Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
First Person Shooters (Games) PC Games (Games) Entertainment Games

The Purposelessness of FPS Professionalism 85

Posted by simoniker from the makin-money dept.
Doley writes "Over at GotFrag, there's an article discussing the financial and evolutionary problems related to professional FPS gaming. The piece explains: 'Regardless of how many fans exist, how many people play Counter-Strike, how many tournaments take place, or how many sponsors participate, Counter-Strike will never truly be a sport. Never will the players make an excellent living playing the game. Possibly, in time, the top teams from each country will be able to make a decent living - a living that we are all capable of making by simply attending college. However, because the majority of cream of the crop players and teams cannot make Counter-Strike a true career, the purpose of the entire structure and making it to the top is destroyed. Until purpose is put back into our community, the situation will continue to worsen.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Purposelessness of FPS Professionalism More

The Purposelessness of FPS Professionalism

Comments Filter:

  • Inherent Problem... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ceyan ( 668082 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:08PM (#9514699)
    The one problem that will forever doom competitive computer gaming is that gaming isn't meant to be a spectator sport. Since the dawn of sporting events, sports have been designed around the viewer, not the player. On the flip side, comptuer games are soley designed for the enjoyment of the player.

    What I don't understand is how it's gotten as far as it has. Probably a lack of understanding on my part as I can barely understand the reason of watching professional sports, but the whole idea of WATCHING someone else play a computer game for fun is just... the funniest thing I've ever heard.

    • Re:Inherent Problem... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:15PM (#9514745) Homepage Journal
      While I mostly agree that watching people play video games is generally not fun, there are exceptions.

      For example, I can't stand playing Final Fantasy games anymore. But watching someone else play is great. I get all the plot without putting in any of the effort.

      Also, watching fighting games can be awesome. Lots of ooohs and aaahs when people pull off crazy stuff or weird things happen.

      Lastly its always fun to watch stuff like Mario Party because it's crazy go nuts.

      Also, Dance Dance Revolution is the major exception. It was designed for spectators and players combined.
      • For example, I can't stand playing Final Fantasy games anymore. But watching someone else play is great. I get all the plot without putting in any of the effort.

        The effort of playing a Final Fantasy game? It's the game that invented the "click x to advance plot" genre! It's more effort to press start in a DVD menu.
    • While watching someone play a video game sounds pretty dull to me, I don't think it's any worse than watching any normal sport. But then again, I've never seen the apeal of that at all, so I might not be the most qualified to speak.
    • Since the dawn of sporting events, sports have been designed around the viewer, not the player.

      That's ridiculous. All sports (except for pitiful commercial mutant creations like arena football) were originally played for the fun of the players. It took nearly forty years [hmco.com] of widespread amateur play before the first pro baseball league was formed. I think that's all that's lacking here: time. As computer gamers grow up and games become more accepted (and spectator-friendly), it'll happen. Not that I c

      • Re:Inherent Problem... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by some guy I know ( 229718 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @06:27AM (#9516329) Homepage
        It took nearly forty years of widespread amateur play before the first pro baseball league was formed. I think that's all that's lacking here: time. As computer gamers grow up and games become more accepted (and spectator-friendly), it'll happen.
        I don't think so, for several reasons:
        1. Advances in Gaming Technology.
          Forty years (even ten years) is a long time in computer time.
          During that time, the technology continues to advance, and games continue to improve.
          While there are still some people playing Doom, etc., most have moved on to other things.
          Different (usually more realistic) physics, graphics, etc., attract players away from the older games.
        2. Fragmentation.
          There are thousands of computer games being played these days.
          Many of these games have dozens or hundreds of mods, each with its own idiosynchrosies.
          There are few games with a large player base.
        3. Advances in Hardware.
          I don't mean faster CPU times or better graphics cards.
          I mean vocal input, 3D glasses, virtual reality helmets, direct neural interfaces, etc., i.e., new kinds of hardware.
          As hardware technology advances, games will advance to keep up.
          Compare this to games like baseball, where the same basic technology has been used for over 100 years.
          (Oh, sure, there have been new things like aluminum baseball bats and tighter tolerances in the construction of baseballs, but the basic technology is the same.)
        I guess that what I'm saying is that computer gaming is a moving target, unlike most physical sports, which remain unchanged (except for minor tweaking) over tens of years.
        Can you imagine trying to keep meaningful statistics over any decent period of time?
        I just can't see an announcer saying things like:
        Wow!

        I haven't seen that play since two years ago, when Team Death14 used it against The Lords of Blood.
        But, of course, vorpal swords had slightly higher power and greater range back then, and variable gravity didn't exist either.
        Oh, yeah, and it was a different mod, so I guess it doesn't really matter.
        BTW, I am a computer gamer, and I already am grown up.
        I played my first computer game in 1974, on a Teletype machine, so I have seen how games have advanced over the years.
        It's a moving target.
        • But why would computer gaming have to be one sport.
          New sport are created all the time, not as often as computer games though.
          I don't see people abandoning the world's biggest sport, football, even though it's like 500 years old and lots of sports have evolved since.

        • Re:Inherent Problem... (Score:2, Interesting)

          by cerebis ( 560975 )

          I accept your point that computer games are a moving target, but that has a lot to do with it being a money making industry increasingly styled after the music and film industries. The original motivation of seeking the best design, or forging a new genre has fallen a distant second to generating income and growing the market.

          This industry model works mainly because the market continues to grow, and as the years pass there will always a new set of youngsters that haven't experienced the games of the past

      • ...baseball was not at the dawn of sporting events.

        A) I'm talking all the way back to the original olympics as a reference point.

        B) Baseball was designed around a pre-existing sport (name escapes me at the moment and it's too damn early to go searching).

        C) Yes, all games are meant to be fun for the players, but the point is a physical sport has a limited player base, but an unlimited spectator base. Computer games have an unlimited player base to go with that unlimited spectator base. Not everyone can
        • PROFESSIONAL sports, ie sports where players are paid to compete, are about spectators. At least to a degree. Competition, pride, etc also play a factor. It's only been fairly recently that we started viewing athletes as entertainers rather than as representatives. TV has a lot to do with it.

          There are lots of non-professional sports. More than there are professional.

          Umm, anyone can play a computer game? Anyone without a crippling physical disability (and even some people with one) can try to play basebal

    • Hmm, playing baseball is fun, watching it on TV is not, at least for me. But it is still a sport. Would I pay to watch the best CS players in some sort of virtual arena? Maybe. I think that if gaming continues to rake in money on the order of Hollywood and becomes more mainstream, eventually it will attract major sponsors. Once that happens, it may be recognized as a sport. Or not, afterall, my favorite sport, NASCAR auto racing, has loads of big money sponsors, but many still don't consider it to be a real
    • In my BF1942 team [tgbf.org], we play internal leagues that are as fun to watch as they are to play. Then again, CTF doesn't have to have the same problem with focal points that BF1942 Conquest mode or Counter-Strike has - the flag can be the focal point. When spectating, there could be a "View Flag mode" where you always see the action from the flag's POV. Maybe have the ability to move around within a set radius of the flag. Just a thought to make the matches more attractive for spectators.
      • I think a large BF1942 game (CTF or conquest) would be much more fun to watch than a counterstrike game. You'd need human 'cameramen' to follow the action, but big open firefights with vehicles and aircraft thrown in would be interesting - certainly, skimming round the map during a game in spectator mode is fun. You'd have to limit the number of sniper lamers though.
        Every game of counterstrike I've played has degenerated into everyone blasting away and bunnyhopping around one corner in a corridor. Boring to
    • My problem with this is that as much as I love video games they just simply are not a sport.

      Video games are simply that... games. They fall in the same category as chess, pool, golf, darts or baseball. All of these are games. You do not need to be in exceptional shape to play them. Though it can help with baseball I suppose, (but it's still just a game!).

      Sports require athletic ability and great physical shape. HOCKEY, water polo, Car racing, olympic games and even being a jockey is a sport.

      The rest a

      • How is Car Racing a sport which requires great physical shape while baseball is not?
        • The race drivers do more than the average baseball player as far as training. (and i don't mean batting practice, i'm not saying that hitting a baseball isn't one of the toughest things to do in any game). Drivers have to be in very good physical shape to be able to race for hours on end. Racing is very demamding on the body. Try racing for 15 minutes on some little go-cart track at 25 miles per hour now think of doing that at 150+ miles per hour for several hours!
          • I know it's a bit off topic, but this myth about baseball players being lazy and out of shape is just ridiculous. Having played in college and knowing the training regimens that pro players go through I can tell you first hand that

            1) They work hard as hell and the vast majority are in great shape. (Yeah, I know John Kruk and Rod Beck look like fat Softball league slobs, but trust me when I say they are the exception)

            and

            2) They have to be in great shape. You simply cannot play baseball for 4 hours strai
    • The one problem that will forever doom competitive computer gaming ...

      Nice pun there.

    • One problem that could be overcome is perspective. Watching someone else play as that person isn't exciting. But think if you could watch it from your own perspective. Being able to see where everyone on the map is, where the snipers are camping, and so on. Then it might be more interesting.

  • CS as a Sport (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Prien715 ( 251944 ) <agnosticpope@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:12PM (#9514727) Journal
    The problem with counter-strike and many video games as a sport is that they can't really be watched. In any traditional sport, there's some obvious object on which to focus the camera (a ball or a puck in most cases). The action usually focuses around this one object. Similarly, there's also no walls obstructing views of all participants except a few. Most rounds in CS are won by eliminated each individual member of the other team, thus making there as many focal points as are players on the team.

    You could handle this in one of three ways. First, don't watch it live and show "important" clips (where people are killed or die). That would allow fans to see all the important stuff, but would have the feel of a highlight reel in sports (you know somethings going to happen) and it fails to give context to the action. You could focus on one player the whole time, but then you'd miss stuff.

    One of the most fun things about CS is the element of surprise (which is not possible in, say Goldeneye since the opponent can see your screen), but at the same time, this same innate inability to see what's going on is what makes it a horrible spectator sport.

    • Re:CS as a Sport (Score:3, Interesting)

      by blandnet ( 778140 )
      While I'm not a CS player, I do play Socom II Online. It has a spectator mode that includes the ability to toggle between the live players in addition to a free camera and fixed camera angles. You could carry this a step further and show it live if you could produce the show in the same manner as other sports. With a producer directing which camera's or players where shown at any given time. Just a thought.

      • It has a spectator mode that includes the ability to toggle between the live players in addition to a free camera and fixed camera angles.

        Yea, this is what I always imagined. Have 8-10 observers, just like all the cameramen at a football game. They each have their assignments: follow this hotshot, keep a bird's-eye view of the hottest action, keep on the flag no matter what, etc. In a "booth", you have all these perspectives on screens, and a director manages which are shown to the viewers, while commen

    • Re:CS as a Sport (Score:2, Interesting)

      by node159 ( 636992 )
      Brombing run in UT2k3 does this well, we have a ball, set a camera to track it and some clever camera work you could have quite an entertaning show.

      Of course there is still the problems of walls... hmmm. Jet pack like in tribes on rolling hills.

      Fun to watch but lame to play, age old dilema.
    • Have you ever tried watching a FPS game, or any other gaming tournament on a gaming channel on TV? Even just showing the clips, it's terribly boring.

      Just try putting yourself in spectator mode for a few hours... you'll reconsider that idea.
    • What about Rugby and Soccer? Same thing, boring! Yet those are popular?

      The problem is that if the spectator has no clue and has never really played anything relatively well, thus it will be dull and they will not appreciate it.

      I have never played sport, thus I find most sports dull and drab and awfully boring. Whereas I've played a bit of counterstrike and can thus appreciate it and the tactics in the game.

      When the video game kids of today become the paying, watching customer of tomorrow, then this may c
      • I sort of disagree. While I think soccer is horribly boring, (it looks like a bunch of ants kicking around an aspirin,) and I love playing computer games, I would still rather watch soccer than a Counter-Strike match.
        • Hmm... I think it's all to do with the presentation.

          I agree, but I know it can be different.

          Kinda imagine the two teams in a sound-proofed boxing arena (tables and PCs and all..) imaging the map view and each players screen som some large overhead display. I'd find that more exciting than most sports.

          For one thing you need a good commentator and a excellent spectator view...

          I'm more a Quake3 kinda person... 1v1 is more a skill thing for me. I prefer watching 1v1 to TDM and FFA. And I know how it makes m
    • The problem with counter-strike and many video games as a sport is that they can't really be watched.
      That's a good point.
      It could explain why sports like paintball have never become popular spectator sports.
    • The point of CS isn't entirely to eliminate the other team. You can always follow the VIP/Bomb carrier. And on each map there is really only 2 or 3 spots where 705 of the action is. After the initial "choke points", the field gets whittled down to 2-3 players on each side. Easy enough to follow.
  • Possibly, in time, the top teams from each country will be able to make a decent living - a living that we are all capable of making by simply attending college.

    "Simply attending" college does not guarantee that you will make a decent living. I know some college grads who are unemployed and struggling, while I know people who never even attended college, doing incredible things (and are particularly well off).

    If you're good at something and like it enough, you can turn any hobby into a living really. Dec

    • Re:College does not automatically mean $$$ (Score:5, Interesting)

      by irc.goatse.cx troll ( 593289 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @12:04AM (#9515008) Journal
      Debating whether to post anonymously or not.. not that I care what slashdotters think, just that my friends all know this name by now-

      I never attended college. Or highschool. Or a full year of middleschool. I dropped out near the end of 6th grade (about 80% through if you want to get technical.)

      I'm currently 17, employed by a euro internet exchange(I'm in the US), making ~$1800/mo, with huge room to grow. I didn't get this job under any false pretenses-- no lying or denying, I even brought it up. I'm sure income wise I'm far from the top of slashdot, but I'd say I'm doing pretty well off.

      Life is just a stream of luck, both good and bad. All the biggest and most influential events are usually the ones you didn't plan. (car crash, meeting people, etc). The only caveat to this is that luck is preperation meeting opertunity, but it doesn't change it.

      "Some of us would definitely prefer to play computer games all day (and get paid for it!) rather than sitting through another English class. :P"

      You'd think that, but eh. Playing competitively really took all the fun out of it. I'll still be competing in the CPL(big counterstrike competition) this year, but after that, I really don't know.
      • $1800/mo, with huge room to grow

        You make ~$21,600 per year. That's in the range of what I make, working in a near-mindless administrative job.

        We both make only about $3000 above the poverty line. Not something to be bragging about--and not 'pretty well off' at all.
        • My intent wasn't to brag, just to disprove the theory that you need a huge list of certs and diplomas to get a job-- its all luck and who you know (and being able to get the job done)
          • Yes, but $21k is, by many standards, not a noteworthy job.
            • Its all perspective. Having this on a resume would be great. Its also only 1800 for the first 3 months(where its a lot of training)- after that I should be making $2300 a month($27k/yr) -- Beats flipping burgers. Having a job like this puts my foot in the door for future jobs, in addition to all the experience and training I'm getting (I've spent most of today playing with junipers for example). While I am obviously starting with a lower sallary than most(even due to the lack of schooling), I still got a
              • Dude- I made 3.5 times what you do the day I walked out of college. Thats not including my signing bonus (a month's salary).

                You aren't going to starve on what you make, but you are not doing well. At 40 hrs/week, thats 160 a month, you make 15 an hour. Thats at the higher salary. You can make as much holding a stop sign at a construction job. If you lived in California, after rent taxes and food, you might have 100 to spare for transportation. In other parts, you're still struggling to make ends meet
                • At 40 hrs/week, thats 160 a month, you make 15 an hour. Thats at the higher salary. You can make as much holding a stop sign at a construction job. If you lived in California, after rent taxes and food, you might have 100 to spare for transportation. In other parts, you're still struggling to make ends meet.

                  To be fair, we don't know where he lives. There are still plenty of parts of the country where $15/hr *is* doing very well. (Like the rural south--or, hell, just about anywhere truly rural.) In the tow

                  • I live in austin, tx. $15/hr isn't super, but its well above minimum wage. Again, I'm still 17 -- I'm not having to support some family (the opposite, infact, but I could afford to get an appartment and live the kind of life I'd be perfectly happy living with this much)
                    As for income growth, as I become more useful(generally adapt to the enviroment), my income can double or tripple over a few years. As for job stability.. maybe I should stop posting to slashdot when I should be working.
      • I'm currently 17, employed by a euro internet exchange(I'm in the US), making ~$1800/mo, with huge room to grow. I didn't get this job under any false pretenses-- no lying or denying, I even brought it up. I'm sure income wise I'm far from the top of slashdot, but I'd say I'm doing pretty well off.
        You should have gone to college.
      • I dropped out of High School (but never got test scores below 90%) and went to tech school. I make 47k a year in New Mexico. Lots of my friends got their bachelors and make 10k less. It's not so much how much school you've had, but what you can do. I am lucky not to be in IT. I saw that one coming a long way off. There was a hint when 40% of the local college's enrolled students were in some sort of computer science. I took electronics engineering. I have continued my education in a hands on way, starting a
    • I think you missed the point there pal. It was a joke in reference to the fact that when students head off to college, they spend quite a bit of time playing computer games and thus would be in line to earn a living as a professional gamer.

      Next time you go off on a rant, make sure you understand the statement you're responding to.

  • It's really hard to be a fan (Score:3, Insightful)

    by foidulus ( 743482 ) * on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:25PM (#9514800)
    of a particular team unlike in sports, where people really enjoy cheering on their favorite team(usually the hometown team, but not always). It makes it a lot more "interactive"(while it isn't really interactive, cheering/booing at least gets the person involved). The teams have mascots, they have history. And finally, you are looking at human beings instead of cg generated ones. It's much harder to cheer a team of geeks than it is to cheer on a team of very athletic individuals.

  • Huh? (Score:2, Funny)

    by dynoman7 ( 188589 )
    Until purpose is put back into our community, the situation will continue to worsen

    Cure cancer and then we will talk.

  • not soccer, chess (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cinemabaroque ( 783205 ) <sophist112358@yahoo.com> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:40PM (#9514879) Journal
    Computer games are infinitely more akin to chess than to soccer or badmitton. Whereas the spectator is a large component of the latter events (which means that people are making money selling tickets) but at a chess tournament only interests an aficianado of the game who can appreciate the sublime situations that are developing on the board, or computer screen. Thats why chess tournaments aren't held in stadiums and they charge the players and admit the fans for free. I suspect that the FPS competition will survive in this form for perpetuity as the game companies will also support it for marketing purposes.

  • Errr after reading the article I have one Q? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by perlchild ( 582235 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:42PM (#9514888)
    I presume they call it the CPL to mean CounterStrike Professional League, and that's certainly an interesting concept. But aren't most sports leagues amateurs(even the Olympics are technically sponsored amateurs, which is ridiculous on one hand, considering the expenses one has to go through to get there, but makes for less athletes whose biggest claim to fame is the number of logos on their jackets). Now why is it a problem that professionals can't play a game they enjoy, just for money? The article is certainly right about it making no business sense to be a professional in those conditions, but why is it a problem? Is game playing so horrid that you have to pay people to make them do it and get better at it?

    Won't admitting that it's not a way to earn money except if you're #1 mean the only people entering will be those who enjoy the game itself, above and beyond? (And who can afford the plane ticket to prove it? Or can find a sponsor to buy them a plane ticket in exchange for a logo on a t-shirt?)

    Let me rephrase that, maybe it'll make more sense: Just what does counterstrike gain from having people who earn a living from doing nothing else?

    • Re:Errr after reading the article I have one Q? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rhakka ( 224319 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @12:34AM (#9515140)
      It's the Cyberathelete Professional League; they play more than just counterstrike.

      It's a problem only if you are very competitive. As a former organizer for some high profile (relatively speaking) Unreal Tournament competitions, it's about passion in a sense. Being constrained by the things that constrain us all; work, school, etc.. means you don't really have the time to truly hone your teamwork or skills to a professional level. And the games out there today provide enough depth of gameplay that you can always take it further.

      Many people want to do just that. And if it's made spectator friendly, it can even be dazzling to watch a truly stellar team do their stuff.

      Restricting the competitions to only those who want bragging rights and will pay for a plane ticket to prove it means the gameplay is not as good. For many games there are currently a handful of truly exemplary teams that just dominate everyone else; that's not fun, nor interesting to watch. But if the incentive and ability to support oneself were there, there would be a whole league of top notch teams hammerring each other for hard fought victories.

      Which, I imagine, is exactly the same reason regular professional sports exist. Some people want to take their gameplay to the highest possible level, and others like to watch excellence in action.

      And having that top tier action should mean there is a trickle down effect; more exposure means more players. More players is good for any multiplayer game. It allows for a larger, deeper, more interesting community as well as more games.

      If you've never been so absorbed by a multiplayer game that you wanted to see how far it could go, or been inspired by another player who had just done something really amazing in the paradigm of the game you are playing, then you probably just don't empathize. That's fine. But a lot of people do, which is how the CPL and WCG (World Cyber Games) and QuakeCon and those huge european LAN competitions get their purse money from sponsors.

      The only question is, will the interest continue to grow to the point where a true professional scene exists? I think as games progress it's inevitable that the answer will be yes. But probably not until games are closer to simulated worlds than they currently are.

      But then, South Korea shows that isn't necessarily even a prerequisite, that's just my gut feeling. They already have professional gaming, televised and popular gaming shows and competitions, and games that register entire percentage points of their population in active gameplay. So who knows?
    • Top teams get all expense paid trips, from their sponsers, to go to these competitions.

  • Gladiatorial games (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nimey ( 114278 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @12:04AM (#9515007) Homepage Journal
    I see pro FPSing as being similar to the old Roman sport of gladiatorial matches, with the exception that nobody gets killed and there's no Christians being thrown to the lions. It's a guilt-free bloodsport.

    What was old is new again, no?
  • It's just a game people, well seriously it is.

    This was the same rot that happened in the quake community. Quake & QW went through its glory days but slowly faded from favor, along came quake 2 and then quake 3, each fragmenting the community a bit resulting in the original quake/QW community demise. Ultimately it did not matter that much as by this stage other bigger and better games came along (CS) that drew in the crowds with a few stragglers left filling the excess of servers.

    The only difference in

  • Saying FPS cannot be sports is premature (Score:5, Interesting)

    by servognome ( 738846 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @12:33AM (#9515136)
    Multiplayer FPS have only been around for 11 years (DOOM). For the most part the games have been designed for the single player experience, multiplayer was not an important part up until 5 years ago. The genre is very young. Professional sports didn't become multi-billion dollar operations in 5 years. There are stories of pro football players having second jobs to survive during the early years.

    That said, there are issues with computer games which will need to be dealt with for the popularity to rise to those of sports:
    1. High Turnover - As soon as CS2 or something better comes along, everybody will drop CS. Major sports don't have as significant change. You then establish a player legacy, the best will remain the best, people follow careers and teams. If suddenly they changed basketball to have 15' baskets the game breaks, its no longer about players who dunk, its about the purest shooters. The technology needs to get to a point where one game can have decades long legacy.
    2. Following the action - the technology needs to be developed for good spectator views. There just hasn't been any focus for developers to work on this. Hockey is a sport that suffers on TV because its hard to follow the action. If things aren't presented well, it just becomes confusing.
    3. Widespread play - People like to watch what they play. There is a small population that has a good computer, broadband access, and enough money to dish out on a $50 game. Compare that to spending $20 on a football/basketball/soccerball and going out to the park. As technology becomes more widespread the number of people interested in FPS games will rise and so will the fan base.

  • Money, money, money and whine (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sjoperkin ( 110789 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @02:38AM (#9515678)
    Two opinions put forth in the article:

    If I don't get paid I won't play.

    If I have to give up my college career to play CS professionally I won't play.

    First let us put things in perspective here. As far as I know, very few sports have been lucrative for athletes in the beginning. Did people playe soccer 100 years ago to make money? No, since there was no money in soccer then, people played for the fun of it, for love of their sport and, probably, for fame and glory. How many of todays professional athletes make enough money to earn a living? Many of them have 'real' jobs on the side to make ends meet. Of course, this depends on the sport in question.

    Second, having to give something up to do the other is a common thing, often referred to as making a commitment. Many people give up their promising careers in athletics, soccer, etc. to follow a more 'standard' route to earning your living. Some of them go for it, deciding they will pursue their dreams of getting to the olympics or something similar. If they succeed, good for them, if they don't, well , good luck to them.

    It is not unlikely that one day, there will be money in playing CS professionally, or any other computer based game. But it will take time and no amount of whining is going to make it happen faster, only hard work and inventive ideas on how to bring CS out to a wider audience.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @02:43AM (#9515699)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Irrelevant! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by obeythefist ( 719316 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @03:01AM (#9515762) Journal
    I find it amazing that people even consider FPS games and games like Counterstrike to have a future! (No, this is not a BSD is dead troll).

    The bulk of the industry that put counterstrike where it is today (Microsoft, Valve, etc) are all desperately trying to kill off PC gaming and move to console gaming.

    Consoles don't do FPS, nowhere near the league of pro counterstrike. Can you imagine a professional tournament for ? Where all the contestants bring in their PS2 from home and their controllers with analog sticks? It's not going to happen. There simply isn't anything professional about consoles.

    But you look at the next great generation of computer games, and even those are being ported over to the console arena. Even DooM3, the same DooM that made PC FPS gaming what it is today is being released on XBox. That's how great the pressure is from the console moguls on the gaming industry. They don't want big cash prize CS tournaments. They want you strapped to your couch playing PS2. And history has shown, what the corporations want is where the market goes (See MS Windows).

    • Re:Irrelevant! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ford Prefect ( 8777 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:41AM (#9516220) Homepage
      The bulk of the industry that put counterstrike where it is today (Microsoft, Valve, etc) are all desperately trying to kill off PC gaming and move to console gaming.

      Microsoft killing PC gaming? Not really - they could easily do that by stopping development of DirectX, but that would soon destroy Windows as a competitive home entertainment platform.

      Valve killing PC gaming? Again, not really - why would they completely kill the mod community that has kept the original Half-Life alive for so long? They aren't even thinking about starting an Xbox port of Half-Life 2 until it's finished for the PC.

      Consoles don't do FPS, nowhere near the league of pro counterstrike. Can you imagine a professional tournament for ? Where all the contestants bring in their PS2 from home and their controllers with analog sticks? It's not going to happen. There simply isn't anything professional about consoles.

      What about large-scale LAN parties with everyone bringing along their Xbox and copy of Halo? The ultimate in level playing fields, with nobody suspected of having an unfair advantage because of the mouse they're using, or the graphics card they have.

      But you look at the next great generation of computer games, and even those are being ported over to the console arena. Even DooM3, the same DooM that made PC FPS gaming what it is today is being released on XBox.

      Games have been ported between different systems for years. The original Doom made its way to many different consoles - the Sega 32X, the Atari Jaguar, the Nintendo 64, etc - and at no point was Id Software accused of killing off PC gaming.

      PC games are going to be around for years, and will always offer things that console games can't. Console games are going to be around for years, and will always off things that PC games can't. Why must one side always take the existence of the other as an insult?

      • Valve killing PC gaming? Again, not really - why would they completely kill the mod community that has kept the original Half-Life alive for so long?

        So they can sell a new game?

        • So they can sell a new game?

          Half-Life 2's partly being sold on its ease of modification. Here's the official Source engine modding FAQ [valve-erc.com] - the VERC Collective is a Valve-sponsored site with a very high signal-to-noise ratio, and 'useful' is an understatement.

          Try that with a console! :-)

          • Let me know when half-life is being sold.

            I don't know anything about the versions of Quake on most consoles, but I do have an alpha version (and about alpha quality too) of a port of Quake to the Dreamcast. It can be played with keyboard and mouse, both of which I have. It is the PC (or portable?) version ported to some runtime on DC, probably wince. That, at least, I could mod. I think I still have my Qoole disk around here somewhere...

            In any case, Quake was ported to one or two platforms, but I imagin

  • Games can be spectator sports (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Singletoned ( 619322 ) <singletoned@gmail.com> on Thursday June 24, 2004 @03:03AM (#9515769) Homepage
    I think there's definitely room for games to become spectator sports. As graphics start to get better, there will definitely be an interest in it. I just think people will be watching it live on their computers though rather than on TV.

    Imagine your current favourite sport, but instead of just watching the picture the broadcaster sends you, you can have the main action in a little window, and be exploring as much of the game as you want in your main window. Getting in as close as you want. Or maybe just watching the whole thing from four angles at once...

    An earlier poster was right that spectator sports need a centre of attention like a ball or a puck, but there is plenty of room for current sports games to be watched (FIFA Football, Madden NFL) or for mods of FPSs that involve an object (like capture the flag, or any of the sports mods for FPSs like bombing run for UT2K3).

    The ideal would be a 3D version of Blood Bowl. It's understandable to current sports fans, but it's also violent and fantastical (or at least more so than real life sports).

  • Poor LANs (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lizardloop ( 721368 )
    I attended an organised LAN in England recently as a spectator. It was badly run. We had to wait 30 minutes before any gaming was done. When the gaming was on all we could hear was some idiot commentator who hadn't grasped that you can't commentate on a Counter Strike match, it's unnecessary and embarrassing. Because we couldn't hear any sound effects from the game it felt like watching some weird silent movie. 10 minutes in to the match the server crashed and we had anther 30 minute wait for them to fix th
    • If you're talking about the ESWC qualifiers, heh, yea, it went pretty badly, I was helping out by being an irc reporter bot listening to the TsN and it was pretty dire some of the delays, however the other quals (US, SWE) I heard went *alot* better.

  • Wait 50 years (Score:2, Interesting)

    by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 )
    Maybe so, maybe not. Build a time machine and travel 50 years into the future. Maybe playing computer games has become a sport. Playing with a skateboard wasn't a sport either in the beginning. And apperently these days people can make a living out of that.

  • "Professional" gaming is a curse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, 2004 @04:31AM (#9516011)
    I used to be head admin of a large, UK-based Counter-Strike league, which contained about 90 different teams from across Europe. The one over-riding message I took away from this is that Professional Gaming is killing the fun in games.

    When I first took up my role, in February 2002, Counter-Strike had only made its "breakthrough" into the mainstream comparatively recently. The CPL was still a fairly distant organisation, mostly associated with the Quake series. The league I adminned offered no real prizes, other than the free use of a clan server for a few months, and even at division 1 level, was treated as "fun" by the participants.

    I ran the league for about 16 months and during this time, I saw the ethos of the community, as well as any sense of fun, brutally and remorselessly stripped away by a growing focus on Professional Gaming. First of all, there was a growing clamour to adjust our rules and maplists to match exactly those used by the CPL. If we threw a slightly different map into the cycle, we'd get whinged at by teams who claimed that "it wouldn't help them practice for the CPL qualifiers. Worst of all, it wasn't just, or even primarily, the top level teams who were complaining about this. I was never a particularly brilliant Counter-Strike player; I was competent enough, in a mechanical way, but I lacked the reactions and aim necessary to be great at the game. But there were teams who I could have beaten single-handed, from the bottom division of the league, complaining that they weren't getting the practice they'd need to qualify for the CPL.

    The next ugly little spawn of pro-gaming to rear its head was sponsorship. At some point in Q4 2002, it seemed that every team under the sun suddely had sponsorship. A few at the top were sponsored by Intel, AMD etc, while the rest were sponsored by Frank's Kebab Emporium or Scunthorpe Tourist Board. With money involved (even though the monthly quantities in many cases were less than I earn in a day at work), teams suddenly started refusing to accept losses, without going through as many rounds of appeals as they could get. There'd always been an element of this; I can kind of understand a team feeling hard done by after losing a very close match in which external factors such as network blips may have caused interuptions, but suddenly, everybody was convinced that if they accepted their losses with good grace, their sponsors would dump them. For the first few season's I'd adminned, I'd done a weekly roundup/commentary for the league's website. This was a pretty inoffensive document; who beat who, how the next week's fixtures might go, details of one or two of the more interesting matches. This had always been well received. However, I started getting an increasing number of complaints from a small, but growing, minority of players. I couldn't comment on a match they'd lost, because their sponsors would dump them. I couldn't comment on a match they'd won and give any kind of credit to their opponents (something I always tried to do, particularly if a team was on a losing streak), as this would diminish their victory and their sponsors would dump them. So the roundups were discontinued. Of course, this trend intensified and, before I knew it, teams were refusing to show up for matches they thought they'd lose, as they figured a default would upset their sponsors less than an actual loss.

    By the time I'd been running the league for 12 months, I'd had enough. The mature, fun community I'd once known had evaporated; all that was left was a bunch of wannabe-pros, who were all convinced they were going to make a living off playing games. I was, at this time, coming to the end of my period as a student and getting ready to start a full-time job, so I was starting to understand how the "real" world worked a bit better. In a couple of cases, I actually tried to suggest to players of a similar age to myself that maybe pro-gaming wasn't going to work as a career. This didn't win me many friends.

    I'm always wary of the modern trend towards e

  • Thresh and Fatal1ty prove he is right... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Drakino ( 10965 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:31AM (#9516183) Journal
    Two of the top names people know in gaming, Thresh being the first, Fatal1ty being the current one prove this guy right. They both have won several tournaments at the top spot, but still find the need to have other sources of income. Both have managed to turn their popularity into a source of income. Thresh has done well behind the scenes helping on things and giving endorsements. And Fatal1ty has teamed with ABit to help make gamer products, with his name on it, so some kickback cash there.

    This isn't like some highly rated sports figure signing off on some product for a bit more spending cash. It's because they know gaming is not a way to support themselves alone yet. While some "large" prizes have been given out, Fatal1ty only won $20,000 for Quakecon. After tax, thats probably less then what minimum wage full time would gross in a year. So, something else has to pay the bills too.

  • Video games are not "sports" (Score:3, Informative)

    by v_1matst ( 166486 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:24AM (#9516532) Homepage
    sport Pronunciation Key (spôrt, sprt)
    n.

    1.
    1. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
    2. A particular form of this activity.
    2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
    3. An active pastime; recreation.
    4.
    1. Mockery; jest: He made sport of his own looks.
    2. An object of mockery, jest, or play: treated our interests as sport.
    3. A joking mood or attitude: She made the remark in sport.
    5.
    1. One known for the manner of one's acceptance of rules, especially of a game, or of a difficult situation: a poor sport.
    2. Informal. One who accepts rules or difficult situations well.
    3. Informal. A pleasant companion: was a real sport during the trip.
    6. Informal.
    1. A person who lives a jolly, extravagant life.
    2. A gambler at sporting events.
    7. Biology. An organism that shows a marked change from the normal type or parent stock, typically as a result of mutation.
    8. Maine. See summercater. See Regional Note at summercater.
    9. Obsolete. Amorous dalliance; lovemaking.

    Regardless of the third definition, sports require actual physical activity. Sitting on your ass moving a mouse and punching keys is not a sport much less an actual "job".

  • Games change too much (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dangermouse ( 2242 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @10:24AM (#9517864) Homepage
    The biggest obstacle to FPSes working the way professional sports do is the games themselves. FPSes evolve with the technology they run on at a much faster pace than any popular sport does. There will never be a Super Bowl XXVIII of Counter-Strike, because Counter-Strike will simply become dated and uninteresting (and likely unrunnable) long before then.

    That means no tradition in the game. It means you can't be a fan of one team for years, even if you want to, because they'll end up playing stuff that might simply not interest you. It very likely means that nobody will be able to make a career of it, and that alone shoots the whole concept to hell right there. Rules for scoring, the ideas of performance, will not simply become more advanced... they will make lateral jumps every few years.

    Sure, it's possible that someone could develop a game and then propagate its rules through successive waves of technology, to provide a stable experience on which professional leagues could be built. But why the hell would anyone even begin to undertake that effort? Video games are sold largely on novelty, and that novelty is primarily looked for in gameplay-- technological advance is simply expected. Nobody except the kids who want to make a living playing games-- and probably not even most of them-- would be interested in such a thing. That's just not enough of a support base to make it happen.

  • You've been conned by pro sports (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Grab ( 126025 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @11:41AM (#9518817) Homepage
    This whole article is based on a false premise. "If we can't earn our living solely from the game, it isn't a sport." Frankly, that is pure garbage.

    Most athletes earn their money not from salaries or tournament prizes but from sponsorship. This applies as much to athletes in highly-popular sports as to any others. There's a reason why Anna Kournikova made a fortune in spite of being a frankly indifferent tennis player, and that's bcos she used her looks to get massive sponsorship deals. I wouldn't need to take my socks off to count the number of tennis players who've made a million bucks from tournament prizes in their entire lives, but the top 20 players will be getting way more than that a *year*, courtesy of Nike, Reebok, Slazenger and the rest.

    The only exception to this is in sports where the athletes earn their money through wages - football, baseball and soccer, for example. In these, wages are covered by tens of thousands of people paying to see them play each week. Until you can get tens of thousands of people to watch CS tournaments, you can forget this.

    So only those guys who get sponsorship are likely to make a living out of it. That means either you get sponsored, or you cut your standard of living until unemployment benefit or some part-time job can finance your life while you devote your time to your sport, or you live off savings in the hope that you'll get sponsorship before they run out (ie. "burn rate" like a startup business), or you go work for a company that produces stuff for that sport and get your practise time as "product testing". In *every* minor sport, these are the available options for aspiring athletes.

    To the author of this article: I suggest you go and talk to some rock climbers, hang-glider pilots, cross-country runners, parachutists, motocross riders, skaters (street or ice), discus/shot-put/hammer throwers, rowers, swimmers, or simply female athletes in traditionally-male sports (like soccer). Go whine to them that CS can't succeed as a sport bcos it's *so* hard to make a good living out of it. And when they've laughed in your face (or kicked the living shit out of you), maybe you'll have some perspective on your situation.

    Grab.

    • To the author of this article: I suggest you go and talk to some rock climbers, hang-glider pilots, cross-country runners, parachutists, motocross riders, skaters (street or ice), discus/shot-put/hammer throwers, rowers, swimmers, or simply female athletes in traditionally-male sports (like soccer). Go whine to them that CS can't succeed as a sport bcos it's *so* hard to make a good living out of it.

      If you went to those people and said that Counter-Strike can't succeed as a sport because it's hard to ma

  • NOT A SPORT (Score:3, Funny)

    by pixel_bc ( 265009 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @01:52PM (#9520353)
    People are so dumb. Anything you can do while drinking and smoking at the same time can not be considered a sport!

    btw -- this means bowling is out, too.
  • I think, in terms of sports, the closest analog to computer games is car racing. Because of the technological progression of cars. Imagine a racer from the 50s trying to compete in modern racing. Having CounterStrike tournaments is akin to racing historical cars. Interesting perhaps for a fan base, but gradually people will move on.

    Most other sports, the technological development is fairly slim. Sure, there's a different baseball now, I hear. Different padding for U.S. Football. However, fundamentally it'

  • You mean it won't be possible to make a living from just playing games. Oh my god. You mean you will have to do something that might benefit society in someway?!?!?! Now if only we can get people to stop watching normal sports & reality TV too.
  • Another reason why cs is being held back is the general sportsmanship of the community. It's just pure trash. I have played cs for 3 years and I am currently in Cal-Premier(one step below cal-i) and attend most of the CPL's. Unfortunately, I've noticed one of the biggest differences between CAL-p and the lower-tier leagues that I've played in, is that most teams will pull out all the BS they can to beat you. Many teams find loopholes and ambiguity's in CAL's rules to totally screw their opponents. For
  • Until purpose is put back into our community, the situation will continue to worsen.

    Purpose? The Counter-Strike community has or had purpose? Thats a laugh. Maybe their purpose was to l337 q0wnz0r h4x0r people but I can't think of a real actual purpose the community had.

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Close