Going Pro

Can one get paid to play?

     Athlete's who are really, really good at their game get paid for playing.  So, why is it that us thinkers aren't getting paid to play the games we are really, really good at playing?

 

    Gal Civ II, for example, would lend itself well to such an environment.  Granted, it wouldn't be a simple two hour match and I suppose it's not exactly set up for spectators.  However, that could be a financial advantage if done properly.

 

    In any case, I'm interested in feedback on the concept.

 

SK

8,918 views 6 replies
Reply #1 Top

I think it'd be a bit too slow paced and wouldn't really excite the spectators....

So I dunno if this would make a good E-sport...

Starcraft is an E-sport out in south Korea, though.  Apparently it can get pretty intense over there.

Reply #2 Top

Athletes get paid to play because people will pay to watch. It's not a matter of what's "fair," it's what's profitable. E-Sports can be commercially viable (like Korean Starcraft, as Aegix mentioned), but the games need a very large and dedicated following, and they need staying power, because it's not worth the effort to spend several years building up a league only to watch it die as the fanbase moves on to some shiny new game. The major spectator sports like baseball and football have been around for generation, so it's only natural that more people will pay to watch them.

 

In any case, I don't think Gal Civ would make a great E-sport simply because it's single player. It's not nearly as much fun watching people play side-by-side for a high score as it is watching them compete head-to-head, and getting a high score in Gal Civ seems to be more about end-game grinding than winning quickly, as far as I can tell.

Reply #3 Top

Quoting iangoth, reply 2
and getting a high score in Gal Civ seems to be more about end-game grinding than winning quickly, as far as I can tell.

It's a bit of both, actually.  The sooner you "win", the more you can grind, and the higher your score.  But you'll reach a point sooner or later where your score no longer goes up-it actually goes down-and although "winning" earlier results in a higher score, it means this drop point comes earlier.

But I tend to agree with your other points.

Reply #4 Top

     I don't know why I was thinking there was a multi-player version of Gal Civ; wishful thinking I suppose.  However, my thoughts regarding the Fan Base are more along the lines of stock investors rather than spectators (or somewhere in between the two).  At the moment it's just a thought that I have yet to really delve into very deeply, but I suspect that there is an untapped potential there.  It's just a matter of developing the right niche; the demand will follow.

 

     The other thing is that most sports are team based, and very few games have been designed that way.  Unfortunately, given that Gal Civ is neither multi-player or team based, I suppose this discussion is a rather mute point right now.  Perhaps it'll give the developers something to consider though.

 

SK

Reply #5 Top

, why is it that us thinkers aren't getting paid to play the games we are really, really good at playing?

  I'll go with that when I find a game I am really, really good at. :erk:

Reply #6 Top

If there will be a GC3 with multi-player that would say something. I mean SC2 is a very suited E-Sport game, the reason - the pace in the game is pretty exciting and changing because it is a real-time-strategy game. Most people don't get excited when things goes slowly its rather the action in the sport that makes them excited or entertained. GC overall would be viewed or be similar to a chess game if it was a multiplayer game. For people with patient this would be an exciting E-Sport game for sure! Imagine a 1v1 on GC (if it was multiplayer). But its the people that decide what kind of excitment they want, the quick and explosive one or the long and epic one.