If Esports Explodes, Does Dota 2 Care? May 3rd, 2017 16:56 GMT Text by yamato77 Rebuttal:

If Esports Explodes, Does Dota 2 Care?

As some readers may know, the internet publication Glixel (ran by Wenner Media, who also own Rolling Stone) recently came out with an article penned by Will Partin that pondered its titular question:



The author rightfully notes that organizations attached to Riot’s League Championship Series and/or Blizzard’s Overwatch have been successful in acquiring outside investment from venture capital groups backed by wealthy owners and players from traditional sports. He surmises that their familiarity with and attraction to the franchise model that is being brought in for the leagues for both of these esports is the primary motivating factor in their decision to invest in teams now, a conclusion that is difficult to argue against. After all, Blizzard has even gone as far as to consult with these same potential investors, inviting them to attend Blizzcon to discuss the intricacies of the Overwatch League, the details of which still aren’t privy to the public.



Partin makes his first mistake in assuming that this franchise model is desirable. As has been shown by the backlash in the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive scene, fans of esports are not wholly sold on the idea of exclusive franchised leagues being the way of the future. Their concern for the rights of the players is at the forefront, with the looming possibility of player exploitation coloring discussion on the topic. Certain game developers, tournament organizers, or team owners may have already bought in, but the public at large is unconvinced, and rightly so. There are downsides to such a model, not the least of which would be the death of the idiosyncratic flair that differentiates Dota 2 from being just another esport.



Part of that individuality is that Dota can be simultaneously the most purely competitive esport and also one of the least professional. Fans derive enjoyment from experiencing the various personalities of their favorite players, and not in a celebrity context where the player puts on a persona, but in the way that the quirks of each individual manifest in that person’s play in the game. Everyone loves the supreme confidence of a mid-player like SumaiL, seeing it manifest throughout the game as a snowballing advantage that never lets up because no one, not even the man himself questions his skill. More sanitized sports penalize players for flagrant displays and discourage unique expression, but esports thrives on the purity of its passion.





SumaiL - One of the young and confident stars of Dota 2

Partin briefly mentions The International, but fails to properly explain its importance to Dota 2’s professional scene and its role in making the game the most competitive esport. If there is anything to be learned of the game, it is through understanding how this singular tournament has managed to shape the entire landscape of the esport. As a massively popular, crowdfunded celebration of the pinnacle of competition in Dota 2, the importance of The International is difficult to overstate. The prize pool began at $1.6 million, but it has grown every year since, with 2016’s total coming in at a staggering $20.8 million. The first place prize comprised the lion’s share at just over $9 million, which means that winning this one tournament instantly makes any one player one of the richest in all of esports, rivalled only by the other past champions of TI. Even the last place team took home a cool $100,000; a prize difficult to earn in any other game.



The International’s importance dictates that players prioritize giving themselves optimal conditions for competing, a difficult situation for team organizations to be put in. With such a disproportionately large amount of money to be won, considerations like keeping a stable roster or having a monthly salary become secondary. As such, the importance of these team organizations and the support they provide to players is drastically reduced.



Partin is partly correct in that players often don’t feel particularly obligated to fulfill media duties or streaming contracts, because nothing is more important than practicing right now. Not only is the money itself an incentive, but that prize pool is funded by the fans themselves. How could any self-respecting professional let down the fans of his team by not doing everything he can to qualify for the tournament they pay for?



The article is only partly right, however, because these players still do produce media content. The majority of it is with Valve, for player interviews and spotlights that air during the Valve-produced tournaments throughout the year. Recently, some of the fan-favorite teams have taken part in the True Sight series, also produced by Valve, giving fans a look into the competitive atmosphere that the top Dota teams have.



The players also lend their time to casting one of the fan-favorite tournaments of the circuit, the ever-expanding “The Summit” series that started in Dota 2 and has branched out into other games in recent years. This is one of the shining examples of a tournament only possible in an open circuit; organized by a casting studio, funded by strange sponsorships at times, and casted by the players competing in the tournament. It is loved for being both informal and informative, giving the players a relaxing atmosphere to play in where they can let their guards down and give back to the community that supports them. That kind of content is only possible in a world where the media rights to the players aren’t wholly controlled by the team franchises that comprise the league. The elimination of that possibility would reduce the personal interaction that fans of Dota 2 have come to expect, changing the game into something different, something that many fans may not want it to be.



It’s no wonder that these self-proclaimed “media companies” that are venture capital-backed have difficulty within the space. Partin is right that they are at odds with the goals of the players, and maybe it should be that way. If it was about a “connection between fans and players”, as Noah Winston is quoted in the article as saying, then these organizations wouldn’t need to worry. Fans of Dota 2 love their favorite players, they just don’t care which team they play for, and that’s the investors’ problem. Ultimately, if an organization like Immortals cares more about their players making content to sell more of their sponsor’s product than practicing for The International, maybe it’s best if they stay out of Dota 2, where the competition is valued above all else.





Fans tend to draw to their favorite players instead of teams

Partin seems to scoff at the open circuit. He smears the Dota scene by bringing up the transgressions of the past, pointing to outlier situations with less-reputable organizations as examples of the problems with Valve’s hands-off approach. He goes so far as to make the accusation that “In and out of game, player conduct was (and is) demonstrably worse in Dota 2 than any other esport”, which is both ignorant and defamatory. One could come up with a laundry list of player behavior issues that Riot Games seems to love to point out in its professional population. Perhaps to Partin, the punitive nature of Riot is preferable to the standoffish approach of Valve, but to insinuate that Dota players are somehow unique in their mistakes is foolish.



Partin concedes that “A closed ecosystem premised on franchising and media rights is not necessarily the ‘correct’ or even the only model for esports”, but fails to make any judgement on the matter. He’s right in that Dota 2’s current trajectory is separate than that of other esports, but won’t it nonetheless sustain growth? And what of Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, is it likewise doomed to be relegated to a niche market if it doesn’t conform to the franchising mandate?



The article completely ignores Counter-Strike, despite the scene’s obvious relevance to this topic. Counter-Strike also has Majors: Valve-backed and community-funded events that have highly competitive prize pools and provide extra incentive for the teams that qualify by giving them a cut of cosmetic item sales directly, no matter where they place at the tournament. Aside from that, Counter-Strike is also largely left alone by Valve, and yet the scene has an upward trajectory that rivals League of Legends and Overwatch. Many of these same teams that field squads in these other games also have CS:GO squads, and investment in the game by large organizations (some with sports backgrounds, like Turner) seems unbridled, bringing into question the argument that Valve’s “outright hostility” is the reason that Dota 2 has seen less of this investment.



More likely, it is that the scene itself doesn’t really need this investment. Dota doesn’t need to concern itself with the future of these other esports in order to maintain relevancy. This imagined competition between games is indicative of the same toxic mindset that sees arguments over “dota > lol” play out in forums across the internet. Why must the fans of Dota care whether or not the scene is infused with venture capital? Perhaps they would prefer it if a tennis star invested in a team, someone that understands the open circuit and loves the unique challenges each stop brings to the competition, instead of another NBA owner who just wants a carbon copy of his traditional North American sports league.



Ultimately, Partin’s fatal mistake is in assuming that fans don’t want Dota to stay the same. He makes his conclusion out to be a death sentence for the game, but reality couldn’t be farther from the truth. Dota’s resiliency is rivalled only by Counter-Strike in terms of longevity; it’s growth over its lifespan is remarkable. Its fans love the game and the esport because of its uniqueness and its quirks, not in spite of them. If it fails to conform to the franchising frenzy, it won’t be the end; as Partin rightly puts it, “Dota 2 will mainly be built on the passion of fans who are willing to share their eyes (and, of course, their wallets). As long as this is the case, then there will be professional Dota 2”.

Writer:Yamato

Editor: Sn0_Man As some readers may know, the internet publication Glixel (ran by Wenner Media, who also own Rolling Stone) recently came out with an article penned by Will Partin that pondered its titular question: As Esports Explodes, Will Valve’s ‘Dota 2’ be Left for Dead? Within, the author analyzes the professional scene of Dota 2, comparing and contrasting it with similar esports titles like League of Legends and Overwatch, all in an effort to explain why these other games are, by his measurement, going to leave Dota behind. The article spans a breadth of topics concerning multiple esports, but the piece falters in places, and ultimately, the conclusion leaves a sour taste in the mouth of those who closely follow Dota.The author rightfully notes that organizations attached to Riot’s League Championship Series and/or Blizzard’s Overwatch have been successful in acquiring outside investment from venture capital groups backed by wealthy owners and players from traditional sports. He surmises that their familiarity with and attraction to the franchise model that is being brought in for the leagues for both of these esports is the primary motivating factor in their decision to invest in teams now, a conclusion that is difficult to argue against. After all, Blizzard has even gone as far as to consult with these same potential investors, inviting them to attend Blizzcon to discuss the intricacies of the Overwatch League, the details of which still aren’t privy to the public.Partin makes his first mistake in assuming that this franchise model is desirable. As has been shown by the backlash in the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive scene, fans of esports are not wholly sold on the idea of exclusive franchised leagues being the way of the future. Their concern for the rights of the players is at the forefront, with the looming possibility of player exploitation coloring discussion on the topic. Certain game developers, tournament organizers, or team owners may have already bought in, but the public at large is unconvinced, and rightly so. There are downsides to such a model, not the least of which would be the death of the idiosyncratic flair that differentiates Dota 2 from being just another esport.Part of that individuality is that Dota can be simultaneously the most purely competitive esport and also one of the least professional. Fans derive enjoyment from experiencing the various personalities of their favorite players, and not in a celebrity context where the player puts on a persona, but in the way that the quirks of each individual manifest in that person’s play in the game. Everyone loves the supreme confidence of a mid-player like SumaiL, seeing it manifest throughout the game as a snowballing advantage that never lets up because no one, not even the man himself questions his skill. More sanitized sports penalize players for flagrant displays and discourage unique expression, but esports thrives on the purity of its passion.Partin briefly mentions The International, but fails to properly explain its importance to Dota 2’s professional scene and its role in making the game the most competitive esport. If there is anything to be learned of the game, it is through understanding how this singular tournament has managed to shape the entire landscape of the esport. As a massively popular, crowdfunded celebration of the pinnacle of competition in Dota 2, the importance of The International is difficult to overstate. The prize pool began at $1.6 million, but it has grown every year since, with 2016’s total coming in at a staggering $20.8 million. The first place prize comprised the lion’s share at just over $9 million, which means that winning this one tournament instantly makes any one player one of the richest in all of esports, rivalled only by the other past champions of TI. Even the last place team took home a cool $100,000; a prize difficult to earn in any other game.The International’s importance dictates that players prioritize giving themselves optimal conditions for competing, a difficult situation for team organizations to be put in. With such a disproportionately large amount of money to be won, considerations like keeping a stable roster or having a monthly salary become secondary. As such, the importance of these team organizations and the support they provide to players is drastically reduced.Partin is partly correct in that players often don’t feel particularly obligated to fulfill media duties or streaming contracts, because nothing is more important than practicing right now. Not only is the money itself an incentive, but that prize pool is funded by the fans themselves. How could any self-respecting professional let down the fans of his team by not doing everything he can to qualify for the tournament they pay for?The article is only partly right, however, because these players still do produce media content. The majority of it is with Valve, for player interviews and spotlights that air during the Valve-produced tournaments throughout the year. Recently, some of the fan-favorite teams have taken part in the True Sight series, also produced by Valve, giving fans a look into the competitive atmosphere that the top Dota teams have.The players also lend their time to casting one of the fan-favorite tournaments of the circuit, the ever-expanding “The Summit” series that started in Dota 2 and has branched out into other games in recent years. This is one of the shining examples of a tournament only possible in an open circuit; organized by a casting studio, funded by strange sponsorships at times, and casted by the players competing in the tournament. It is loved for being both informal and informative, giving the players a relaxing atmosphere to play in where they can let their guards down and give back to the community that supports them. That kind of content is only possible in a world where the media rights to the players aren’t wholly controlled by the team franchises that comprise the league. The elimination of that possibility would reduce the personal interaction that fans of Dota 2 have come to expect, changing the game into something different, something that many fans may not want it to be.It’s no wonder that these self-proclaimed “media companies” that are venture capital-backed have difficulty within the space. Partin is right that they are at odds with the goals of the players, and maybe it should be that way. If it was about a “connection between fans and players”, as Noah Winston is quoted in the article as saying, then these organizations wouldn’t need to worry. Fans of Dota 2 love their favorite players, they just don’t care which team they play for, and that’s the investors’ problem. Ultimately, if an organization like Immortals cares more about their players making content to sell more of their sponsor’s product than practicing for The International, maybe it’s best if they stay out of Dota 2, where the competition is valued above all else.Partin seems to scoff at the open circuit. He smears the Dota scene by bringing up the transgressions of the past, pointing to outlier situations with less-reputable organizations as examples of the problems with Valve’s hands-off approach. He goes so far as to make the accusation that “In and out of game, player conduct was (and is) demonstrably worse in Dota 2 than any other esport”, which is both ignorant and defamatory. One could come up with a laundry list of player behavior issues that Riot Games seems to love to point out in its professional population. Perhaps to Partin, the punitive nature of Riot is preferable to the standoffish approach of Valve, but to insinuate that Dota players are somehow unique in their mistakes is foolish.Partin concedes that “A closed ecosystem premised on franchising and media rights is not necessarily the ‘correct’ or even the only model for esports”, but fails to make any judgement on the matter. He’s right in that Dota 2’s current trajectory is separate than that of other esports, but won’t it nonetheless sustain growth? And what of Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, is it likewise doomed to be relegated to a niche market if it doesn’t conform to the franchising mandate?The article completely ignores Counter-Strike, despite the scene’s obvious relevance to this topic. Counter-Strike also has Majors: Valve-backed and community-funded events that have highly competitive prize pools and provide extra incentive for the teams that qualify by giving them a cut of cosmetic item sales directly, no matter where they place at the tournament. Aside from that, Counter-Strike is also largely left alone by Valve, and yet the scene has an upward trajectory that rivals League of Legends and Overwatch. Many of these same teams that field squads in these other games also have CS:GO squads, and investment in the game by large organizations (some with sports backgrounds, like Turner) seems unbridled, bringing into question the argument that Valve’s “outright hostility” is the reason that Dota 2 has seen less of this investment.More likely, it is that the scene itself doesn’t really need this investment. Dota doesn’t need to concern itself with the future of these other esports in order to maintain relevancy. This imagined competition between games is indicative of the same toxic mindset that sees arguments over “dota > lol” play out in forums across the internet. Why must the fans of Dota care whether or not the scene is infused with venture capital? Perhaps they would prefer it if a tennis star invested in a team, someone that understands the open circuit and loves the unique challenges each stop brings to the competition, instead of another NBA owner who just wants a carbon copy of his traditional North American sports league.Ultimately, Partin’s fatal mistake is in assuming that fans don’t want Dota to stay the same. He makes his conclusion out to be a death sentence for the game, but reality couldn’t be farther from the truth. Dota’s resiliency is rivalled only by Counter-Strike in terms of longevity; it’s growth over its lifespan is remarkable. Its fans love the game and the esport because of its uniqueness and its quirks, not in spite of them. If it fails to conform to the franchising frenzy, it won’t be the end; as Partin rightly puts it, “Dota 2 will mainly be built on the passion of fans who are willing to share their eyes (and, of course, their wallets). As long as this is the case, then there will be professional Dota 2”.YamatoSn0_Man Writer @WriterYamato

Pontual Profile Joined October 2016 Brazil 3038 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-03 18:00:23 #2 That's a goddamn good read. Thanks!

Meta Profile Joined June 2003 United States 158 Posts #3 Excellent take. I'll be sharing this one. Dota 2 is the best eSport because of it's differences from the rest, not in spite of them. Pure, immaculate, clean, omnicidal god machine

OmniEulogy Profile Joined July 2010 Canada 3015 Posts #4 One of the best things I've read recently tbh, really well put Yamato Front Page Lead

RuiBarbO Profile Joined August 2012 United States 424 Posts #5 not that I'm necessarily making that argument, it's just a common refrain that seems relevant



Something else I'd want to know more about (and this isn't a criticism of the article, just a potential follow-up) is how Twitch interacts with the whole franchising issue. You look at 20th century sports, you see franchise games and broadcasting rights being intertwined. There's a kind of happy relationship there, where broadcasters can make a deal with the franchise to show their stuff and the franchisers can expand their audience, control content, etc. With Twitch, you're looking at a platform that will put a one-horse stream on the main page right beside LCS or OverWhatever. You don't need to be part of the franchise in order to have your tournament broadcast and make money from it. Or I might be wrong about that, but if I am, I'd be curious to know why. Great article, very interesting conversation. In a way, it almost seems to harken back to the old debates about trickle-down economics. A little surprised SC2 doesn't get mentioned at all as a counter-point (although I'm not surprised Partin doesn't bring it up) - a lot of people will say it was Blizzard's screwy attempts to assert total control over the game's competitive scene that stymied its growth relative to the CSGOs and MOBAs of the current esports landscape + Show Spoiler + Something else I'd want to know more about (and this isn't a criticism of the article, just a potential follow-up) is how Twitch interacts with the whole franchising issue. You look at 20th century sports, you see franchise games and broadcasting rights being intertwined. There's a kind of happy relationship there, where broadcasters can make a deal with the franchise to show their stuff and the franchisers can expand their audience, control content, etc. With Twitch, you're looking at a platform that will put a one-horse stream on the main page right beside LCS or OverWhatever. You don'tto be part of the franchise in order to have your tournament broadcast and make money from it. Or I might be wrong about that, but if I am, I'd be curious to know why. Can someone please explain/how water falls with no rain?

Sn0_Man Profile Joined October 2012 Tebellong 31461 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-03 17:59:59 #6 On May 04 2017 02:51 RuiBarbO wrote:

Something else I'd want to know more about (and this isn't a criticism of the article, just a potential follow-up) is how Twitch interacts with the whole franchising issue. You look at 20th century sports, you see franchise games and broadcasting rights being intertwined. There's a kind of happy relationship there, where broadcasters can make a deal with the franchise to show their stuff and the franchisers can expand their audience, control content, etc. With Twitch, you're looking at a platform that will put a one-horse stream on the main page right beside LCS or OverWhatever. You don't need to be part of the franchise in order to have your tournament broadcast and make money from it. Or I might be wrong about that, but if I am, I'd be curious to know why.

I can't speak to how twitch and LCS interact, but I know that a lot of the bullish predictions around Overwatch League included the value of ActiBlizz controlling the broadcasting platform too (for example through MLG.tv which they own).



While I'm entirely unaware of the specifics, it doesn't seem far fetched for Riot to attempt to sell broadcasting rights to LCS at some point to somebody that isn't twitch (or make twitch pay them for it? who knows). While in the past moving to another platform for a fee always ended up in disaster for individual streamers, LCS has the kind of establishment and viewership pull that could probably actually move a decent % of viewership to another platform.



These are the kinds of revenue streams that are available under the franchise model and so attract investors. I can't speak to how twitch and LCS interact, but I know that a lot of the bullish predictions around Overwatch League included the value of ActiBlizz controlling the broadcasting platform too (for example through MLG.tv which they own).While I'm entirely unaware of the specifics, it doesn't seem far fetched for Riot to attempt to sell broadcasting rights to LCS at some point to somebody that isn't twitch (or make twitch pay them for it? who knows). While in the past moving to another platform for a fee always ended up in disaster for individual streamers, LCS has the kind of establishment and viewership pull that could probably actually move a decent % of viewership to another platform.These are the kinds of revenue streams that are available under the franchise model and so attract investors. Moderator SCIENTISTS BAFFLED | 3275929302

yamato77 Profile Joined October 2010 402 Posts #7 The last I heard about Riot and LCS is that they had sold broadcasting rights to some streaming platform associated with the MLB Writer @WriterYamato

spudde123 Profile Joined February 2012 4661 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-03 18:12:05 #8 We'll see how it goes in the future, but my feeling is that going towards solid leagues with franchising and stuff is sort of counter intuitive to internet gaming in general. Imo one of the main benefits of dota or esports in general is that anyone with a computer can play at their home and try to become the best. You don't have to join a club, play for years, get signed to a professional team, etc. You can just put in the time yourself. Putting all sorts of corporate middle men in there to make money at the cost of competition seems like a silly thing to do from that perspective. I like the hardcore competition in dota where you basically can just join quals and win if you are good enough.



Another huge thing is that at least imo popularity in dota is incredibly individual driven, not team driven. A lot of these orgs in the scene imo do absolutely nothing to try and make people fans of the org itself. I'm a fan of a team if they have players I like, if they leave I'll just support someone else. Some maybe support a specific team, but I doubt it's as many as in regular sports where a team is based in a certain city and has a community around it. A lot of the content a team can produce is also individual driven. For example many of the more popular players are or at least have been big streamers. Again, there is no need for a "team" per se to arrange this interaction between the players and the fans.



That said it seems to me that there would be a lot of room for individual players to collaborate with sponsors and interact with their fans. For example tennis players don't have a team, but they still may have some sort of agents or whatever who help them get sponsorships. In fact for the biggest names a huge part of their income comes from those deals. It would seem to me that there is room to develop towards that direction in dota. The prize pools in dota are high enough that the top players don't "need" them. But they can be a significant increase in income, and not all players are making millions in prize money. I don't think it's necessarily that huge of a commitment that it has to come in the way of practicing.

s.a.y Profile Joined October 2007 Croatia 77 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-03 18:18:43 #9

The players also lend their time to casting one of the fan-favorite tournaments of the circuit, the ever-expanding “The Summit” series that started in Dota 2 and has branched out into other games in recent years.



Was it not Take's TV that started the series with his StarCraft tournaments that other streamers picked up? Was it not Take's TV that started the series with his StarCraft tournaments that other streamers picked up? I am not good with quotes

OmniEulogy Profile Joined July 2010 Canada 3015 Posts #10 On May 04 2017 03:18 s.a.y wrote:

Show nested quote +



The players also lend their time to casting one of the fan-favorite tournaments of the circuit, the ever-expanding “The Summit” series that started in Dota 2 and has branched out into other games in recent years.



Was it not Take's TV that started the series with his StarCraft tournaments that other streamers picked up? Was it not Take's TV that started the series with his StarCraft tournaments that other streamers picked up?



you are correct, but specifically The Summit started in Dota 2 and branched out. LD has even given credit to Take for the Homestory Cups as inspiration for them starting those tournaments. you are correct, but specifically The Summit started in Dota 2 and branched out. LD has even given credit to Take for the Homestory Cups as inspiration for them starting those tournaments. Front Page Lead

Sn0_Man Profile Joined October 2012 Tebellong 31461 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-03 18:24:08 #11

+ Show Spoiler +

On May 04 2017 03:18 s.a.y wrote:

Show nested quote +



The players also lend their time to casting one of the fan-favorite tournaments of the circuit, the ever-expanding “The Summit” series that started in Dota 2 and has branched out into other games in recent years.

Was it not Take's TV that started the series with his StarCraft tournaments that other streamers picked up? Was it not Take's TV that started the series with his StarCraft tournaments that other streamers picked up?

While it's fair to suggest that the original Summit was heavily influenced and inspired by TakeTV's Homestory Cups, all the "The Summit" events are a distinct series from the Homestory Cups and it would be disingenuous to suggest that they didn't start with the first Dota Summit. While it's fair to suggest that the original Summit was heavily influenced and inspired by TakeTV's Homestory Cups, all the "The Summit" events are a distinct series from the Homestory Cups and it would be disingenuous to suggest that they didn't start with the first Dota Summit. I've been scooped Moderator SCIENTISTS BAFFLED | 3275929302

FreakyDroid Profile Joined July 2012 Macedonia 1982 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-03 18:35:47 #12 On May 04 2017 03:04 spudde123 wrote:

We'll see how it goes in the future, but my feeling is that going towards solid leagues with franchising and stuff is sort of counter intuitive to internet gaming in general. Imo one of the main benefits of dota or esports in general is that anyone with a computer can play at their home and try to become the best. You don't have to join a club, play for years, get signed to a professional team, etc. You can just put in the time yourself. Putting all sorts of corporate middle men in there to make money at the cost of competition seems like a silly thing to do from that perspective. I like the hardcore competition in dota where you basically can just join quals and win if you are good enough.





We're used to this and quite frankly I prefer it this way. However, the 'problem' (I use the word very loosely here hence the quotes) is that without franchising and solid leagues, given the volatility of Dota, I can understand why big investors would be discouraged to invest in a Dota team. The question then is: can Dota survive like this going forward in the next 5-10 years and/or grow? I think it can survive, but Im not so sure if it will grow. At the end, do we need that kind of growth, where the only thing that grows are big clubs and revenues for them? I personally think we don't need that kind of growth, but I've had shortsighted opinions before so ... dunno. At the end, someone correct me if Im wrong, but nothing stops teams to make unions or tournament organizers making their own closed leagues with their own set of rules resembling leagues of other esport titles. We're used to this and quite frankly I prefer it this way. However, the 'problem' (I use the word very loosely here hence the quotes) is that without franchising and solid leagues, given the volatility of Dota, I can understand why big investors would be discouraged to invest in a Dota team. The question then is: can Dota survive like this going forward in the next 5-10 years and/or grow? I think it can survive, but Im not so sure if it will grow. At the end, do we need that kind of growth, where the only thing that grows are big clubs and revenues for them? I personally think we don't need that kind of growth, but I've had shortsighted opinions before so ... dunno. At the end, someone correct me if Im wrong, but nothing stops teams to make unions or tournament organizers making their own closed leagues with their own set of rules resembling leagues of other esport titles. Smile, tomorrow will be worse

Skynx Profile Joined January 2013 Turkey 583 Posts #13 I doubt any investor will have the balls to outsource the crowdfunding of TI for many years. "When seagulls follow the troller, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea. Thank you very much" - King Cantona | STX 4 eva

spudde123 Profile Joined February 2012 4661 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-03 18:50:27 #14 On May 04 2017 03:33 FreakyDroid wrote:

Show nested quote +

On May 04 2017 03:04 spudde123 wrote:

We'll see how it goes in the future, but my feeling is that going towards solid leagues with franchising and stuff is sort of counter intuitive to internet gaming in general. Imo one of the main benefits of dota or esports in general is that anyone with a computer can play at their home and try to become the best. You don't have to join a club, play for years, get signed to a professional team, etc. You can just put in the time yourself. Putting all sorts of corporate middle men in there to make money at the cost of competition seems like a silly thing to do from that perspective. I like the hardcore competition in dota where you basically can just join quals and win if you are good enough.





We're used to this and quite frankly I prefer it this way. However, the 'problem' (I use the word very loosely here hence the quotes) is that without franchising and solid leagues, given the volatility of Dota, I can understand why big investors would be discouraged to invest in a Dota team. The question then is: can Dota survive like this going forward in the next 5-10 years and/or grow? I think it can survive, but Im not so sure if it will grow. At the end, do we need that kind of growth, where the only thing that grows are big clubs and revenues for them? I personally think we don't need that kind of growth, but I've had shortsighted opinions before so ... dunno. We're used to this and quite frankly I prefer it this way. However, the 'problem' (I use the word very loosely here hence the quotes) is that without franchising and solid leagues, given the volatility of Dota, I can understand why big investors would be discouraged to invest in a Dota team. The question then is: can Dota survive like this going forward in the next 5-10 years and/or grow? I think it can survive, but Im not so sure if it will grow. At the end, do we need that kind of growth, where the only thing that grows are big clubs and revenues for them? I personally think we don't need that kind of growth, but I've had shortsighted opinions before so ... dunno.



I'm not exactly following how that sort of investment would "grow" the game. I'm not really a believer in something like dota ever being somehow super mainstream entertainment. It has a significant audience, but I doubt it's easy to enjoy watching the game if you've never played or played extremely little. Imo regular sports are way easier to watch as a casual, because everyone can enjoy the athletic performances even if you don't understand the rules exactly or something. I do think that the popularity of dota players could be monetized better, but I don't think franchising is something that is needed for that.



If dota grows, imo it has to come largely from the game simply becoming more popular. Of course a well functioning professional scene can help with that, but it's by no means the only part. Also certainly the current scene could be improved from a fan perspective, which would make the player base more engaged. But that also isn't a question of investor money. I'm not exactly following how that sort of investment would "grow" the game. I'm not really a believer in something like dota ever being somehow super mainstream entertainment. It has a significant audience, but I doubt it's easy to enjoy watching the game if you've never played or played extremely little. Imo regular sports are way easier to watch as a casual, because everyone can enjoy the athletic performances even if you don't understand the rules exactly or something. I do think that the popularity of dota players could be monetized better, but I don't think franchising is something that is needed for that.If dota grows, imo it has to come largely from the game simply becoming more popular. Of course a well functioning professional scene can help with that, but it's by no means the only part. Also certainly the current scene could be improved from a fan perspective, which would make the player base more engaged. But that also isn't a question of investor money.

ihatevideogames Profile Joined August 2015 265 Posts #15

In case you don't want to give hits to that shitty article, I made an archive link. That article on Glixel reads like something written by someone who was paid by Riot or from corporate douche who wants to tap into the viewership of DotA 2 with a franchising system but Valve won't budge, or maybe just mad that one of the largest games won't 'fall in line' with the rest.In case you don't want to give hits to that shitty article, I made an archive link. http://archive.is/uve4z

Jaaaaasper Profile Joined April 2012 United States 4433 Posts #16 That article lost me when it said pro overwatch was going to leave dota behind. OW isn't doing that hot as well. And Dota doesn't have to worry about advertiser backlash with the compendium model nearly like Riot does with their fines and suspensions for pub game bm and the like. There are plusses and minuses to both models, but Riot has been saying the compendium model is going to fall off since the first one, and now they're ripping it off with "championship skins" even as dota teams attract bigger sponsorships. But again lolverwatch Hey do you want to hear a joke? Chinese production value. | I thought he had a aegis- Ayesee | When did 7ing mad last have a good game, 2012?

Yurie Profile Joined August 2010 7830 Posts #17 Something that is interesting for me is that local competitions aren't a major thing in most E-sport games while it is the lifeblood in physical sports. I think that is where the disconnect is coming from. Average person 1 does not need to join a local team to play a game or two a week. He can just go online and play, thus removing the entire local league system and thus the regional ones building on those.



Local LANs are of course be fun but they are hard to coordinate when they don't offer much more than the online experience in many cases. I think something that the game could perhaps facilitate would be a local LAN organiser where people can post that they want to host one and people nearby can see it. Currently the extreme fragmentation of the scene makes it hard to just throw one up.

Dracolich70 Profile Joined May 2011 Denmark 2895 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-03 19:58:52 #18 The problem with dota is that TI, Majors, and then other premium tournaments created a rift between the top and the sub-top. Like Partin describes, it is the same teams, the same few tournaments that creates all the interests, and it is a great time to be a great player.



China fixed their problem with the segration making it more flat, but the Western scene went the opposite way.



The premise of this article is pretty much those 12-20 teams that reoccur in same 7-10 yearly premimum tournaments, and forgets the landscape behind it, that is suffocating. How long do people want to watch the same teams, that doesn't participate outside premium tournaments, and show up lacking form?



It is hardly suprising, that Dota 2 7.0 created a risky change, to keep its viewer/playerbase in a game that had stagnated, and suffocated by Valve's own overwhelming shadow in the tournament scene, and has put many investors at bay - not at top level, but the level below it.

LiangHao

ahswtini Profile Joined June 2008 Northern Ireland 16335 Posts #19 On May 04 2017 04:50 Dracolich70 wrote:

The problem with dota is that TI, Majors, and then other premium tournaments created a rift between the top and the sub-top. Like Partin describes, it is the same teams, the same few tournaments that creates all the interests, and it is a great time to be a great player.



China fixed their problem with the segration making it more flat, but the Western scene went the opposite way.



The premise of this article is pretty much those 12-20 teams that reoccur in same 7-10 yearly premimum tournaments, and forgets the landscape behind it, that is suffocating..



It is hardly suprising, that Dota 2 7.0 created a risky change, to keep its viewer/playerbase in a game that had stagnated, and suffocated by Valve's own overwhelming shadow in the tournament scene, and has put many investors at bay - not at top level, but the level below it.



except the non valve events provide valuable information for when valve decide direct and qualifier invites for their events. except the non valve events provide valuable information for when valve decide direct and qualifier invites for their events. "As I've said, balance isn't about strategies or counters, it's about probability and statistics." - paralleluniverse

Dracolich70 Profile Joined May 2011 Denmark 2895 Posts #20 On May 04 2017 04:57 ahswtini wrote:

Show nested quote +

On May 04 2017 04:50 Dracolich70 wrote:

The problem with dota is that TI, Majors, and then other premium tournaments created a rift between the top and the sub-top. Like Partin describes, it is the same teams, the same few tournaments that creates all the interests, and it is a great time to be a great player.



China fixed their problem with the segration making it more flat, but the Western scene went the opposite way.



The premise of this article is pretty much those 12-20 teams that reoccur in same 7-10 yearly premimum tournaments, and forgets the landscape behind it, that is suffocating..



It is hardly suprising, that Dota 2 7.0 created a risky change, to keep its viewer/playerbase in a game that had stagnated, and suffocated by Valve's own overwhelming shadow in the tournament scene, and has put many investors at bay - not at top level, but the level below it.



except the non valve events provide valuable information for when valve decide direct and qualifier invites for their events. except the non valve events provide valuable information for when valve decide direct and qualifier invites for their events.

LiangHao

1 2 3 4 5 Next All