Pro gaming more attractive than pro tennis
A Scottish gamer has traded in his racquet for a
railgun, with a change of career from professional tennis player to pro gamer. David Kinnaird, a new recruit for UK pro
gaming team 4Kings, comments in this BBC article that "pro-gaming
is bigger than tennis in a way" thanks to the sponsors involved.Whether David's decision was a wise one will become clear in time, but comparing professional gaming to traditional sports throws up interesting parallels. The abundance of sponsors available to the top players, the hours of training and the fact that many people see it as just a hobby are all common factors, yet people are more likely to take tennis players seriously than those who play computer games all day. This could be thanks to the accessibility of games -- anyone can pick up a racket, but quickly realise they have no skill, whereas video games are designed so that the player eventually wins.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
rip @ Feb 6th 2006 6:11PM
Good point about how games are designed to be beaten.
People respect professional athletes partly because they do things that most people can't. And people know it. Most people think that if they play a videogame long enough, they can become expert at it. Which is often true.
I also think it has to do with the shelf life and commercial aspect of games.
Tennis and other professional sports have been around for decades and have a rich tradition. You can compare Tiger Woods to Jack Nicklaus or Barry Bonds to Babe Ruth because the game has largely stayed the same. Sure, some things have changed, but the basic game and rules are the same.
Are people going to be playing Starcraft and Halo 40 years from now? Would you even want to?
And unlike a sport, a videogame is created by a company for profit. The rules and conditions of gameplay are set by one for-profit company. Support and development of the game depends on the health and commitment of the company. What if that company goes out of business? Or decides to end support? Or comes out with a new version that radically changes the game?
Having said that, I still think competitive gaming is going to become bigger and more successful.
MonsieurL? @ Feb 6th 2006 7:57PM
Wrong point about games designed to be beaten. When you talk Electronic Sports, the game is not the challenge. It becomes a tool to challenge other gamers. And gamers are designed nor willing to be beaten.
This is how Esports is fully comparable to "traditionnal" sports :
- You have opponents
- You have rules
- You have some tools (balls, nets / mouse, pad)
- You have a field (tennis/ game map)
jennie @ Feb 7th 2006 6:33AM
#2 -- you're quite right about e-sports, but the problem is like traditional sports, e-sports are fully accessible to hobbyists; probably even more so. Any moron thinks they can beat Quake 4 -- but if I go and play some tennis against a wall, I'll miss enough shots to realise I'll never be a good player.