The ladder is going to be a very different place for Season 2

[dustinbrowder]

Dustin, your thoughts on my post? You have an uncanny ability to avoid them

what can I say? You represent the notion of 2 people sports, I represent the notion of 2 people sports=crazy!

And you did not provide one fact about SF4 competitions, what are those tournaments, where they are held, what are the official websites, adresses, etc... how much are the money and how do you know it has a huge viewership?

I for one know from what I've gathered from youtube and few games forums, basically more people watch cockroaches fight and not only that but a whole lot more people watch cocks(as in male chicken) fight than your crazy SF idea.

And as far as 1992, if you consider a gathering of random group of 20 people a tournament then you might as well call every game e-sports.

You know that resident evil 1 and 2 gathered huge crowds whenever some1 plyed it in the day?

[Gifted]

what can I say? You represent the notion of 2 people sports, I represent the notion of 2 people sports=crazy!

And you did not provide one fact about SF4 competitions, what are those tournaments, where they are held, what are the official websites, adresses, etc... how much are the money and how do you know it has a huge viewership?

I for one know from what I've gathered from youtube and few games forums, basically more people watch cockroaches fight and not only that but a whole lot more people watch cocks(as in male chicken) fight than your crazy SF idea.

And as far as 1992, if you consider a gathering of random group of 20 people a tournament then you might as well call every game e-sports.

You know that resident evil 1 and 2 gathered huge crowds whenever some1 plyed it in the day?

Regarding the 2 person notion, I stated that "at least 2 people". My point on it was a different perspective. A sport won't exist because of the number of people who follow it, it's the number of people who participate in it. The number of people who follow it create the popularity of a sport. It's taking relevant data and splitting it to the correct classification. My view on it is just different than you and in this case I just utterly disagree with your ability to pull a number out of your ass. "one million". Why not 100,000? Why not 10,000,000? Why not 100?, Why not 10? Why not 6,775,235,741? Where is the data/proof behind your 1,000,000 figure that you seem to be able to "call for to dispute you so freely" but haven't provided so far?

Where did I get my figure of "at least 2 people"? Because the sport's definition is the gameplay, not the audience. Sports by nature (electronic or not) is competition. You need at least 2 people to compete in a game of skill. The popularity of the sports may vary. Olympic Shotput surely has a pethetic following when compared to mainstream football, soccer, baseball, hockey, etc... but it doesn't make it any less of a sport. What I feel is the case right now is that two groups are on different pages. You and everyone else.

You care about "popular e-sports" while using terminology that is incorrect. It seems that while you're trying to say "An esport is popular when it has -insert number out of my ass here-" it's coming off to sound like "That's not an e-sport at all... *scoff* it doesn't have -insert number out of my ass here- followers."

That's why you're seeing a lot of these "Shot Put (Throwing a rock) doesn't have one million viewers... does that mean it's not a sport?" Kinda theoretical conversations. (I know that's not what was said guys, I'm trying to put this conversation into perspective) It VERY MUCH IS, because it's a competition between at least two people seeing who is better. That's the definition of a sport. It may only feed the curiosity of the nearby crickets who watch it, but it doesn't change that definition.

The root of this miscommunication? A misunderstanding of the term "esports". It's been the "flash phrase" lately. It's been used as a way to talk about how we can "evolve starcraft as an esport", "Let's progress esports", etc. The way it's said there "As an esport" can be interchanged with the term "in popularity". In reality, esport should be interchanged with "as a competition". When you look at it in these two VERY different perspectives... it shows quickly how the conversation in this thread has digressed. I don't blame you for this, it's just a typical case of "media" creating "buzzwords" that become "trends" that later make people use words in ways they weren't intended. That creates misunderstandings when people talk about it. We can even put the blame to the REAL Dustin Browder for this one.

Hidden Content:

Random note: You ever try speaking to a person with English as a second language and tell them that you'll put the subject "in a nutshell?" You get some pretty funny looks.

In reality, it's created some rather confusing debates. In short, Starcraft is a VERY SUCCESSFUL eSport. Two people of good skill can have a helluva competition. It's just important to know that the REAL term of esports has no relevance to popularity, only competition.

------------------------------------------

Regarding SF4, I think I've said the majority of my thoughts on the matter with the above information. I'm not going to go out and find mountains of proof to satisfy you. My goal isn't to make you say "I'm wrong and I'm sorry". You've already admitted in your limited post above that you're pretty ignorant if there is a SF scene with tournaments. When I did a quick google for "Street Fighter Tournaments Prize", I found this site with some tournaments linked with 10,000 dollar prize pool for SF tournaments.. so that should say something: http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2010/s...e-tournaments/

The scene is very developed, just nowhere near as developed as the SC2 scene. If you look at esports as a big picture situation, it's pretty much the grandfather of esports. And since it's conception was in a phase that was... dare I say it... when the internet was BBCs and in a time when people didn't think much about documenting history on the internet... it's hard to find data about it's roots. This was in the time that multiplayer involved bringing a serial cable to your friends house to connect two computers, or dialing up a 1 on 1 modem connection.

Dustin, I mean not to insult you, but I believe it's conception was far before your time. (From your posts I believe you to be between 14-17 years old, not intended as an insult, it's how I perceive you from your ability, or lack thereof, to communicate your points well) Having 48-120 people drive hundreds of miles to an arcade with friends to play in a tournament of SF2 with nothing more than a crowd around a machine is where "popularity of esports" came from.

To insult Street Fighter as an esport is like a racecar driver insulting the caveman who invented the wheel because no one was watching him.

[dustinbrowder]

whatever gifted.
If you want to follow 2 people "sports" be my guest.

I for one know that a game can't be e-sport, it can't succeed in it if there are less than 1 million people.

1 million comes from the mathematical formula for success.

long story short its the amount of people who own a copy of the game, the amount of people actively playing, actively playing at a competitive level, people aware, people followed the game, people actively following the game.

For SC2 to be a succesful e-sports, it needs to have 1 million people at all times, otherwise the popularity is diminishing returns and it becomes a niche, random group of bunch of people playing a game and nothing more, not to mention e-sports.

[Gifted]

ok, why not 800,000? Is it possible it could be 1,200,000? You reference a mathmatical formula for success. Source?

What defines success in this case? Are you saying if it has 980,000 it would be a failure as an esport?

Is there a chance that a game can be an esport without popularity? Wouldn't it just be an "unpopular esport"?

Are these numbers you are creating supported by any fact whatsoever, or are you trying so hard to hold onto the fact that you said something that you can't admit the fact that "I made the number up". If you said "one and a half million", would you be able to source that?

Here are my facts:

Definition of Sports: A sport is an organized, competitive, entertaining, and skillful activity requiring commitment, strategy, and fair play, in which a winner can be defined by objective means. It is governed by a set of rules or customs. Activities such as card games and board games, are classified as "mind sports" and some are recognized as Olympic sports, requiring primarily mental skills and mental physical involvement. Non-competitive activities, for example as jogging or playing catch are usually classified as forms of recreation.

Definition of Competition: 2. a contest in which a winner is selected from among two or more entrants

-------------------------

My phrase is supported by very simple definitions. My phrase, that it takes at least 2 people to have a chance at an esport, is supported by sources that exist outside the deepest confines of my own ass. I pull from these sources.

If you want to know the mathmatical formula for success.. I can provide it for you:

What makes up 100% in life?

If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then:

H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

and

K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%

But,

A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%

And,

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%

In other words dustinbrowder, you are giving more than 100% to this discussion at this point. Oh.. and since I like to provide sources... this is where I got this little gem. It's the first link on youtube when you look up "Mathmatical formula of success." Funny.. the other sources involve numbers that involve 1 most of the time. A far cry from one million.

So, let's continue this discussion after you provide one... simple.. fact.

What is your source for "one million". What makes it correct? What allows it to be different than 900,000 or 1,200,000? Or is the origin of this number from your own creation?

Provide a source or fully understand that your entire argument is for the sake of argument... just like your other needs to debate and argue. Is this just you trying to itch a scratch again? Cause it's almost like you're fabricating the entire platform you're arguing from. To be honest, if you'd admit you pulled that number out of your ass, you'd have a stronger argument to fight from at this point. Faking facts to provide a point just shows that you're too weak to stand on your own ideals and beliefs... and more importantly, own up to them.

[Zabimaru]

This thread makes me want to not only bang my head on a wall but slit my wrists as well. There should be a “Sanity” warning put into the title of this thread... >_<

[evillesh]

hm, looks like all those people who participated in these debates got trolled by our beloved DustinBrowder :/

[dustinbrowder]

@gifted:
The formula for success is simple and its strictly tailored to whatever you want to calculate.

For example I can calculate say returns on a 10 year period of a insurance firm by looking at previous data of 5 years.

So SC2 has sold around 5 million copies last time I checked. This means it has 5 million potential players and/or viewers, but we all know that those actively playing it can be potential competitive players, for me watching 2 first time players play is not competition let me be clear and I don't care what a definition says, I don't care and to me that is not competition its more of two guys having fun playing a game.

Now take the fact that 1/4 are interested in competitive matches of those 5 million, only 5% out of the 1/4 are skilled enough to play it competitively and about only 1% want to compete at a semi or fully professional level.

That leaves about 1000 people that are competing in competitions that are "e-sports"

As far the as viewership goes judging by the amount of views popular youtube casters have, popular streamers have on various steaming sites, views gomtv official matches have the number of people actively following SC2 matches is around 200.000.

The peek is at about 500.000 viewers and averages of about 200.000.

If I had the time to make a excel table you'll notice that all SC2 events viewership are on the decline instead of upraise. This is what I call diminishing returns, at some point in the not so distant future SC2 is going to be a small niche of random bunch of people playing games and not e-sports.

Now based on a fast and small spreadsheet I did in order for the number of viewers to stagnate and be at an constant level, SC2 needs more than 1 million people per region or it means SC2 must either sell 10 million copies and spread that way or other means like totally average people hearing or seeing a SC2 match and start to like to watch. But again the point is that it needs around 1 million people, it can be +/- 3% difference.

[TheEconomist]

hm, looks like all those people who participated in these debates got trolled by our beloved DustinBrowder :/

If only . . .

Atleast he wouldn't be that thick-headed.

[Gifted]

@gifted:
The formula for success is simple and its strictly tailored to whatever you want to calculate.

While this MAY NOT be the strongest phrase to start with in terms of this discussion, I'd like to suggest to people to bypass insulting based on this main point and read the meat and potatoes (this is more to everyone who would stand out to bash the guy, not DB himself)

For example I can calculate say returns on a 10 year period of a insurance firm by looking at previous data of 5 years.

This is a clearly good example of using data to provide an understanding of success. Agreed completely so far.

So SC2 has sold around 5 million copies last time I checked. This means it has 5 million potential players and/or viewers, but we all know that those actively playing it can be potential competitive players, for me watching 2 first time players play is not competition let me be clear and I don't care what a definition says, I don't care and to me that is not competition its more of two guys having fun playing a game.

While I see what you're trying to say, the latter part is completely a matter of opinion in your case. A good example is Little League Baseball. Baseball is a relevant sport at all skill levels. Little League typically has no reward other than a trophy and bragging rights at the end of the season and the memories of some good competition. Maybe even some rivalries, some good memories of parents and friends at games at a park. This game will never be all that popular, it might be lucky to draw 20 people from the neighborhood as an audience. No matter how popular it is, the fact is: It is still considered a competition. Because it is a sport.

Now I'll agree that if you're driving past the field that day, you would probably roll your eyes and not consider that a reason to spend your time if you can watch your favorite stars on the television. Many of our favorite sports are on the decline too. *winks* Basketball is dropping fast according to ESPN, with record lows for ratings.

Back to Little League, a more relevant example that relates to the Sports genre of E-sports, is our own local Legacy Fight Club in the EU server that shows up every Sunday. Some people would rather watch Boxer, Idra, MVP, MarineKing or Jinro toss out some wicked games, but others enjoy watching "some friends playing some fun competitive games" if only for the bragging rights. Part of the phenominon of e-sports and what makes it viable is that people of all skill levels can participate and relate their skill level to those who play it at a level they can only fathom playing at. This is part of the explosion of PC bangs in Korea... all the kids who want to possibly play a game they love and follow in the footsteps of those they aspire to be like.

Now take the fact that 1/4 are interested in competitive matches of those 5 million, only 5% out of the 1/4 are skilled enough to play it competitively and about only 1% want to compete at a semi or fully professional level.

That leaves about 1000 people that are competing in competitions that are "e-sports"

While this may be viewed as semantics by you. My argument up until this point is that I believe you're just using the wrong terms and subjects to get your point across. When you say that "only 1000 can be in 'e-sports'", that leaves a very narrow view of the entire picture. That means that every time you talk about "e-sports" you care ONLY for the "popularity" of the sport, not the sport itself. That's my ONLY point I'm trying to get across. This brings back words about the sport of "throwing rock" aka "Shot Put". It's a sport because it can be played at all skill levels. There are people who play the sport competitively (aka professionally) but to say that everyone but the top "1000" players are not actually playing the sport is very short sighted.

As far the as viewership goes judging by the amount of views popular youtube casters have, popular streamers have on various steaming sites, views gomtv official matches have the number of people actively following SC2 matches is around 200.000.

The peek is at about 500.000 viewers and averages of about 200.000.

While I'm arguing my points, I want to say at this point I can start to see at least some SEMBLANCE of where you are coming up with numbers... thanks for this at least.

If I had the time to make a excel table you'll notice that all SC2 events viewership are on the decline instead of upraise. This is what I call diminishing returns, at some point in the not so distant future SC2 is going to be a small niche of random bunch of people playing games and not e-sports.

At this point you use the term of "e-sports" again in terms of popularity and not with a big picture angle. E-sports is competition, not viewership.

Now based on a fast and small spreadsheet I did in order for the number of viewers to stagnate and be at an constant level, SC2 needs more than 1 million people per region or it means SC2 must either sell 10 million copies and spread that way or other means like totally average people hearing or seeing a SC2 match and start to like to watch. But again the point is that it needs around 1 million people, it can be +/- 3% difference.

This is where the flaws of the theory truly start to show. If the "success" depends on the viewership going on an uprise, it will take more than throwing more viewers at the numbers to statistically curve a trend. Event Viewership is not like that and there are so many factors that are involved in creating trends, adjusting trends, shifting popularity and whatnot. Many of the factors have nothing to do with a magical "1,000,000" that you calculated. The reason why viewership is on the decline is not because "less people are watching it, so I'll stop watching". If the viewership were at whatever number you calculated, whether it be 1 million, 500 thousand or 2 million doesn't change the fact that it's incompatible with your goal from what I see. (I'll admit I may misunderstand, at which point I welcome better explanation of your thoughts) It seems like your goal is stagnant viewership, or at least not declining viewership. I can see you have a hypothesis that 1 million viewers will create a stagnant viewerbase... but do you truly feel that 1 million viewers is a means to achieve the goal? Or do you see this as a way of quantifying a separate goal? In other words, how are they related to achieve success of the other?

DESPITE SAYING THIS, At least now I know that you have a theory that lead you to come up to this number. This theory is not sourcable, and it is based on your own knowledge, but it's not some 'random ass number' in your head, it's a number based on some calculations you made in your head. I may completely disagree with these numbers, but at least it's understandible that whether it's out of your ass or not, you have a method that you used that created this hypothesis.

-------------------------------------

Taking a step back, As long as you're willing to agree that in the big picture:

StarCraft II is definately an e-sport at this time, just that it's professional level (The portion you care about) needs significant improvements to reach a goal of ___________. (I guess stagnant viewership?) I think we can move forward with this conversation without people bashing you for misunderstandings of communication.

[SinsWage]

@gifted:
The formula for success is simple and its strictly tailored to whatever you want to calculate.

For example I can calculate say returns on a 10 year period of a insurance firm by looking at previous data of 5 years.

So SC2 has sold around 5 million copies last time I checked. This means it has 5 million potential players and/or viewers, but we all know that those actively playing it can be potential competitive players, for me watching 2 first time players play is not competition let me be clear and I don't care what a definition says, I don't care and to me that is not competition its more of two guys having fun playing a game.

Now take the fact that 1/4 are interested in competitive matches of those 5 million, only 5% out of the 1/4 are skilled enough to play it competitively and about only 1% want to compete at a semi or fully professional level.

That leaves about 1000 people that are competing in competitions that are "e-sports"

As far the as viewership goes judging by the amount of views popular youtube casters have, popular streamers have on various steaming sites, views gomtv official matches have the number of people actively following SC2 matches is around 200.000.

The peek is at about 500.000 viewers and averages of about 200.000.

If I had the time to make a excel table you'll notice that all SC2 events viewership are on the decline instead of upraise. This is what I call diminishing returns, at some point in the not so distant future SC2 is going to be a small niche of random bunch of people playing games and not e-sports.

Now based on a fast and small spreadsheet I did in order for the number of viewers to stagnate and be at an constant level, SC2 needs more than 1 million people per region or it means SC2 must either sell 10 million copies and spread that way or other means like totally average people hearing or seeing a SC2 match and start to like to watch. But again the point is that it needs around 1 million people, it can be +/- 3% difference.

Most of this actually makes sense Dustin! I can see your point. I may not agree with how you're saying it but at least you're getting it across.