Esports - what went wrong pt 2

An insiders perspective

Photo by Oliver Maxfield on Paint

Thank you to everyone who read part 1 of “esports - what went wrong”, if you have not here it is. I outlined two fundamental issues with esports: Ownership and popularity. Esports 2 refers not to the concepts delineated in this blog, but rather to the outcomes stemming from any shift(s) that the esports industry deems necessary to break free from the frosty shackles of winter. Here are my thoughts on what those shifts could be.

The Open Esports Initiative

In the early days of software development, it quickly became obvious that open collaboration resulted in better software. In the 1970s and thanks to the work of Richard Stallman, Christine Peterson, Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond amongst others, Open Source Software (OSS) was born. OSS encourages collaboration through the open sharing of software. Indeed, the internet’s infrastructure is built on OSS from Linux to Apache and everything in-between.

Tim Berners-Lee’s, the inventor of the world wide web (www) acknowledged decentralisation as a core part of his thesis: “This is a principle of the design of distributed systems, including societies. It points out that any single common point which is involved in any operation trends to limit the way the system scales, and produce a single point of complete failure.” (W3C).

As a product of the internet, esports ought to follow the founding principles of collaboration and decentralisation to expand. Like open-source software (OSS), open esports games are titles that allow the community to create esports products and services more freely. The Open Esports Initiative, a non-profit organisation, would act as the forum for publishers and developers to verify if their game meets the open esports game definition and apply for endorsement. After receiving approval, the game is then listed in the repository, which the community can access and utilise.

This would untangle the messy web of game licences and free up the community to build with a clear and standardised framework. The Open Esports Initiative would serve as a reference point for the definition of an open esports game as well as a repository for all approved licences. The licences grant varying degrees of freedom to the community and must adhere to the rules set out in the definition. The objective is to optimise freedom for the community while reducing legal and brand risk for game publishers/developers.

The Open Esports Initiative unleashes the gaming community to create.

User-Generated Content (UGC)

One of the chief complaints in the industry is that game publishers do not assign enough development resources to esports. Development resources are like gold dust, in short supply and very expensive. As discussed in part 1, esports only appeals to a small fraction of a game's player base, which frequently results in a lack of return on investment for creating esports features. It is a self fulfilling prophecy: Esports is not big enough to throw significant resources behind which in turn means it does not grow and is not big enough to throw significant resources behind. Game publishers/developers should invest in their communities’ creativity through building tools and infrastructure that allows players to build their own in-game experiences. Rather than the development team having to build everything themselves. This could include: Map makers, matchmaking and game data APIs, skin and game pass builders and more direct access to the engine to program their own game mechanics.

Many of the most successful games came to be through the community. Including DOTA and Counter Strike. It turns out that the community is pretty good at building things they like. Happily game publishers/developers are increasingly leaning into UGC, the most recent example being Fortnite’s Creative Mode.

By taking a Roblox style approach to game development and esports, we are no longer limited by the publishers/developers development resources. Third parties would be able to build their own esports focused core loop, including in-game monetisation. The people who want to build for esports can, with all the tools they need to make it work. It is a mystery to me why this model has not already been explored more deeply using Roblox as a test bed.

Deepening Relationships

I am fortunate enough to have spent much of my career working directly with game publishers/developers and count many of those that work in them as friends. The types of relationships I have worked on tended to be transactional. We will do X and in return get Y. We are witnessing a trend towards more symbiotic relationships between game publishers/developers and esports organisations, departing from the traditional transactional approach.

Tournament organisers have historically shied away from closer strategic relationships with game publishers/developers as their business model relies on a game agnostic approach. By not betting their fortunes on one horse, they de-risk their business. Moreover, by having a skewed relationship with a single publisher/developer, it may frighten off their competitors.

As the gaming industry consolidates, tournament organisers will likely have to pick a side or risk being left in no man’s land. Joining with a publisher/developer represents a simple way to get direct access to the game worlds tournament organisers rely on. Instead of a conventional contract, I am referring to a merger or acquisition between a game publisher/developer and an esports organisation.

This has already been going on for a long time. Both ESL and DreamHack were acquired by MTG; MLG by Blizzard and Tencent holds equity in VPSN (now VPSO). The ESL Faceit Group’s parent company, Savvy Games Group has a games development arm. The medium to long term goal is probably to marry game development and esports in a deep and meaningful way.

The problem with this approach is that it only may fix the immediate issue, as it does not address the underlying problem of internal competition for resources that I mentioned in part 1. Furthermore, this approach only focuses on the parties involved and does not produce the industry-wide impact that is necessary for real change. However, given the complexity of a holistic fix it’s certainly better than nothing. Optimistically, such a relationship could spawn a game with an esports toolset (both world building and monetisation) that all parties are free to use.

Community Driven

When Twitch/Justin.tv first came out, the dominant form of content on the platform was esports. It was not until a couple of years in did we see the emergence of the content creator. The creator ecosystem has since eclipsed esports in size as many find the personal nature of it more engaging. This has been a major headache for esports organisations (and VCs) as many bet that the growth esports saw in 2012-2015 would continue. I would go as far to say that the current esports winter is a direct result of the livestreaming landscape shifting from esports to creators.

Media companies like Twitch and YouTube have built their businesses around serving creators, not esports. Through the tools available on these platforms, creators distribute and monetise their brand and content in a sustainable way.

By embracing this approach, the esports industry could shift away from relying on large and costly organisations for content and instead atomise into smaller, creator-led enterprises. The community organises tournaments by utilising already established creator channels and generates revenue through conventional means, such as subscribers, advertisements, merchandise, and brand collaborations. The centralised nature of esports is a replica of traditional sports. We are not under the same constraints. The internet has given us all the tools we need to self publish, self monetise and self sustain.

Many creators are already organising their own tournaments (and other esports related businesses). If this trend continues and expands to a variety of creators and games, it could trigger a paradigm shift away from the current centralised system. Furthermore, by merging user-generated content with tools for community-centric tournament organisation, there is potential to accelerate the emergence of a completely new era of esports, one that is driven by the community.

In conclusion, it is evident that esports must move away from the current way of doing things. Evolutions of the same concepts we have been using for the past 25 years are not going to cut it. Looking back at my time in the esports trenches, I now realise that I was too focused on improving the products and services that were already proven to be unsustainable 10 years ago. Believing if I made them x% better, it would fix the issue.

What I encourage everyone in the industry to do is set some time aside every week to work on esports 2. Think outside the box in whatever area of the industry you work in. What idea do you have floating around in your head that you think is too controversial or silly to see the light of day? Tell someone and start a discussion.

Esports 2 is a more open, collaborative and digitally native version of esports. I am going to take the first step and openly invite any interested parties to collaborate on any of the concepts in this blog.

You have probably seen what it is like to be a caster or player at an esports tournament. But do you need what it is like for the people behind the camera? The unsung, underpaid and overworked hero’s that make esports a reality. In my next blog, I will take you through A - Z what it takes to build an esports tournament.

Subscribe to my Substack for more unadulterated esports truths from an industry insider of 10 years. If there is anything you would like to know about the industry, comment below and I will endeavour to write about it.