Tylenol sponsoring Headaches

[Venkman]

Actually, not really. But I thought this tournament was interesting all the same, for the point raised in the article:

It is believed to be the first time a non-computer company has sponsored a U.S. videogame team.

Like WoW being reported recently in the New York Times, this sort of article, and the event itself, speaks volumes of video gaming as a cultural phenomenon. It's getting harder each year for the stodgy elders out there to marginalize gaming as a passtime.

And here's where I jump through a long series of wild ass assumptions :)

While it's comical to imagine the makers of Tylenol sponsoring a tournament in which players likely get headaches and wrist pains from the loud clashing sounds and frenetic mouse and keyboard work, the more important point is that a traditional company is supporting a bleeding-edge event. However, I'm no longer surprised.

When I consider what other forms of entertainment have become big business, I see a lot more corrolation to video games than not. Consider Baseball, Basketball, Golf, Soccer (European Football), American Football, Texas Hold'em Poker, X Games, the Tony Hawk franchise. All of these were once passtimes that have long since become mainstream spectator events. And the "spectator" part is extremely important here.

Player salaries don't get into the millions because of endorsements nor ticket prices alone. They get there because spectators have elevated those individuals to marketable heroes. It's not just about the fans visiting the stadiums. It's about the business and infrastructure of that stadium. The vendors, the parking attendants, the services needed to run a place that serves as home for 30,000 or more individuals for a few hours. Then you need to add in the television broadcast, the sportscasters, the bars/taverns in which patrons actively and consistently partake of the sports, the memorabilia, the license/franchise opportunities. All of these were business opportunities that presented themselves along the way, but they all started in the same place: a passtime some participated in and others watched.

The reasons for the split between participant and spectator are also analogous to the video game eSports phenonom. Everyone may enjoy Halo, but not nearly everyone is that good at it. I count myself among the terrible, the avatar on screen that is little more than a speed bump for the truly good. I have no interest in playing at a level of competence, much less competitively, but that's no different than my complete and utter disinterest in Baseball or Golf. I simply don't care.

But the fact that so many do care is why we have an organized infrastructure of spectating in the first place, and as such, eSports. Right now, today, there isn't much to it. A few hundred thousand dollar purses, some arena events, and the vendors that can take advantage of that. More people go to the average E3 show than watched the last major competition. But that will not always be the case. E3 itself is already becoming very Hollywood, with canned contrived events designed to hit hot buttons of short entertainment value having replaced any real competent game discussion. When companies hire presenters to spout flash card bulletpoints off to the average gamer, you know there's a disconnect. But it's not the hired presenters that will go away.

That is because, ultimately, the future is the growth of the business side of games. The assumption now is that gamers will buy games because they exist. That's considered an easy sell. The harder sell is to get the gamers to buy your games, but it's business folks trying to decide that more so than the developers. We can lament this as some are already. Or we can accept this necessary evil. I personally don't mind it. The result of more business growth will simply add more tiers to gaming. Just looking at MMOs, on the back end there's the obviously-niche titles like Second Life and A Tale in the Desert, with very narrow, but very dedicated, fans who enjoy a very focused or unique type of experience. On the front end, the end everyone sees, there's light gaming experiences with some optional depth most people are expected to ignore because it requires more than a light level of investment. World of Warcraft and City of Heroes were not sold as "live this world 24/7" type games. They're the ombudsman to the genre, a doorway through which some will walk.

This is akin to music and movies. Britney Spears and Spider Man 2 will hit the masses, maybe attracting people to music and movies who haven't been attracted yet. But once those people are in, some will seek a deeper experience. They will seek different non-broadcast artists (I particularly like Dar Williams for folk and Inkalesh and other forms of World Music) and indie or offbeat films (I'm not a film buff by any stretch but did enjoy The Long Night and Memento). Comparatively, someone who first comes to MMOGs will come for WoW and may eventually migrate to ATITD or SL. It'll happen because that's how it always happened. Big companies with big media budgets sell their games and, along the way, the genre behind them.

And one such method of selling is to create heroes. Who was Tony Hawk 30 years ago? What was skateboarding then? Fast forward and it's big business.

The same can be said of the future of games. When you consider what it would take to create a gaming hero, you can see it's already in place:

• Huge dedication to training and learning, to the exclusion of other distractions. This creates heroes at a level nobody else can really achieve unless they too become heroes.
• A support base for that training, people, equipment, etc.
• An awareness of that hero's skill pushed through advertising, interviews, "insights", etc.
• An arena in which to compete, whether real or virtual.
• A fanbase, whether real or hired at first in order to attract others.
• Secondary involvement. Fans who want to become heros, fans who talk about heroes, environments in which they do so.
• Ancillary business growth. Heroes endorsing the product on which they practice, wearing brand labels, etc.

All of this exists already. People assume this happens naturally, a coincidental collective awareness that grows over time. I assure you it not natural. That leaves too much to chance.

So what is the future? If I had to guess: Sports events featuring eSports competition, celebrity endorsements, rabid fans emulating, mocking, or watching, games focused on what will be featured at a competitive level and eventually designed solely for that purpose, a general demise in innovation at that level with an even more increased awareness of indie-level games for those who grow tired ever more quickly of ever more shallow games. That awareness will grow because we're in the Content on Demand period where everything is available for anyone who even does a cursory glance anywhere.

But all through it is the fun of watching. And playing. As a crotchety old has been, I get to watch the young wippersnappers reinvent the purpose of playing games while businesses try to teach them. Unlike the traditionalist it-was-better-long-ago position other such old timers take though, mine is a longer view. Gaming as "we" know it is in transition. It's not "over" because there was no beginning beyond the moment at time we reinvented it from the prior generation.

Finally, as further proof there may be change in the air, I found it interesting how a traditional bastion of "Games are to be Feared" has softened the stance by allowing this to be printed:

For all the optimism, several hurdles must be overcome if e-sports are to become a mass phenomenon. For one, the violent game content can be off-putting both to spectators and advertisers.

To the gamers themselves, the mayhem on the computer screen doesn't count as real violence. Apart from the occasional case of wrist-wracking carpal tunnel syndrome, no one gets hurt.

The softening of Violent Video Games is either responsibly objective reporting, or a sure sign that the media has finally caught on to the business potential. Or, maybe it's just the communication side of these multinational conglomerates getting on board with what their gaming/entertainment divisions have been trying to sell. That's for the tinfoil hat brigade to decide.

[Margalis]

I think the big problem is that video games are not fun to watch. Watching people stare at a screen is not fun. And a lot of times it's very difficult to tell what is going on. Add to that the fact that in multiplayer games each player has a different screen that only shows part of the action - very difficult to follow.

[fnddf2]

Hello everyone, first post from a lurker.

Anyway, Margalis, I think that people are indeed interested in seeing other people play.  I don't know if the masses are interested in seeing match replays of games, but I know that there is some demand for it.

For instance, over at sites like Shoryuken.com, they post match videos of people playing against each other at high profile tournaments.  Some of these videos also have transcripts attached, and for a while they were distributing these videos via DVDs.

In Korea, I think there are supposed to be a couple of cable TV channels that broadcast game footage of matches, along with the appropriate commentary.

You're right, watching the actual players stare at the screen is not fun, but I think videos of what the player sees in the game would be interesting enough.  Most people who would watch these videos probably know a lot about the game anyway, so they know the stuff that goes on and are not confused.  I am very confused whenever I try to watch hockey on TV because I don't understand stuff like icing, but it's second nature to a hockey fan and player.  As you said, multiplayer games with different screens would be more difficult to present.

Eventually, I think the hero in question may be known through the image of his avatar rather than his real life personal appaearance, if the game alows such avatar customization.

[Llava]

Regarding the multiple screens issue:

What if a more omniscient camera was added?  In football, you're not looking through the helmets of each of the players every so often- you have camera men showing you the action.  If they did this in games, would spectating be more interesting?  (Just so it's clear, I'm talking about putting additional non-player controlled cameras inside the actual game, so you could watch two players shooting at each other in a FPS from above, for example.)

[fnddf2]

Omniscient camera, like Spectator Mode from Unreal Tournament?

What if, instead of the replay being broadcast on TV, you could download the motion captures of the match and replay it on your own PC?  Then, you could fly around in the arena as a camera and watch the replay from your own angle, or choose one of the pre-recorded flight paths for the cameras that the broadcaster made for you for convenience, along with commentary appearing as either subtitles or voiceovers.

Of course, this would only work on certain games.  But the idea of an omniscient camera sounds perfect for recording replays for most games.

[Margalis]

Movies of fighting games work well because both players play on the same screen.

An omiscient camera is not really possible in a lot of games, because there is too much real estate to cover. Even in a 2 player game like an RTS or FPS you have two guys to focus on. I suppose you could choose whichever one made it more dramatic at the time, but I still don't think it would work very well.

Also if you can't see the hands of the players or aren't the players it can be hard to tell what is happening in some games. In FPS games it's pretty easy to get disoriented watching someone play as they turn all around and such.

Not that there isn't a niche interest in this sort of thing...there is. I just don't see it becoming big anytime soon.

[Hoax]

It is the same as athletic sports, nobody will like watching cricket because they dont know what is going on.  But the barrier for entry is much more that you need to have played the game then someone explaining the rules.  As video games seep further and further into the mainstream I definitely expect more coverage of video game top tier competition.  Might give G4 something worth watching to put on the air.

[Llava]

An omiscient camera is not really possible in a lot of games, because there is too much real estate to cover.

Well, they have 100 yards to cover in football.  But generally speaking, you're not looking at the whole field- you're only seeing the part where the action is.  It's trickier in games, given that action can be happening in several places at once, but that's why you have someone in charge who is watching and decides "Switch to Camera 2.  Now Camera 3.  Back to 2.  Now to 1."

I think it could be done well, if managed professionally.  The fact is, though, that not enough people really care about this sort of thing to make it worthwhile.  Your point about it being difficult to follow is certainly one reason.  Another is that there are how many popular sports versus how many popular video games.  Interest among video games is far, far more fragmented.  I, for instance, couldn't be paid to sit and watch people playing Halo no matter how good the direction was.  But put those cameras in a Guild Wars match and I'm there- but then you've probably lost the entire Halo audience.

[Alkiera]

It doesn't take much for something to blow up in the US.  Anyone remember the World Series of Poker, 4 years ago?  I'm pretty sure they had one, but no one cared.  Somehow, suddenly poker on TV is a HUGE DEAL.  And I'd guess that compared to the more common televised sports, like football or baseball, a smaller percentage of viewers really understand what is going on at a serious poker table than on a football field.

So what is needed are, for FPS-style games:
* more open, outdoor maps that allow for further back viewpoints.  1st person/close 3rd person is fine for highlights, but to really get a sense of what is going on, you need overviews.  Games like Far Cry do this pretty well, I think.
* Player interviews.  Think of these televised poker tourneys, where they show clips of interviews and whatnot as bumpers for commercials, to provide 'human interest'.  Sure, a lot of it is drivel... but a lot of Americans seem to thrive on this crap, hence why reality TV is still around.
* Celebrity games: Hey, it worked for poker.  Find some celebs who like to play Halo, or BF1942, or whatever;  get them to play for charities or something.
* Voiceovers.  Provide players with mics and when doing 1st person from their view, let you here what they're saying at the time.  You might have to encourage some players to vocalize more... just wave money at them or something.
* 'Introductory' clips.  Have some time within each 'airing' of the game to explain some of the aspects of the game.  Sure, there's not much to 'run around in these corridors and shoot everything that moves'...  but various tactical choices, quake's rocketjumping, that kind of thing, could stand to be introduced outside of gameplay, and brief points made on the pros and cons.  Thus, people eventually will 'get it', even if they've never played an FPS.

Alkiera

[Megrim]

A couple of things;

Firstly, and i may be wrong, but i am _fairly_ certain that Subway has sponsored a CS team before. As for full-capture videos on demand, as far as CS is concerned once again, they already have these - HLTV demos. You download the recording, type playdemo XXX.dem in console and watch from any angle you desire.

This however, leads into what i think is the biggest hurdle in mainstreaming eSports. Others have already touched on this, and i'll elaborate: game knowlege. Right now even for another gamer to stand by and watch 3D vs NoA in Counter-Strike, or say Boxer vs'ing Xellos in Starcraft, could be quite difficult simply due to the amount of minutely detailed knowledge required to really appreciate what's going on.

Now broaden that to your average Sims player (whom i will not stoop so low as to call a "gamer"). All they will see is a couple of guys staring intently into their screens, clicking like madmen (in the case of Star). They'll think it pretty boring. This can be mitigated to an extent if the newbie spectators are intermingled with an actual "fan" crowd, so that when KSharp aces the other team with an awp and a massive cheer goes up, they might actually catch onto what is going on and enjoy it. But live (or even recorded) TV coverage? At least in the US it would definitely be a waste of time, with the exception of a relatively small niche.

However (as an advocate of eSports =p) i think that spectating games can quite definitely become an interesting passtime. Just as in any other sport, competition at the top level involves a great deal of preparation, practice and skill. Consequently, it is possible to appreciate and "cheer on" your favourite teams and players, because the newer generations growing up are all much more familiar with the concept of "videogame" (just like previous generations followed Football/etc/etc... in part due to having participated themselves at some level). Sort of like a "broadening of perspectives" type deal.

 - meg

[Hokers]

TVwise it comes down to the quality of the anouncers.  Arena was watchable when Wil was on, not so much after he left.  The quality of the players and prodution was not as important as the connection between you and the announcers.

[Ironwood]

WC3 replays already have some of the features you guys are listing, including the 'smartcam'.  There are a LOT of sites hosting those replays too.

[Pococurante]

People watch golf.  They watch bass fishing.

Umm they watch Christopher Lowell.

People will watch anything.

[HaemishM]

I think the big problem is that video games are not fun to watch. Watching people stare at a screen is not fun. And a lot of times it's very difficult to tell what is going on. Add to that the fact that in multiplayer games each player has a different screen that only shows part of the action - very difficult to follow.

Here's why video games as spectactor sports is really a silly concept. Games are interactive. They are meant to be played, not watched. People who like games enough to play them can probably just play the game instead of watch the game, even if they can't play with "the big boys" who are competitors. Games are not meant to be spectated, they are meant to be experienced.

Of course, if people are allowed to start legally betting on the outcome of video games, that doesn't apply, because people will watch airline schedules if they can win some money on it.

[Jain Zar]

I have been playing videogames for most of my life.  I have ZERO interest in watching some no lifers play Counterstrike for money.
When I hear about pro gamers I feel like less of a loser because these people CLEARLY have too much time on their hands.
(Note I also laugh at pro poker players too.  More so, since there is more monetary risk involved.  Want to make money?  GET A REAL JOB AND STOP GAMBLING.)
I don't begrudge people who can make money doing non sport things they try to make seem sporty, but I don't have any interest or respect for them either.
Football is visually impressive and the players are putting themselves at real risk.  The X Game folk are doing things for real without nets you would be impressed by seeing it in a movie action scene.  Ok, car racers are mostly there in the hopes of seeing massive vehicular destruction as opposed to caring about them going round in circles, but its still impressive.  Pool players are showing massive skills at making physics go the way they want them to.  Baseball while boring has moments of glory where a ball is hit for massive distance, whipped across the plate at 100 MPH speeds or daring catches in the outfield.

A bunch of catasses around a poker table or an X Box aint exciting.  Certain things just aren't interesting to watch for many if not most people.  And it doesn't help that videogames improve or change on a monthly basis.  There is no consistency, actual threat to the player, or hell, even personality like the useless poker assholes have.  Too busy intently staring into a screen clicking things.  (Though X Box Live with its constant questioning of opponent player's moms, sexuality, and such does show there are personalities in games.  The kind that need to be thrown into a prison cell with a 300 pound man to show what being owned really means...)

[Samwise]

I think the big problem is that video games are not fun to watch. Watching people stare at a screen is not fun. And a lot of times it's very difficult to tell what is going on. Add to that the fact that in multiplayer games each player has a different screen that only shows part of the action - very difficult to follow.

Here's why video games as spectactor sports is really a silly concept. Games are interactive. They are meant to be played, not watched. People who like games enough to play them can probably just play the game instead of watch the game, even if they can't play with "the big boys" who are competitors. Games are not meant to be spectated, they are meant to be experienced.

I agree with that sentiment, but then, millions upon millions of people happily pay money to watch professional sports.  Personally, I think I'd rather watch a good UT match than a good game of football.

And Marg, have you seen the spectator mode in recent versions of Counter-Strike?  It's pure genius.  You can switch between:

1) First-person view of a given player
2) Third-person view locked behind a given player
3) Third-person view freely rotating around a given player
4) Third-person view with full camera control
5) Top-down map highlighting each player, map objectives, and showing the FoV of each player

There's also picture-in-picture, so you could (for example) bring up the top-down map in the bulk of the screen and then have a PiP third-person view of a given player so you can see what he sees as he approaches that ambush that's waiting for him.  There's even an "auto director" mode that lets the server switch your viewpoint around to try to show you where all the action is happening - for example, it'll see that a number of opposing players are all walking toward the same point, and it'll cut to that place or one of those players so you can see the ensuing firefight.

Again, I'd rather just play the game, myself, but the "spectator" options available in video games could easily rival what broadcasters are able to do with football games.  When the entire playing field is digital there are no limits on what angles you can shoot and what stats are instantaneously available to the viewer.

[Margalis]

Another important note: The actual games people play change from year to year. Not just rule tweaks, but new games. That makes it even harder to follow.

Like I said, there is demand for videos of this stuff. (I own a number of Street Fighter tapes and DVDs) But it's niche appeal. As far as comparing to poker, that's a good comparison because in 5 years that phase will be long gone. It's a fad. (I say that as a poker player)

[HaemishM]

Another musing on why video games as specator sports don't work follows along with what Jain Zar says. I see a game of football or baseball or hockey, and I'd love to play them. But pyhsically, I can't because I'm a weedy little turd. I'd get killed. But I watch those games on TV, and I get the urge to play the video game version of them. So I do. Which is one of the reasons sports games sell so much, because people who don't have the necessary physical skills CAN with video games.

See, I can watch Thresh or KSniper or the Frag Dolls play games, and even if I'm not as good as them, I CAN just pick up the game and play it myself and have fun. I can't just go run into the NFL and do so, or even semi-professional leagues. It just isn't going to happen. But with games, I cand duplicate the experience (if not the expertise) of the best video game person. So why would I want to passively watch when I can actively play?

That's why I think video games as spectator sports will never be more than an awkward form of advertorial. Yes, there is a niche audience for it, but the niche is even smaller than the MMOG niche. It's a subset of the niche of people who play that game in the first place.

[Trippy]

Another musing on why video games as specator sports don't work follows along with what Jain Zar says. I see a game of football or baseball or hockey, and I'd love to play them. But pyhsically, I can't because I'm a weedy little turd. I'd get killed. But I watch those games on TV, and I get the urge to play the video game version of them. So I do. Which is one of the reasons sports games sell so much, because people who don't have the necessary physical skills CAN with video games.

You may be a weedy little turd :-D but that doesn't mean other people can't go out and play some football or basketball or baseball or whatever with their friends after watching a game. Or take Lance and the Tour de France. How many people watched that on OLN and decided they wanted to go out on their bikes and pretend they were Lance? A lot, probably. How is that any different than what you do with video games?

[Trippy]

It doesn't take much for something to blow up in the US.  Anyone remember the World Series of Poker, 4 years ago?  I'm pretty sure they had one, but no one cared.

Poker players cared and followed it but the masses didn't.

Somehow, suddenly poker on TV is a HUGE DEAL.

I think it was the combination of Chris Moneymaker (an Internet player and relative novice) winning the WSoP and the WPT with their "hole-cam" (which the WSoP quickly copied) that jump started the current Hold 'Em poker craze.

[MrHat]

I used to watch WC3 replays all the time.  Was very entertaining.  I watch alot of WoW videos too.  But again, none of this is 'live' watching.  I like to FFW to the good stuff, or stop and play when the urge arises.

[HaemishM]

Another musing on why video games as specator sports don't work follows along with what Jain Zar says. I see a game of football or baseball or hockey, and I'd love to play them. But pyhsically, I can't because I'm a weedy little turd. I'd get killed. But I watch those games on TV, and I get the urge to play the video game version of them. So I do. Which is one of the reasons sports games sell so much, because people who don't have the necessary physical skills CAN with video games.

You may be a weedy little turd :-D but that doesn't mean other people can't go out and play some football or basketball or baseball or whatever with their friends after watching a game. Or take Lance and the Tour de France. How many people watched that on OLN and decided they wanted to go out on their bikes and pretend they were Lance? A lot, probably. How is that any different than what you do with video games?

Video games take less effort. :)

[Kail]

I watch alot of WoW videos too.  But again, none of this is 'live' watching. 

Yeah, as far as I know, being able to broadcast live makes a huge difference to a lot of sports (in terms of popularity and financial success, if not in the actual quality of the product), and I don't see many video games that can do that.  Warcraft 3, maybe, at times, but even there, you're going to run into a lot of instances where things are happening in two, three places at once, and a lot of instances where nothing is happening anywhere (except for building, mining, and so on). 

I think the idea of doing a video game as a mass media competitive event is workable, but you'd need a game that supported it, and no such game currently exists (or is looking to come out in the forseeable future).  As a minimum of features, I'd look for:

1) Must be able to be broadcast in real time.  Even if yesterday's football game was more entertaining than today's, I bet you a million times more people will be watching today's game today than their recording of yesterday's game.  This eliminates most games right away, for a lot of reasons.  Either you can't see everything because everyone's behind walls, or they're too far apart, or there's too much happening in too many different areas to focus on, or whatever.  Most games cannot manage this to the same level that other competitive sports can.  Fighting games, probably, could handle this.

2) Needs to be intelligible to non-players.  I don't know much about Golf, but I can still sit down and tell roughly what's going on in a given game.  If you don't know anything about Counterstrike, though, and you're watching a guy moving up on a corner, you aren't really going to know what that signifies.  Is this a corner that is ususally covered by snipers?  Is it a secret way into the enemy base?  Is it a relatively safe corner for your team?  The average viewer won't get any of this, and when some guy in black jumps out from behind a crate and machineguns they guy we're watching in the back, it's going to seem random and pointless.

3) Needs to be fun to watch at high levels of play.  This, in and of itself, is extremely difficult.  Street Fighter is really fun to watch... until you start getting into the high levels, then it's all pokes and zoning games.  The easiest way to win in a 1v1 FPS Deathmatch is to get a one point lead and then relentlessly camp some choice spawn.  Making a game where the only way to win was by doing somthing entertaining would be difficult.  Hell, precious few games are even fun to watch at medium levels of skill, because half the time, a player is killed by something outside his field of view, and there isn't much you can do to make that seem interesting or competitive.  Your commentators can only say "Wow, he really snuck up on that guy" so many different ways before it starts to sound redundant.

[Venkman]

People who like games enough to play them can probably just play the game instead of watch the game, even if they can't play with "the big boys" who are competitors. Games are not meant to be spectated, they are meant to be experienced.

For me, personally, I agree. However, part of the initial interest one has in watching spectator sports starts with their desire to partake of it themselves. If someone is an ardent Baseball fan, there's a fair chance they either grew up playing baseball, grew up watching it with Dad/Mom who may have, or got into it because their friends who may have or just dragged them into an interest with it.

So it is part aspirational. A similarity to Video Games is the desire to partake and/or the belief you can.

Think about the top-end FPS players. Could you, with all the time you spend reading, writing, and living, actually compete with those who spend equivalent time practicing/playing FPS games? I doubt it. That's not a slight either. You could be uber for all I know. However, I'd bet strongly that someone who spends all of their time playing these games would paste anyone who spends half that time talking about games. The same is true of sports.

Video games take less physical effort, but the one on top, the aspirational reference, the alpha gamer, is still way far out ahead of the rabble.

The big difference is that the tradition of spectating physical sports is a multi-millenial concept deeply engrained in civilization. But it's not a long stretch to remove the word "physical" from that considering how voyeuristic some societies tend to be. Technology hasn't enabled more spectating. It was developed because of it.

[Jain Zar]

Another thing I remembered about that makes pro videogaming shit:
How many people do well at competitive videogaming soley due to skill?
Not too many.  Its all memorization and the ability to game the system. 
Its knowing that pulling off that dragon punch after a Chun Li player only works if done during X animation frame.
Hell, Super Smash Brothers Melee players outright ADMIT THIS. 

There is no real room for creativity.  Its all rote memorization and exploitation.

That 300 pound linebacker in football can possibly due to weather or just being hyped on adrenaline pick up a fumble and run it for a 60 yard TD, dodging or just barrelling through the opposing team.

Hyper mega combo done as a counter block when Captain Swordy lands from a leap attack as his feet hit the ground will ALWAYS work.

[Margalis]

Eh, as an avid Street Fighter player I will just say you are way off base here. Of course, knowledge is important, just like it is in every competetive endeavor. If you want to use the NFL example, what about learning to recognize different offensive and defensive schemes/plays, memorizing your own playbook, etc.

At the highest levels of play you just assume everyone has done that. Knowledge separates the good from the bad but it doesn't rank the good players.

[Megrim]

Eh, as an avid Street Fighter player I will just say you are way off base here. Of course, knowledge is important, just like it is in every competetive endeavor. If you want to use the NFL example, what about learning to recognize different offensive and defensive schemes/plays, memorizing your own playbook, etc.

At the highest levels of play you just assume everyone has done that. Knowledge separates the good from the bad but it doesn't rank the good players.

Pretty much. It's like playing the piano. There simply exists a certain neccassary level of technical ability that a person _must_ have in order to comete. And beyond that, it's the creativity and intellegence that decides the winner. I suppose in sport this translates to co-ordination and level of fitness.

 - meg

[Xilren's Twin]

Just noticed flipping through last weeks Sports Illustrated that they too had a one page article on the pro-gaming "fad" and the Tylenol sponsorship. 

Whether or not people think it's silly as a spectator sport, it's not going to be going away any time soon.  There are "professional" leagues that involve money for just about any competitive outlet you can imagine, from traditional sports (football, basketball, baseball) and the like, to "new" sports (anything in the X-games, paintball, snowboarding etc) "fringe" sports (say curling or the lumberjack games, robo-warsl), plus all the non-athletic "intellectual sports" (chess, go, scrabble).  Adding video games to the mix should hardly be surprising.

Just like MtG and it's Pro Tour, they generally all start a marketing campagns to try and add legitamacy and interest to a given "sport", usually by the manufacturers.  It if takes off, more money and popularity are soon to follow.  After all, pro sports in the USA didn't form spontaneously; they went through the same introduction and growth period too only slower due to lack of the same next day media impact.

In terms of fan friendliness, the easier it is for average folks to both understand and participate in any such activity, the easier it is to market  (did any one else try to watch the MtG World Championship coverage on ESPN2 that one year; very painful to watch)  "Pro Gaming" isn't going away.  Hell just look at South Korea: as the SI article mentions, they have like 2 television channel devoted exclusively to gaming...

Xilren
PS Please don't tell me any given activity has to have people demostrate athletic ability to be a sport; pro bass fishing and golf want to talk to you...

[Venkman]

Yep. Anything can gain fans. I wasn't actually introducing that :) Rather, it was to point out what happens when major sponsorships get involved. That necessarily changes the playing field.

[HaemishM]

Pro video gaming isn't going away, but it will remain on the same level of niche entertainment that it is now for a number of reasons beyond what I talked about above.

There are just too many media outlets and inputs for spectators to capture as much "mind share" as pro sports. It can achieve the same level of niche success as things like cooking competitions (Food Network), which isn't a bad thing to aspire too. And hell, G4TV has to have something to fill out the times when there are no pixellated boobies to broadcast.

[Strazos]

Well, Arena wasn't a very good example of this; Most of the players on that show, quite frankly, sucked.