Shawn101589
Smash Journeyman
Esports has grown extremely large over the last couple years. Sponsorship, revenue, exposure, and competition are increasing drastically in the FGC. While I would like to believe the answer to the question I pose is "never", I can't help but feel that at some point we owe something to our audience.
We make strides every day, ever tournament, to improve streams, be more entertaining, provide commentary. This gives back to us in a lot of ways; More entertainment = more viewers, more viewers = more exposure, more exposure = more sponsorship, etc.
Things like splitting, sandbagging, etc, are already looked down upon when they happen at any tournament, but especially ones on live streams with many viewers. Is this simply because it is "against the spirit of competiton" (which is an extremely arbitrary and subjective statement as people compete for different reasons), or is it that entertainment is starting to trump competition?
I've heard the argument (not that I fully agree with) that wobbling is not fun to watch. Disregarding whether that is true or not, let's assume there were something that was overall considered detrimental to the entertainment value. How would it be handled? Purely based on whether or not it is good for competition?
My question is, at what point, if any, do we start basing our decisions not only around what is better for competition, but also for the benefit of our viewers? When do we start to owe them something, if ever?
We make strides every day, ever tournament, to improve streams, be more entertaining, provide commentary. This gives back to us in a lot of ways; More entertainment = more viewers, more viewers = more exposure, more exposure = more sponsorship, etc.
Things like splitting, sandbagging, etc, are already looked down upon when they happen at any tournament, but especially ones on live streams with many viewers. Is this simply because it is "against the spirit of competiton" (which is an extremely arbitrary and subjective statement as people compete for different reasons), or is it that entertainment is starting to trump competition?
I've heard the argument (not that I fully agree with) that wobbling is not fun to watch. Disregarding whether that is true or not, let's assume there were something that was overall considered detrimental to the entertainment value. How would it be handled? Purely based on whether or not it is good for competition?
My question is, at what point, if any, do we start basing our decisions not only around what is better for competition, but also for the benefit of our viewers? When do we start to owe them something, if ever?