Last week UK pro-gaming team Birmingham Salvo claimed the prestigious Championship Gaming Series (CGS) title for 2008. The team defied their underdog status and eventually triumphed against US favourites Optx. The ten-strong UK team competed in 4 games (Counterstrike, Fifa 2008, Dead or Alive 4 and Forza Motorsport) and will now share a total prize of $500,000 (£255,850).
This equates to roughly £25,585 each (assuming the money is shared equally between the ten players - which is unlikely, since they also have a manager to pay and other costs to cover) which all begs the question; why are pro gamers paid so little?
Consider that these players must also pay taxes and have training/hardware costs to cover; quite possibly they could well only really see around £15,000 each after all costs and taxes have been covered which, considering their status as winners of a massive international event, does seem rather low (there are only a few such events each year - so the opportunities to earn are limited).
Indeed only four months ago the biggest pro gaming tournament, the Cyberathlete Professional League (CPL), was officially dissolved with all forthcoming events cancelled, further reducing the number of events available for pro gamers to earn a living from. The current financial climate and the fragmentation of the sport were the main reasons cited.
But really the biggest problem faced by the entire scene is more simply one of spectatorship and mainstream indifference.
Consider for example the interesting evolution of poker as a spectator game in recent years and the subsequent growth in player numbers that has followed, contributing to greater sums of money being available for players. The game has seen a huge rise in popularity, and unquestionably broken into the mainstream (in the UK all the major tv channels apart from the BBC feature some sort of coverage) - all because the issue of spectatorship was solved.
The key was when an effective method of showing matches was developed - using cameras under the table to show each players ‘hand’ through a small glass window onto which the cards are placed. This rapidly earned the game massive spectator potential (the advent of internet poker was also crucial), and the rest is now poker history…
To return to pro gaming, the problem is that there is currently no mainstream crossover with regard to spectatorship, and no convenient format for transmitting most of the biggest multiplayer games, especially if one wishes to consider accessibility and attract new audiences.
There is no doubt that prize funds would benefit considerably if the problem of transmission could somehow be solved. Consider for example one of the most popular online multiplayer games of all time - Counterstrike. Those familiar with the game will immediately understand the problems with finding a convenient format for transmitting games to a tv audience for example.
The problem is really one of perspective - the games naturally lend themselves to viewing from an individual player’s POV or perhaps selective viewing of particular game areas. There is simply no way to watch the whole game, in real-time, and not miss some of what’s happening. If we compare this with a popular tv sport such as football, where viewers can pretty much follow 95% of the event through tv coverage (and in any case 100% of all important game events), then it becomes easy to see why the game has such tv success, and hence such a wide audience.
If gaming could somehow also be translated effectively into a tv format that would make it exciting to watch, even for those who are not serious gamers, then the whole pro gaming scene could see a massive and much-needed cash injection. In the meantime sadly, mainstream public perception remains indifferent at best. Until some new methods of coverage and transmission can somehow change this, the prize money available for players will always remain relatively small compared to most other recognised sports.
Dejan Levi