

As to whether it's a sport, a question that might give food for thought: is playing a videogame more or less physical than playing table tennis, which most would agree is a sport?  I think they require about the same amount of manual dexterity and reflexes, and equally low amounts of what we usually think of as "sport movements" (ie running, throwing, etc.).  The only different, in my mind, is that video gaming is virtual interaction with the playing field, as opposed to interaction with a physical ball and paddle.

[Aldaris]

Professional gaming is gaming. Its not retarded, and its OK to like it.

But its Not a sport.

War hammer isn't a sport either.

Warhammer is  of course not comparable! Warhammer is just fun.
However, according to this definition of the Oxford Dictionary, it actually is a sport.

an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment

One can argue about the physical exertion part (although it is quite demanding on hands and wrists), but plenty of traditional sports aren't very demanding in this regard either.
I'll concede that it is debatable, but as towishimp said, it's a thing, with huge amounts of skill, practice and talent on display. And calling it silly and ridiculous and insinuating triviality is just ignorant.

[phillyt]

The number of people breaking $100,000 a year barely reach the triple digits.  Even people who are listed as pros hardly get anything more than comped tickets or a very modest stipend.

99% of the people listed as pro gamers work second jobs.  That hardly qualifies as pro.    The entire idea of being a professional anything when it comes to spectator activities is a relative term.  Look at the pro tour for Magic.  Most "pro" players get tickets and cards, but nothing substantial in terms of money.

Most of the gaming leagues I have ever seen fold in a couple years, and attempts to monetize viewing have also proven impossible.  Outside of sponsor support to promote a specific game or to sell hardware, the idea of gaming as a world wide pro sport hasn't come to fruition, despite claims for a decade that it was around the corner.

And 1.2 million views is fine, but did anyone pay for those views or did they click in and click back out?  If there isn't a way to monetize it, how is it any different than watching a Youtube cat video?

This article has some good info:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/technology/personaltech/video-gaming-on-the-pro-tour-for-glory-but-little-gold.html?_r=0

Towni:  I think the idea of calling it a sport or not is less important than whether the participants are athletes.  There are plenty of sports where the players are not actually athletes.  Golf or Bowling for example.  Video gaming is certainly not an athletic endeavor.  And table tennis is most certainly an athletic sport.  Badminton... maybe not.

[Aldaris]

The number of people breaking $100,000 a year barely reach the triple digits.  Even people who are listed as pros hardly get anything more than comped tickets or a very modest stipend.

All this is relevant how?
how many people break 100,000 a year in tennis? According to an article I found, about 200 men do. Does this mean Tennis isn't a sport played professionally?

Towni:  I think the idea of calling it a sport or not is less important than whether the participants are athletes.  There are plenty of sports where the players are not actually athletes.  Golf or Bowling for example.  Video gaming is certainly not an athletic endeavor.  And table tennis is most certainly an athletic sport.  Badminton... maybe not.

Ahhh! If I'm wrong, I´ll just change the topic from "sport" to "ATHLETIC sport." Gotcha!

[phillyt]

I'm really not sure what your problem has been lately with me Aldaris, but you can honestly either back off or discuss it over PM.

[Captain Dob Van Dwi]

Ok no sleep deprived typeing this time!  

I don't know if you could call gameing a "sport" or a "profession". However I do think that towishimp is right in that in that is is gaining popularity. As far as I know, some YouTuber's are  payed for their let's plays before or after getting a partnership. Makeing it a full time job.

So perhaps gameing for money will become a real profession in the future.

[Aldaris]

I'm really not sure what your problem has been lately with me Aldaris, but you can honestly either back off or discuss it over PM.

I have no problem with you Phil. You just make ridiculous claims in here, and I don't think I have been insulting you or anything. You're just wrong, and pointing that out in a discussion forum is not a personal attack as far as I know.

[Captain Dob Van Dwi]

Ah what a way to make peace! "Ah your just wrong!"

[phillyt]

The number of people breaking $100,000 a year barely reach the triple digits.  Even people who are listed as pros hardly get anything more than comped tickets or a very modest stipend.

All this is relevant how?
how many people break 100,000 a year in tennis? According to an article I found, about 200 men do. Does this mean Tennis isn't a sport played professionally?

It is an indictment on the idea that it is a pro sport.  If less than 100 people can legitimately make a living on it, it isn't a pro-sport.  Calling yourself a pro doesn't make it so.

Towni:  I think the idea of calling it a sport or not is less important than whether the participants are athletes.  There are plenty of sports where the players are not actually athletes.  Golf or Bowling for example.  Video gaming is certainly not an athletic endeavor.  And table tennis is most certainly an athletic sport.  Badminton... maybe not.

Ahhh! If I'm wrong, I´ll just change the topic from "sport" to "ATHLETIC sport." Gotcha!

This is what I am talking about.  What the fuck are you trying to imply?  I wasn't wrong, I was jumping off Towni's correct statement that plenty of activities currently called sports are equally questionable as deserving of the term "sport."  It is often discussed in AMerican sport journalism (is a golfer an athlete?).  I was pointing out that the sport or not sport designation is difficult to determine, but the athlete portion is an easier discussion to have.

But if you want to accuse me of ducking because I was "wrong" then I will politely invite you to go sit and spin.

[Aldaris]

It is an indictment on the idea that it is a pro sport.  If less than 100 people can legitimately make a living on it, it isn't a pro-sport.  Calling yourself a pro doesn't make it so.

I am confused. 100 gamers breaking 100 k = not a pro sport. 200 tennis players breaking 100 k = pro sport. I honestly don't understand your argument. And plenty more than 100 people make a living off it. 100 people break 100 k. That's a bit of a difference.

This is what I am talking about.  What the fuck are you trying to imply?  I wasn't wrong, I was jumping off Towni's correct statement that plenty of activities currently called sports are equally questionable as deserving of the term "sport."  It is often discussed in AMerican sport journalism (is a golfer an athlete?).  I was pointing out that the sport or not sport designation is difficult to determine, but the athlete portion is an easier discussion to have.

I posted a definition of sports earlier, followed by the statement that I concede this is debatable. It is, however, not really relevant to the discussion is it?
You started off by saying "this is silly, ain't a thing and no one is interested". Then you retreated further and further trying to find something you can legitimately defend. I just ask myself why to be honest.

[phillyt]

I suppose my basic idea is that if nobody pays money to watch it, the vast majority of the people claiming to be "pros" can't live on it, and no network or any other group who actually has to front money to put on events has made money off it, it isn't a pro sport. 

It is an advertising venture entirely supported by the groups who are producing the games and hardware that is being promoted.  The sport isn't self sustaining, it is a boutique advertising scheme that has failed in every incarnation not directly sponsored by the company trying to sell the game to the rest of the world.

It would be like a ball game produced entirely by Nike with the express purpose of selling a specific type of ball that only Nike makes.

And millions of people pay money to watch tennis.  That is what makes it a pro sport.  Many thousands make a livable wage playing tennis.  The same cannot be said for video games.

As for your definition, you yourself said it was debatable, which I admitted.  I then pointed to the athletic aspect as an easier concept.  You took a cheap shot by implying I was scurrying.

[Quickbeam]

After reading this I was wondering... do you guys think Hunting, Fishing or shooting are sports?

[Aldaris]

I suppose my basic idea is that if nobody pays money to watch it,

Wrong. Many people pay money to watch it. Besides, not relevant really - most "athletic sport" can be watched for free as well.
If you want premium content you pay, in both worlds.

the vast majority of the people claiming to be "pros" can't live on it, and no network or any other group who actually has to front money to put on events has made money off it, it isn't a pro sport. 

Where are you getting this? Plenty of esports organizations are profitable, and have been for 10-15 years in some cases. And "the vast majority" can't live off it? Source?

It is an advertising venture entirely supported by the groups who are producing the games and hardware that is being promoted.  The sport isn't self sustaining, it is a boutique advertising scheme that has failed in every incarnation not directly sponsored by the company trying to sell the game to the rest of the world.

Wrong again. Yes, sponsors cover a lot. That is how most sports sustain themselves, you know? But to humor you again - source?

It would be like a ball game produced entirely by Nike with the express purpose of selling a specific type of ball that only Nike makes.

Luckily, that ain't the case in esports. Blizzard has nothing to do with the vast majority of SCII tournaments for example.

Many thousands make a livable wage playing tennis.  The same cannot be said for video games.

Yes, it actually can. Thousands live off it. Believe it or not.

As for your definition, you yourself said it was debatable, which I admitted.  I then pointed to the athletic aspect as an easier concept.  You took a cheap shot by implying I was scurrying.

You are scurrying. Look at your initial statement and where we are now.

[Sig]

Chill out man, I think he's wrong too, but so what?

[Aldaris]

Chill out man, I think he's wrong too, but so what?

Because Phil seems dead set on dragging this out as painfully as possible instead of just saying "whoops, looks like this is something I didn't know about and therefore made wrong assumptions", so I'll oblige.

[Quickbeam]

Chill out man, I think he's wrong too, but so what?

Because Phil seems dead set on dragging this out as painfully as possible instead of just saying "whoops, looks like this is something I didn't know about and therefore made wrong assumptions", so I'll oblige.

You do realize that makes you just as bad as him?

[Aldaris]

You do realize that makes you just as bad as him?

Maybe you're right. I'll back out then.
 

[phillyt]

I suppose my basic idea is that if nobody pays money to watch it,

Wrong. Many people pay money to watch it. Besides, not relevant really - most "athletic sport" can be watched for free as well.
If you want premium content you pay, in both worlds.

It is similar to the self publishing book concept.  Putting an internet feed up is totally different from a network paying out a significant amount of money for broadcast rights.

Maybe I was too focused on the American scene, which I have paid attention too since being part of what became a pro style league in 1995 with Quake 1.  Every experience I have seen since then has been either laughable (like pro gamers, as if it is anything other than what people like to call themselves) or a failure (attempts by ESPN or G4TV to broadcast gaming events and getting attrocious ratings for them).

You and I have differing opinions on what a successful sport is and most definitely what an actual prop is.

the vast majority of the people claiming to be "pros" can't live on it, and no network or any other group who actually has to front money to put on events has made money off it, it isn't a pro sport. 

Where are you getting this? Plenty of esports organizations are profitable, and have been for 10-15 years in some cases. And "the vast majority" can't live off it? Source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/technology/personaltech/video-gaming-on-the-pro-tour-for-glory-but-little-gold.html?_r=0


http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=373444


Then there are the dozens of blog posts talking about the average for those who legitimately fall under the umbrella of Pro (as in they get the majority of their income from their gaming) which place the pay in the 4 to low 5 figure area.

As for gaming leagues, most in the United States of failed.  Looking at the wikipedia pages, most on there cease to exist after a couple of years.  Attempts to broadcast in the US have resulted in failure.  Maybe I am basing this on America.

But then again, if the high water mark is 1.7 unique views for an online feed, that isn't exactly mind blowing.  The Youtube NL Fails videos of people crashing into things get 3 million hits each.

Wrong again. Yes, sponsors cover a lot. That is how most sports sustain themselves, you know? But to humor you again - source?

No, most legitimate sports do not support themselves on sponsors.  Individual athletes often make much of their income from those things, but the NHL, NFL, MLB, NBA, UFC, and the Olympics make their money of broadcasting rights and people paying actual moneyto attend events.

It would be like a ball game produced entirely by Nike with the express purpose of selling a specific type of ball that only Nike makes.

Luckily, that ain't the case in esports. Blizzard has nothing to do with the vast majority of SCII tournaments for example.

You say that like it is the norm.  In looking at the huge money tournaments online, the vast majority are put on by the game makers.

Many thousands make a livable wage playing tennis.  The same cannot be said for video games.

Yes, it actually can. Thousands live off it. Believe it or not.

Not according the the articles I posted earlier, unless you think a $17,000 average is a livable wage.  It isn't in the US.

As for your definition, you yourself said it was debatable, which I admitted.  I then pointed to the athletic aspect as an easier concept.  You took a cheap shot by implying I was scurrying.

You are scurrying. Look at your initial statement and where we are now.

I said esports is fucking retarded and the people who play it aren't pros nor is it a sport.  Outside of Korea, nobody is making what people consider real money off it.

I still say the same thing, but have clarified my quick one off because I have appreciated you in the past and felt obligated to respond.

[patsy02]

The number of people breaking $100,000 a year barely reach the triple digits.  Even people who are listed as pros hardly get anything more than comped tickets or a very modest stipend.

You're right, it's extremely difficult to become a pro gamer. In a country like the US you really have to be amongst the top 50 in your country within a game to make it full time, adjust for population elsewhere. And the prize income compared to that of sports is miniscule. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And 1.2 million views is fine, but did anyone pay for those views or did they click in and click back out?  If there isn't a way to monetize it, how is it any different than watching a Youtube cat video?

Let's get some things out of the way.

Ignore the semantics of the word "Sport". What is clearly meant is by this is "Competitive professional gaming". Whether that can be categorised as a sport or not isn't really relevant; what's being compared is the competitive and professional aspect, because gaming isn't a physical activity.

Can it be called competitive and professional?

People are able to make a career of playing the most popular high-level video games. Only the very best are able to though, but this can be explained by the following:

There's a separate fanbase for each game. Someone who's interested in game A might not care about game X. This diminishes the impact of each game, and the amount of cash involved.

The fanbases are decentralised; the exception being Korea. This restricts mainstream attention severely, and starting off as an amateur gamer with the goal of going pro is a 100% individual effort. This further influences the amount of money involved, and only the largest and most influential gatherings are able to attract physical crowds.

Because there are no local venues for pro gaming to thrive in(except in Korea), and because pro gaming is an online phenomenon, the entire international player base of a game becomes one single player base.

Because of the things I pointed out earlier, the saturation point for number of professionals is low by nature. The prizes are there. They aren't massive, but they are enough to make pro gaming a thing, whether or not you choose to call it a sport.

Your demand for 'real money' is a bit strange.

[phillyt]

If you were in this room with me, you would be calling the cops because I would be giving you the "rape" eyes right now.