Why I Find eSports Creepy

I think winning and losing both have their own perks. The perks of winning are the finality of a victory, that it's a progression towards a conclusion, or if were lucky even the conclusion itself. The perks of a loss are that we get to try again. A loss is more comfortable. Nothing changes when we lose, we simply get to try again for a different result. We can learn from our mistakes. There is no step backwards, we never lose to the point that the game doesn't allow us to try again.

This is at the core of what makes competitive multiplayer games so enjoyable. It's a simulation of consequences. It's when this simulation is used to determine real-world consequences that I start to get offended. I don't personally believe there is a "loss" and "victory" condition in life. I think it is the start of something, but were not in the phase of life where our actions can really have any effect yet. eSports takes this simulation and allows it to determine the well-being of the players involved. If you win you get money and can continue to live. If you lose you are awarded nothing and you're lot in life is less than the person who succeeded. Their success in something that isn't real and has no repercussions outside of the game is used to decide repercussions outside of the game.

At the end of the day they are just games. It is exciting to watch people more skilled at a game compete against one another. It shows that nobody is immune to losing and everybody wins eventually. It's why the Olympics is entertaining. What I don't like is when suddenly the well-being of the players is at risk depending on the outcome of something as insignificant as a game.

To me, the most interesting thing is how A-1 Athlete Visas are given to eSport athletes. Not judging or anything, just mentioning that.

This read suspiciously like the arguments about amateurism. I don't think you'd get very far suggesting any professional players be anonymous nobodies and should play just for their own amusement. In fact their is a strong argument to be made that Olympics benefit from easing of amateurism.

People very much know who the best players in video games are though. In sports too. We have statistics and matchmaking and ELO and all sorts of systems in place to make sure people are playing people of similar skill. Everyone will always gravitate to the best players for entertainment.

I'm assuming you're talking about the financial well-being of the players? If someone can't pay their bills unless they win an e-sports tournament, they have bigger problems than video games.

If you're talking about, like, those StarCraft people that live in a house and just play all day every day, that's really no different than any other sport. It's odd you mention the olympics, because it seems like that's especially true there. An athlete (and usually their parents) sacrifices everything so that they can practice for their whole lives, and they may get to the olympics, completely fuck up, and that's the end of their career.

That may be a shitty ending, but realize that we're talking about people voluntarily doing what they most want to do, which is, in and of itself, pretty wonderful.

So like real sports then.

I don't get it. Games and real sports have millions of practitioners with a small handful good enough to make a living out of it. How is playing a game any less real? The repercussions in the real world are the same in both. They provide entertainment for an audience that generate revenue in return.

This reads as a complaint that games aren't important enough to justify professional competition. If there's an audience large enough to make a living out of it then it's important enough.

I think you might have had an idea in your head and your brain lied to you telling you it was a good one.

"I find eSports creepy because everyone doesn't win"

Yeah... alright... I think you're kind of missing something here, and Pr1mus be right:

This reads as a complaint that games aren't important enough to justify professional competition. If there's an audience large enough to make a living out of it then it's important enough

- Pr1mus

Chess tournaments, poker tournaments, Magic: The Gathering Tournaments, bowling, darts - all these things aren't very "important", and yet people win and lose money on them. Football isn't inherently more important than a videogame just because it takes real humans moving around to do it. It's more important because of time and culture. Or, another way to put it, what's important is whatever you decide to spent your time on.

I don't think you should feel bad that someone who isn't Number 1 in StarCraft may be poor. They're poor with or without it, and in fact you could argue that the exposure and community that comes from eSports would be a boon for anyone, poor, rich or inbetween.

Until we get to the point where people are being forced to compete in video games because there are no other jobs, and they are becoming homeless addicts because they are losing these games - I don't see the creep.

i know nobodys going to be homeless because of it but I see video games as more than entertainment. They prepare you for the real world, where losing and winning are both real possibilities. I don't see any point in bringing money into the equation when what they are meant to teach us is to keep trying.

If in theory video games are meant to teach you how to go about relationships with women, and to be a better man, once you've learned that lesson haven't you essentially "won". There's no prize for being educated but there's a prize for being talented. You can be the most successful player in the history of eSports and still not know a damn thing about the consequences of your actions. That's what I see eSports players as... students just as much as everyone else playing is a student, regardless of their mad skillz at getting headshots.

@serker: I'm not sure videogames are meant to teach anything though... If a dating game has win conditions based on what gifts you give what girl, how many people are going to translate that to real life and believe "this is how I win with ladies"? Some games try to teach morals. Most don't. I think it's cool you think games are naturally teaching us to "keep trying" but even that is only true of some games, and tying money to the win condition doesn't really change that for me.

I get where you're coming from but I just feel too much emphasis is placed on win/loss and money here by you. Do you feel the same way about all money-based competitions?

So for example is a Scrabble tournament creepy because of the money ramifications? And does it have anything to do with digital vs. real? What about board game tournaments? And people have already asked you but you feel sports are different too?

I still dont understand what your issue is. Sports are also games that you could say the same thing about. You just sound like you are getting way to philosophical about how you view video games.

The OP sort of started mid sentence so no idea what he's talking about. Esports are sort of creepy in their assumptions of skill and titles; most E-Sports people are pretty good at games but far from "the best," but that doesn't stop them from being labelled as such.

i don't think sports are different. It's just a simulation of winning and losing, and I think if you do it enough it blurs the lines between the two to the point that you accept either as an acceptable outcome. its hard to articulate my problems with it but i guess it's that the money isn't incentivizing people to win, they naturally want to. competition isn't dependant on a prize, it's a natural thing.

and winning a game isn't anymore insightful than losing one, i think playing is the goal, not winning or losing.

Well, I think they kinda need to have cash incentives in order to encourage people to compete on a regular basis. The fact is that sports (e and otherwise) are consumer products. The audience wants to see the best players compete with each other on a regular bases. We have tournaments to determine who is the best, but also so we can watch them compete and try and figure it out. Without an incentive to compete in a particular tournament, I think a lot of players will settle on determining who is best on their own time.

The Olympics are kinda different because we have them once only every 4 years. The prizes are exclusive and that is the incentive.

Sorry for the double post, but I don't think I understood what your issue with e-sports is. Competing isn't about gaining insight. It's about bettering yourself and being the best at a particular skill. I mean, maybe you could say that competing is about gaining insight into who is better. But in that case it is pretty darn important who wins and who loses :)

You seem like a nice enough dude, but I have to disagree with a lot of what you've said. I don't think finality and conclusion are just why winning is fun, I think winning is enjoyable in no small part because we enjoy triumphing over adversity and overcoming things. As for losing that can be as much of a conclusion as any win and losing also isn't the only condition under which we can get to try something again. Games like DoTA, Starcraft, and basically everything else esports let you immediately jump back in and play again under similar or the exact same conditions whether you won or lost. A loss also isn't necessarily more comfortable than a win, that really changes from person to person, and depending on the context under which you lost, and on what the penalty is for losing. Additionally, we can learn from our mistakes even when we win and losing can frequently represent a step backwards in games. Thinking about your rank going down in a competitive multiplayer game or the way you lose resources, points, or items in many games in which you can die.

I won't go too far down the whole philosophy of games route here, but I also think that at a core level competitive multiplayer games are enjoyable based on much more than them just being "a simulation of consequences". When I play Halo I don't just play because it's a "simulation of consequences", I play it for the feel of moving through that world and trying to accurately fire my weapon, I play it for the challenge, I play it for the sense of accomplishment and victory when I kill other peoples, gain medals, win games, etc. And for a bunch of other reasons. I don't believe games are insignificant and when you're stating that games have the ability to assign how well off certain people are in their lives I think you implicitly admit that they have significance, at least for those people. You can't simultaneously say that the Olympics are entertaining because we can see skilled people compete and that esports aren't entertaining because peoples' well-being is on the line based on a game. People competiting in the Olympics are also putting their well-being on the line based on games. If you think esports goes against the message of games by showing that people can win or lose in a more permanent sense, isn't that just admitting that that message was wrong to begin with?

If you find that creepy, then professional athletes must really give you the heebie jeebies.

I have never seen such a good example of delusion on these forums.

I feel like I'm reading the Twilight Zone.

Am I reading the Twilight Zone?

Oh no I broke my glasses!

People... PLEASE... Enjoy the things you like. If you do not like something then don't partake... Stop whining about everything.

Cynicism reigns supreme in this era.

What people watch that fall under competitive contest is a changeable thing. A century ago people would sit and watch two people play chess and listen to the radio to hear 'blow by blow" commentary. There is always a tournament crowed who will sit for any sort of game you can imagine, thousands of people watch the Scripps National Spelling Bee as we all know.

But will competitive eSports last? I doubt it, they will boom then bust and come down to a level that fits. I don't say this out of malice but rather because things come and go and there is always SOMETHING new for people to watch. I think the biggest drain to eSports is merely the prevalence of "Let's Play" if you want to see a game played you can for free. If you want to see most games played you can for free. That would be like someone walking into Fenway Park with a camera and live streaming the whole game. I would imagine that would cut into the ability to sell Red Sox baseball for TV if that were legal...it would probably cut into attendance too. The rules of the Internet itself where data is exchanged for free and video is seen for free works against eSports in a way that codified professional sports have created a wall against.

I don't know how the numbers play out in esports, but I do know that people who are relying on any sort of competition for their livelihood are generally put in that position by sponsorship and are atleast assured some basic level of compensation.

Playing videogames for a living is stupid in any event and I would have no sympathy for anyone not being able to pay their way because they lost a videogame.

I completely agree with everything you said. Although, scrabble tournaments can be pretty damn creepy for a lot of other reasons.

I can't see the bit where you write why you think they're creepy. I assume you don't even mean creepy 'cause that in no way can mean what you're trying to say about esports. Esports is just a silly marketing term for video competitions anyway.

I don't know what eSports you've been watching but these people that are better should start playing and win money.

ahhh that totally brought me back to this other creepy Scrabble moment, the excellent X-Files episode, Daemonicus. Which is only one of many TV murder mystery episodes with Scrabble involved now that I think about it...

Dude you have no idea how "eSports" work do you? These guys don't entirely subsist off of paydays from tournaments and stuff they have sponsors from major companies that pay them a salary to basically be a spokesperson. Getting prize money from a tournament is often just a bonus.

games are just in a much more pure form now, and it is much easier to find competition ready to play with you than it ever was with "lets get a sports team together and find another sports team in our area". it's like an IV drip of rules and competition that you can keep re-engaging with. You should still be able to understand my point of view. I think games prepare you for the future on a personal level, not just making you better at a game. Being able to lose gracefully is just as important as winning.

On a similar note I think "literacy" in games is just as essential to a person's development as being able to read a book. To be able to watch a game and understand it's rules without ever picking up a controller is a type of empathy that is new to the 21st century. I think it's empathy because you can empathize with the winners and the losers, with difficult games, with games that are too easy. At some point I just stopped playing as many games and almost enjoy watching Giantbomb crew play them more than I like playing them myself. Almost. I might write a blog about that sometime too, that's an interesting topic.

thanks for your responses btw

Weirdest thread I've been in today.

I dont even know whats happening anymore

I was expecting this.

Relevant

The only time one truly loses in e-sports is when one dissapoints their mama.

lol the way jeff says "uhsports" in that video

Like most people have said, you could say the exact same thing about regular sports.

What in the world are you talking about?

Everything you're saying right now applies to physical sports as well. Do you have the same stance on all things competitive, or just esports?

Ok, I can kind of see what you're trying to say here, but I still think it's a very flimsy argument. I disagree with your stance on games in general though - they're entertainment, not something that prepares you for the future. Taking esports out of the equation for a bit, how in the world does playing a game like Call of Duty prepare you for the future? Do you hate the mentality that winning = good, losing = bad? Is that what it is? If that's the case, how does this relate to esports again?

Furthermore, even if the team loses a major tournament, the second place person doesn't just get nothing. True, their prize isn't as large as the first place winner, but they still get a hefty sum. Take the DotA International 3 - every team present won some money, even if they lost in the first round. In addition to that though, each team is sponsored, so they also get money from that as well. Playing an esport isn't going to make you rich, even if you win the million dollar prize, and like others have said, a lot of professionals have jobs outside of the game.

Going back to your initial point for a bit, I would also like to state that just by merely existing, esports do not mean that people can't learn how to 'lose gracefully' as you put it. It's not like by being there, it's impossible to play for fun anymore.

I think what you need is better examples about past esports winners to learn from that. At least you can look at Billy Mitchell for example of a guy who's still living his fame in the past 30 years ago.

@peasantabuse said:

I was expecting this.

What on earth is creepy about that? That guy is very clearly adorable.

OP seems like he'll be the kind of parent that insists on nobody keeping score at his kids little league games, and that everyone instead gets a participatory medal at the end. Everybody's a winner! Yay.

Your argument doesn't make logical sense but I think you know that.

@serker said:

And right here is where it falls apart. You may see games as more than entertainment (fwiw I think some are and some aren't) but a lot of people don't, including many of their creators. I seriously doubt DOTA 2's primary design goal was to be a learning life experience by Valve or Ice Frog. Are you saying your view is more valid than theirs? Are they not allowed to make a game that's purely meant to be entertainment?

I think you're entitled to perceive games however you want, but please remember that you aren't the only gamer and your view is not necessarily the same as others'.

I don't personally believe there is a "loss" and "victory" condition in life.

That's a positive attitude to have and I wish it was true, but it's demonstrably wrong. Anybody who is in a capitalist societies' workforce can you tell that there are definitely winners and losers in life. It may be due to luck who wins, and it often is, but people definitely lose and win every minute of every day. Whether be landing a job, a contract, a bid, a sale, getting a product to market, filing a patent etc. Whatever it is you are shooting for, losing in capitalism carries a heavy consequence, just as winning carries a large reward. That's how life in Western economies work.

And as for your distaste of the rest, what you said could just easily be applied to any competitive endeavor. Sports, gambling, business, spelling bees etc.

fwiw what I think Jeff finds creepy about e-sports (not 100% on this) is the possible exploitation of the contestants by the leagues. Misleading gamers that they can make a living playing competitively (if only they play more tournaments, practice non-stop, buy the right Alienware rigs etc etc) when there is at best very very few that can.

You are the rightest man alive.