It’s worth noting though that the vast majority of that doesn’t lend itself to an audience. That Kardashian mobile game is hugely popular (as in, makes lots of money on micro-transactions) but you’re not going to get anyone to watch you play it on ESPN.
I kind of (respectfully) disagree with this. Arcade games came out in the early 70’s, home computers and consoles not long after that. So the generations that grew up prior to video gaming (over 50’s, roughly) is now almost gone, and within 30 years almost everyone alive will have been born after video games.
I realize not everyone has played games, but I think overall, we’re going to have more gamers alive than any other period in history, and that will most likely increase (pending major market catasrophe, or huge trend changes, etc) as we get into the period where people who grew up the most popular period for games (90’s and up, but feel free to tell me if you think i’m wrong), reach the peak of the population.
Er, if you’re having trouble following this here’s the short version: within 30-40 years everyone will have been exposed to games all their lives, and so the percentage of population thats played games will be higher than ever.
As far as fragmented, I’m not seeing that. There’s a ton of different types of games out there, ranging from casual to hardcore. My wife can only play a handful of computer or console games that I can, she’s into phone games like Candy Crush and Angry Birds. My dad only likes wargames (Medal of Honor, etc), but not the latest ones because they require too much reflexes. My little sister is really into facebook style games where you can just log in and check your farm/village/factory once in a while, do a few things, then pop back out. So I think there’s a lot of different game types out there, pretty much something to scratch every itch.
Not saying we’re going to get to the point where everyone plays some type of games, but I think we’re going to have a much higher percentage of the population gaming at some point in the future, I don’t think we’ve come close to hitting the peak yet.
You’ve pretty much just described “fragmented” to a tee. Everyone is not only into a specific genre, they only like a handful of titles within that genre. So I think “People like shooters” but your father likes old Medal of Honor games and another person likes Overwatch and another person likes CS:GO and another guy likes Battlefield which all fill different niches under “shooters” but there’s not a huge watching audience for any single one of them in the same sense as you have for football or soccer or other major sports.
Not really a fair comparison. Anyone who’s ever played Starcraft (1 or 2) knows what a zergling rush is, but plenty of folks play and/or watch baseball without knowing the infield fly rule.
But I think the video game industry as a whole is successful enough in the different categories that each one can survive and even thrive. Sort of like how there’s multiple sports in different cities, and they all succeed. Pittsburgh, for instance, has a huge audience for the Steelers, Penguins, and to a lesser degree, Pirates. Not saying video games are going to reach the level of Pro sports, just that they have many different categories that are successful. Of course, some may fall and give rise to others, FPS games could give way to VR, for instance.
Also unfair in that “zerging” has become a more universal term that people use when talking about other games. It may be the most ubiquitous term ever produced by a specific game.
It’s not up to the level of “dropped the ball” or “slam dunk” in terms of becoming a commonplace saying, but it’s growing into a similar concept.
That part, at least, is I think fair, since we’re talking about video gaming as a whole, not just Starcraft specifically. Someone who learned about zergling rushes from playing some other video game is still a video gamer. I don’t think it’s really penetrated far into non-gaming contexts yet, even in high-overlap contexts like zombie movies.
Fair point; agreed.
Now I’m dreading the day when “zerging” becomes part of an actual law, like how baseball snuck into the law with the “third strike” rule.
Sure, but there’s… two, three maybe four teams in a large city? And those teams each play a definite sport, not “Baseball but not Call of Duty Baseball or Rainbow Six Siege Baseball but more like Team Fortress 2 Baseball…”
I will guarantee that 99% of the non-videogame playing world won’t know what “zerging” means. Pretty much everyone know baseball metaphors.
I’m 44, and have been a gamer for most of my life (started on an Atari 2600 and went from there).
I know what a zergling rush is, and I’ve seen some e-sports streams and replays and what-not. They bored the shit out of me. And I’m even the sort of gamer that was actually in San Antonio for PAX South at the time.
IMO, what’s missing is the right games. I mean, if you haven’t played Starcraft, DOTA or League of Legends, you may not have a damn clue what’s going on, and even if you do, the interest is really in the minutiae; a casual player may not know what’s going on.
It’s like watching chess in a sense; experienced players know what’s up, and can extrapolate things further on, but a casual watcher doesn’t really get it until the very endgame.
What e-sports/pro gaming needs is a game that’s more immediately obvious- like a fighting game of some kind, or maybe some kind of battle arena game. RTS games aren’t where it’s at though; they’re too long and too down in the weeds to make for good spectator experiences for people who aren’t players.
Are you trying to say that there’d be a bunch of different versions of baseball, not just the MLB, for my analogy to be accurate? But aren’t there? Baseball has multiple minor leagues, there are a number of different minor leagues for hockey, football has college versions with a bunch of different leagues. All have their own audiences (although there are many fans of multiple teams/sports). And college football for instance, has many different rules than the NFL, Soccer leagues can have different rules from each other, etc…
Or am I misinterpreting your post?
Minor league baseball still plays by standard rules. The analogy there is more like watching a bunch of pretty good guys playing CS:GO vs watching the best players but it’s still CS:GO.
Minor variations in rules between college and professional football levels are nothing even remotely like the differences between game franchises. Hell, it’s nothing like the differences between iterations of CoD or Battlefield.
So, no, I don’t think the analogy works.
Capcom is trying VERY HARD to make Street Fighter V into a “real eSport” but the numbers it is pulling are still WAY lower than games like LoL or whatever. I suspect this is because right now, most gamers don’t want to watch games they don’t also play, even if its super obvious what is going on.
Probably true. I know that I usually don’t have too much trouble getting into watching/spectating on games I actually play, but even watching friends play games I don’t live is not interesting in the least. My buddy watches all sorts of Twitch streams of LoL, and so do some of his other friends, and at PAX, I was bored stiff, because I just didn’t know what was going on or why some things were a big deal, and I even have a really basic idea of how LoL is played.
The reason I said they need a game with more universal spectator appeal is that I can watch sports games being played; with the exception of the actual athleticism, watching a sports game being played is not too far off from watching the real thing, barring exploits and glitching, etc… I mean,watching a game of Madden is interesting for the same reasons that a real game is interesting to me- the strategic aspects, the play choices, etc…
i don’t know. I never got into DOTA, but I’ve watched some quote and quote good games, and the excitement was contagious.
Had no clue who was playing who or even what some of the strategies were, but it was fun to watch, and things like ganking another player are obvious and easy to follow.
Let me take a different angle on this–not e-sports, but YouTubers who do video game playthroughs. By the straight-up subscriber metric, PewDiePie is the top YouTuber out there; he recently hit 50 million subscribers. He’s primarily a video game commentator.
That’s one guy with 50 million people who watch him play (and cuss at) video games. Max estimated viewership for the Superbowl is, I think, ~167M viewers. Sunday night football seems to get about 20M viewers. So one guy playing video games has managed to net a third as many eyes as one of the most-hyped sports events in the world, and more than regular season pro football games. Tack on two of his popular fellow players, like Markiplier (16M subs) and jacksepticeye (14M subs), and it starts to look pretty substantial. (Granted, there’s probably considerable overlap, especially since these guys are on pretty good terms with each other, if not exactly a team.) Another point of reference: I was at a convention this weekend (and not even a gaming convention), and I noticed third-party merchandise featuring the three I named above.
So: there are now identifiable, merchandised individual players in video games drawing viewer ratings competitive with sports events featuring professional teams and massive advertising campaigns.
How big will it get? I don’t know. Getting a handle on just how big it already is might be challenge enough.
His actual views are more in the 4-6 million range if you look at his videos. That’s not to discount convincing six (or even four or two) million people to watch your stuff but “subscribers” doesn’t necessarily translate to active viewers.
He hasn’t actually done this but the example does point out an issue: PewDiePie’s viewership is global whereas most viewership of sporting events is domestic (and for most games, it’s fairly regional – less interest in Florida when Chicago plays Detroit). So getting maybe 25% as many global viewers as a football game gets primarily in the upper Midwest probably won’t translate to middle aged dads talking about it over a cold cut platter. Which is what the OP was asking about:
I’m not opposed to the idea. I like gaming a hell of a lot more than I like sports so it’d be 100% in my favor for everyone at a party to talk about League of Legends over baseball even if I don’t actively follow either. I just don’t see it actively happening at all and am not convinced that it will happen. Maybe someday no one will care about football any longer but will an e-sport take its place is the same fashion? Nope, I really don’t think so.
Of course, like I said earlier, I find watching other people playing games to be boring as hell. Even something extraordinarily skilled better be summed up in a 45 second YouTube clip because that’s my attention span for watching someone else play games online. The concept of watching someone play for hours is alien to me and I’m a guy who plays games. I suspect there’s a real inversion here where most people who care enough to play baseball on the weekend are interested in watching professionals play but a whole lot of gamers just have zero interest in watching others play those games. I’d much rather be playing my own game of Dead by Daylight than watch some Twitch streamer play his. And while there’s an obvious segment who enjoys watching that stuff, the segment who’d rather play their own games is likely much larger.
Granted, for any given video, his numbers aren’t in the same range. On the other hand–one guy and a lot of events versus two teams and less frequent events. I’m not sure how they match up, but I wouldn’t discount him. And again, he’s far from the only one doing this, just the best known.
It’s not for everyone, but I will point out that the most popular players on YouTube (as opposed to esports) are not extraordinarily skillful. Part of the entertainment value is watching them screw up and react to the screw up. I suppose it’s not unlike finding error plays exciting in sports.
I’m going to guess there’s a lot of overlap between videos. In other words, he has a number of people who watch all his stuff, some people who sporadically watch and some people who watch one or two once in a while, if that. He also has the advantage that he can put up a video and someone can go watch it three weeks later (and get counted) versus watching it as it happens.
I’d also guess that there’s a fair overlap between him and other similar content creators. I’m not discounting him – I think he’s supposed to be the most popular guy on YouTube. I think comparing his numbers to NFL ratings isn’t especially useful though.