Digital Gaming Explosion - Natural evolution or runaway train?

Potential-Monke · 01-08-2019 06:51PM

paleoperson wrote: »

I don't know how you can talk about "the skill involved", if it's not your game then you don't understand what you're watching very well at all. The major downfall of computer games and board games as spectator sports is that the spectator tends to not be able to understand what's going on or able to recognize great skill unless they're at a high skill level themselves. You're really claiming to have an idea of what's going on at the highest levels of the game already?

I can recognize skill, regardless of whether I play the game or not. You're a Pro yourself then, able to recognise that it's not skill and all pure luck? What's your username, I'd like to see where you rank. If you're not Pro, how do you know it's not skill, going by your own interpretation.

paleoperson wrote: »

Everyone can see Messi busting through the world's greatest defenders and sending it the ball to the roof of the net. However when it comes to games like Fortnite you can't see what's going on very well and can't assess the skill involved, all you can see are the results on the screen. Any effect of skill you thought you saw was the emperor's new clothes. Even watching spectator sports like football a person who is new to the game will have a very difficult time spotting a really good player because they have nothing to compare it to.

But you can't see what's going on in Messi's head? Same principle.

paleoperson wrote: »

Sorry, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. There's no "going in" for something unless it's a lottery. If someone is meant to be by far the best player in the world at something then overall, then you should expect them to qualify for the finals which got something like 100 participants. It'd be like Federer not qualifying for Wimbledon. You don't just "try your hand" at something involving a high skill level, that is ridiculous. It's like if you started playing football or tennis and all of a sudden you were world champion, that's not how it goes.

Ninja not qualifying is a good argument because it's a good piece of evidence showing that the game has a large element of luck rather than actual skill. It's all a kind of lottery at the higher levels.

40 million people applied for the Fortnite Championship. 40 million. Ninja was the best player, but a quick Google will show you Bizzle and Tfue are currently the top 2. If, like Wimbledon, it went on rankings, he would most likely have qualified. But that's the joy of eSports, anyone can enter and win, as we have seen this year. Comparing the qualification process for Fortnite to Wimbledon just doesn't work. You could also say Wimbledon is luck, depending on the wind, the form of the person you're playing, etc. Luck is an element in everything, but skill makes the best. I couild take on Federer and be lucky. Doubtful, but it's possible. I could also be lucky in Fortnite, but doesn't mean I will be better or more skilled than Tfue, Ninja or lolb0om.

paleoperson wrote: »

You are suggesting I said things I never did or would claim. I never said anything like it was "pure luck", I said it involved a very heavy element of luck. In no way did I suggest that it was all luck. I would never claim I wouldn't be buried alive by any of these players in Fortnite, I'm sure I would no matter how much practice I had. However take the most talented player in any medium-sized town in Ireland, train them up really well, and they would have as much of a lottery of chance as most of the others.

A lucky noob could only kill a veteran player in FFA in Quake, not in Duel which is where all the serious competition is.

You said "Fortnite is more a lottery than a game of skill." A lottery is pure luck.

Luck is luck, anyone can be lucky. I doubt lollb0om was lucky enough to beat 39,999,900 other players to qualify.

Atoms for Peace · 01-08-2019 06:51PM

Fortnite is probably one of the worst games of all time, considering sales and popularity.
Completely unoriginal and derivative, run around and get killed and repeat ad nauseam.

Potential-Monke · 01-08-2019 06:52PM

Bobblehats wrote: »

We’re talking Fortnite here I would say 12. Maximum.

I'm not on about the age of the players, but more than these massive prize competitions should be limited to 18 minimum. Crazy giving a 16 year old 3 million!

Tell me how · 01-08-2019 06:54PM

Bobblehats wrote: »

We’re talking Fortnite here I would say 12. Maximum.

Are you saying the maximum qualifying age should be 12?
Or that the youngest at which competitors should be allowed to enter is 12?

Tell me how · 01-08-2019 06:55PM

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Small stuff.
The WSOP (world series of poker) in Las Vegas had 89 events this summer.
The Main Event (started 1970) has a USD 10,000 buy in, and in 2019 had 8,569 players, with a prizepool of USD 80,548,600, and USD 10,000,000 to the winner (2nd 6,000,000, 3rd 4,000,000 ..... with 9th getting 1,000,000).
Many events had a 10k buy in, with event 83 a USD 100,000 entry fee.
In the past there was a tournament with a USD 1,000,000 entry fee.

There aren't many circa 10 year olds playing Poker. Online or otherwise I imagine.

Tell me how · 01-08-2019 06:57PM

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Fortnite is probably one of the worst games of all time, considering sales and popularity.
Completely unoriginal and derivative, run around and get killed and repeat ad nauseam.

It's not about the game, or the quality of it as such but the influence such gaming practices and enticements are having on children.

I'd still be curious about the societal impact if it was PES or FIFA or whatever being played in this way.

paleoperson · 01-08-2019 06:59PM

Potential-Monke's post is one of the dumbest I have seen in a long time and I regret spending a significant amount of time constructing my earlier post.

Potential-Monke · 01-08-2019 07:01PM

paleoperson wrote: »

Potential-Monke's post is one of the dumbest I have seen in a long time and I regret spending a significant amount of time constructing my earlier post.

Off with you so, nobody wants to listen to you when you consider skill 'luck'. Byeeeeeeeee!

Tell me how · 01-08-2019 07:07PM

Just read an article on the winner of the above competition and the impact it had on his social media accounts.

Twitch followers:
July 15 – 58,000
Today – 204,000

Twitter followers:
July 15 – 20,000
Today – 291,000 (plus he got verified overnight)

YouTube subscribers:
July 15 – 34,000
Today – 372,000

The article is saying that this is where he could turn his win from a one off success in to a sustained money spinner. These are key metrics in terms of income for a generation which was never the case before.

The worlds premier brands currently sponsor Golf/Tennis/Rugby/Football/F1 etc.
Are they looking at the metrics and are going to decide to rethink where they put their money. Could this have a knock on effect where the days of uber payments in football and other sports are come to an end because more eyes are turned to online gaming? (That sounds dramatic, I don't know but the money in this competition at such an early stage is jaw-dropping and business will follow money and eyeballs)

Tell me how · 01-08-2019 07:10PM

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Off with you so, nobody wants to listen to you when you consider skill 'luck'. Byeeeeeeeee!

I think their implication was that a single lucky shot could knock them from a game in a different way to say, an amateur golfer getting a hole in one isn't going to defeat tiger at the Masters, it's just a single hole out of the 72 over the weekend.

I don't know (maybe re-spawning accounts for negating single lucky shots), in gaming, does the cream always rise to the top?

Bobblehats · 01-08-2019 07:11PM

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Fortnite is probably one of the worst games of all time, considering sales and popularity.
Completely unoriginal and derivative, run around and get killed and repeat ad nauseam.

It’s hardly about quality it’s the silly dance animations that children picked up on. Only the hype generated by kids could make something that popular

Potential-Monke · 01-08-2019 07:18PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I think their implication was that a single lucky shot could knock them from a game in a different way to say, an amateur golfer getting a hole in one isn't going to defeat tiger at the Masters, it's just a single hole out of the 72 over the weekend.

I don't know (maybe re-spawning accounts for negating single lucky shots), in gaming, does the cream always rise to the top?

It's about points, so someone getting lucky and killing you doesn't automatically preclude you. The winner, Bugha, only won 1 match (Victory Royale) in the entire competition, but he was always placing high with a high number of kills.

Sonics2k · 01-08-2019 07:24PM

It is actually possible to ignore Fortnite itself in this discussion, as this whole thing has been going on since long before Fortnite was made. Hell, these things have been going back to mid/late 90's and I'm sure a lot of older folks will remember the competitions in arcades around the world.

Below is a list of the games and the current amount paid out to people:

https://www.esportsearnings.com/games

https://www.esportsearnings.com/players

ESPN now shows e-Sports on their main channels during the larger tournaments.

If you believe Darts, Snooker, Golf or Poker to be a sport, then you have to concede that professional gaming has become a full blown sport.

Parachutes · 01-08-2019 07:25PM

I played games the majority of my life, I was part of the first generation in Ireland who truly grew up with computer games, I was playing crash bandicoot on the PlayStation 1 at two years of age. Gaming has been a big hobby for me ever since.

I also played soccer and loved swimming and scouting when I was a child. Gaming was something that was done on a rainy day, or something that was enjoyed with others. Nowadays I think parents rely on the games as a virtual babysitter and don't encourage kids to do other things. Whether that's out of fear (kids being wrapped up in cotton wool) or negligence, it's still the same result.

I still enjoy playing a game every now and again when I get some time off work (which is an active job), just as other people enjoy sticking something on netflix, I don't think the concept is much different.

The idea that gaming in moderation is bad for your health is laughable at best, they said that reading novels was bad for your health years ago... But then again I suppose if you were reading for 12 hours a day that would be fairly detrimental to your well being, same concept really.

paleoperson · 01-08-2019 07:31PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't know (maybe re-spawning accounts for negating single lucky shots), in gaming, does the cream always rise to the top?

In games with a high degree of skill, yes. It takes a few years for the skill and theory about a game to build up and for new good players to show up. After that it's generally the same players that are always around the top for years at a time like golf. A player might go up or down a few rankings but the cream generally does rise to the top. But this only happens where higher levels of skill are possible. A game like Flappy Bird is very reaction-based so I doubt you would have stable best players at that game either.

Sometimes what will happen a brand new game is a few players play a huge lot at the start and get really high rankings. Then they struggle massively and start to lose a lot. However Fortnite has been out for quite a while now and Ninja was marketed as THE Fortnite guy, as someone who possessed monumental skill. Another thing is that the rules keep changing, which means hard work getting good isn't going to pay off as much as it could. Maybe at some point Fortnite will become a lot more dependent on skill but not right now.

paleoperson · 01-08-2019 07:33PM

Parachutes wrote: »

I played games the majority of my life, I was part of the first generation in Ireland who truly grew up with computer games, I was playing crash bandicoot on the PlayStation 1 at two years of age. Gaming has been a big hobby for me ever since.

What do you mean "truly grew up with computer games", plenty of people twenty years older than you "truly grew up with computer games".

Parachutes · 01-08-2019 07:38PM

paleoperson wrote: »

What do you mean "truly grew up with computer games", plenty of people twenty years older than you "truly grew up with computer games".

I don't think games were widely available in Ireland before the mid 90's, certainly not gaming in the modern sense we're talking here, eg. 3d multiplayer competitive.

Sonics2k · 01-08-2019 07:51PM

Parachutes wrote: »

I don't think games were widely available in Ireland before the mid 90's, certainly not gaming in the modern sense we're talking here, eg. 3d multiplayer competitive.

They absolutely were. We had a SNES in 92 and loads of my friends/parents had the NES in the 80's. I was born in the early 80s and grew up with video games, and it's safe to say people born in the 70's probably did too. Also, 3d multiplayer games didn't really exist before the mid 90's, outside of those god awful VR places.

Consoles did exist before the Playstation after alll

:pac:

paleoperson · 01-08-2019 07:53PM

Parachutes wrote: »

I don't think games were widely available in Ireland before the mid 90's,

Well you "didn't think" because you didn't know. And you don't know because you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

"widely available"? Almost every household had videogames. They were everywhere in Ireland and every western country, South America, Eastern europe, Asian countries since the 70s and especially the 80s. Super Mario Bros. 3 remains one of the highest selling games of all time and was released in 1988.

Parachutes wrote: »

certainly not gaming in the modern sense we're talking here, eg. 3d multiplayer competitive.

You said computer games, nothing about 3d multiplayer competitive games. And "the first generation who truly grew up with computer games" which is totally false. Even your example Crash Bandicoot isn't a competitive game.

There were major competitive scenes in games like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat - why dismiss them because they're not 3d games? If anything people who were born in the 1980s grew up much more with competitive gaming because they played more games on home consoles. Sports games, puzzle games, wrestling games and so on. That's not even getting into all the competitive arcade scene games from the 1970s. So no you weren't "the first generation to truly grow up with computer games" not competitive and especially not computer games in general.

Muahahaha · 01-08-2019 07:59PM

When they said 40 million applied for the Fortnite world cup did each entrant have to pay a few dollars to enter? If so that is serious moolah and makes the $3m first prize look like buttons.

Potential-Monke · 01-08-2019 08:01PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

When they said 40 million applied for the Fortnite world cup did each entrant have to pay a few dollars to enter? If so that is serious moolah and makes the $3m first prize look like buttons.

Nope, no money needed.

Muahahaha · 01-08-2019 08:33PM

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Nope, no money needed.

ah right seems like they're missing a trick, even a $3 entry fee would have generated $120m in revenue. I thought Fortnite was all about micro payments, what are the players paying for, just upgraded avatars and stuff? Any idea of what kind of revenue they are doing from in game sales?

paleoperson · 01-08-2019 08:40PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

ah right seems like they're missing a trick, even a $3 entry fee would have generated $120m in revenue. I thought Fortnite was all about micro payments, what are the players paying for, just upgraded avatars and stuff? Any idea of what kind of revenue they are doing from in game sales?

Yes - $0. Fortnite is free. Plenty of games work on this model of free to play but with microtransactions. They've done the calculations and analysis, and this is the way they think they will get the most revenue.

Potential-Monke · 01-08-2019 08:41PM

The base game is free, you've to pay for the single player portion ('Save the World') iirc. They make their money from MT's, skins, outfits, dances, emotes, etc. It made $2.4 Billion in 2018.

Muahahaha · 01-08-2019 08:49PM

My god $2.4bn is some amount of revenue, it puts it up there with elite sports.

Whats the general premise of the game, Ive only watched it for a minute on Twitch and it was hard to follow but seems like you're building a tower and fighting opponents at the same time or something?

Its mad how popular it is, I know a few parents whose kids are in it up to their necks. They cant get them out of the house. I know from my own gaming days how addictive it can be but back then it was just you in your living room against the computer, when its you against everyone else with prizemoney and prestige at stake it brings it to a whole new level.

Potential-Monke · 01-08-2019 08:59PM

Basically, it's a first person shooter, akin to CoD, etc but more cartoony. On top of that, you have to gather resources (wood and metal mainly) and you have a 'book' that you use to build. So you pick what you want to build, place it and it takes a few seconds to build. It gives some minor protection until it has fully built (a few seconds) and has better protection then. What really requires skill in this game, is the speed and accuracy in which you build. I've included the following video, but even I struggle to see how quickly it's being placed:

Sonics2k · 01-08-2019 09:13PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

My god $2.4bn is some amount of revenue, it puts it up there with elite sports.

Whats the general premise of the game, Ive only watched it for a minute on Twitch and it was hard to follow but seems like you're building a tower and fighting opponents at the same time or something?

Its mad how popular it is, I know a few parents whose kids are in it up to their necks. They cant get them out of the house. I know from my own gaming days how addictive it can be but back then it was just you in your living room against the computer, when its you against everyone else with prizemoney and prestige at stake it brings it to a whole new level.

My own kids absolutely adore it and like to watch the streamers. As a parent myself I don't quite get it, but as a gamer I kinda can see why they like watching others play it. When you think about it, it's not much different than watching Rugby or soccer.

riclad · 01-08-2019 09:54PM

Theres alot of hype around esports , fortnite and dota make millions
by selling skins, cosmetic weapons, etc
Most esports like csgo and overwatch do not make a significant profit,
Many esports are supported by advertising,sponsors, and investors .
Companys like blizzard pay for esports prize,s and venues to attract more fans and people to buy the game
where they might buy lootboxs which contain random item,s ,skins ,emotes etc
If you look at real sport like soccer, nfl,tennis ,hockey,rugby ,boxing ,
the amount of annual global they make is over 100 times
all the annual revenue of esports .
Theres billions spent on tickets and merchandise to see real sport every year.
There are 1000,,s of people making a good living by playing games
and streaming them to viewers on twitch.
People can make donations or pay a voluntary subscription
to the favorite player .
Many games are now free to play, on pc and mobile phones,
they can make millions by selling items or skins .
Some people have been known to spend 100, s of euros on one game,
at the moment the competitions are held in venues with maybe
10-20,000 fans .
I think 3d games started for most people on the ps 2,
i know there were some 3 d games on the pc.
I think 3d multiplayer games got a great boost when the xbox 360
and ps3 were released .
As then platforms like xbox live were designed to allow people to play games
like halo and call of duty against other players online
on a console on a standard tv.
Anyone can download fortnite free on console or pc,
the pay for large eports competitions million dollar prize,s from the
revenue they earn from selling cosmetic items and skins .
They have millions of players , so some people will pay to get the latest cool costume or emote .
When a game is 60 euro many people will never buy it,
so it can be hard to find another team or player to play against .
Teens watch streamers play games on twitch or youtube ,
if certain streamers play a game it will sell millions .
Minecraft has sold millions because there were so many players
putting up funny video,s on youtube .
There were 3 d games on nintendo consoles and dreamcast ,
before the ps2 was released .
i think Fortnite is very well designed , with its cartoon pixar like graphics, to appeal to younger players ,
call of duty looks more grim and realistic , more like real life .

paleoperson · 01-08-2019 10:15PM

riclad wrote: »

Full 3d started with the fifth gen of consoles, that includes the Atari Jaguar, the 3d0, the saturn, playstation and N64 you dumdum.

riclad · 01-08-2019 10:46PM

I mentioned nintendo consoles,
the n64 was made by nintendo.
almost no one bought the jaguar,the 3do, the game s on those system were awful .
They could hardly give away the jaguar and 3do console,s .

There were not many good games released on the saturn console .
the dreamcast was a great console, with good 3d game s , soul calibur etc it could not compete with sony or nintendo consoles .
IT suffered from high levels of piracy, you could just copy dreamcast game,s
onto a cdr disk.

Digital Gaming Explosion - Natural evolution or runaway train?

Comments