I saw the thread on the Florida Iron Man tournament and that represents my concern that 40k is being pushed too hard into becoming something it is not - i.e. Esports.
While Frontline Gaming and Nova have done a lot to increase the popularity of the "competitive" scene, the fundamental issue I have is that 40k has a pay to win element within it. Now I am not saying that this is the "be all and end all" reason for doing well in 40k as I also believe that player skill does factor into it, however, even 9th edition 40k is a much shallower game compared to chess or even League of Legends. The skill ceiling is not that high.
I have been in and out of the competitive scene and I did come to the eventual realisation that with the issuance of new editions and codices, the meta can change drastically. If you dont pivot or play a meta busting army, then you have to chase to place well in tournaments.
The fact that there are these outfits like Glasshammer Gaming, Art of War, etc. is concerning to me as they try to promote a reality where its all about player skill through their coaching services but I dont think that's true.
I think that the most strong players emerge because:
1. There is a club or a community of gamers who are into the competitive scene and are willing to spend time and money chasing the meta
2. If you play against other strong players with equally meta or meta-busting armies then you start to become strong
The fact is that the competitive scene is quite amateur and I find that these outfits generally already have a massive advantage in that they have a stable of players who can spend a lot of time and money to go to tournaments and dominate the standings. The allegations in the Florida Ironman tournament are really concerning if these outfits try to manipulate standings to benefit themselves and their bottomline further.
Happy to hear others' thoughts about this latest evolution in 40k.
If your biggest issue with 40k is the pay to win aspect, let me introduce you to card games, sports, anything else that requires an investment. Magic the Gathering, Hearthstone, F1 are all examples where cash is needed in a sport or esport that changes when regulations or rules change, it's the same with Warhammer.
Skill is a pretty real aspect of the game, and in a shallow game, I am amazed at some of the nuanced plays you actually see in 40k.
Skill of course develops where the gaming groups play competitively, it's a game of one-up-manship the entire time, that's how you get better. Casual play is never going to help your game if you aren't treating it like a tournament game. That is how you see the same names make appearances at the top tables consistently, if it wasn't a game with a high enough ceiling, anyone could do it.
The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).
Hulksmash wrote: The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).
Genuine query: given the huge changes 40k has undergone over those 5+ editions, does this indicate there is some underlying "40k skill" that separates these players from everyone else, or is it down to the factors other people have pointed out above - mainly having the time, money and enthusiasm to chase the meta with a likeminded bunch of people?
As far as 40k as an e-sport, I think it's a complete non-starter. There simply isn't enough skill or depth involved in the the game and it's too unbalanced to hold enough people's interests at the more competitive end of the game. Crucially, it's also really, really bad as a streamed experience, at least in the way it's done now. Games are too long and involve too many dice rolls and the visual spectacle is often lacking too.
Honestly, the primary issue with 40k as an eSport is just the game time. 4+ hours is a LONG stream. The number of times I've seen one that's 2 hours into its runtime and still on round one is.... high. It's like watching football, but one team exclusively has the ball for an entire quarter. It's just not very dramatic unless the players are creating unnecessary drama.
eSports culture itself is also just a little weird. It's so funded by pandering and audience interaction that constantly interrupts the action in general, but there's so much dead air in 40k it REALLY stands out. That's mostly just me be an old man not hip with the new age, but I "feel" these things a lot more watching 40k than videogames or even other table top streams.
I was genuinely taken aback when I got back into 40k and heard that there are tournaments with prize money now.
Really? Have you never played in a tournament with prize support or store credit?
Sure, like painted minis or t-shirts or token trophies at blood bowl tourneys, but never cash. However perhaps I should have mentioned that last time I played 40k was 2nd edition and I was just a kid down the local games club. I am overawed by how big it's got and mostly that's a good thing, but I don't remember anyone getting into debt for the hobby back then like I hear about now. I guess money sloshing around is a mixed blessing.
Hulksmash wrote: The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).
Genuine query: given the huge changes 40k has undergone over those 5+ editions, does this indicate there is some underlying "40k skill" that separates these players from everyone else, or is it down to the factors other people have pointed out above - mainly having the time, money and enthusiasm to chase the meta with a likeminded bunch of people?
As far as 40k as an e-sport, I think it's a complete non-starter. There simply isn't enough skill or depth involved in the the game and it's too unbalanced to hold enough people's interests at the more competitive end of the game. Crucially, it's also really, really bad as a streamed experience, at least in the way it's done now. Games are too long and involve too many dice rolls and the visual spectacle is often lacking too.
I mean, time and enthusiasm is something that's needed to be good at anything unless you're a prodigy. But reasonably I know half a dozen people who have been winning best general/best overall when BP was king since it became a thing in 4th edition but mostly 5th edition. Most of them have taken breaks here and there from the hobby due to life or what not but whenever they play they are normally in the running. Some of them literally play less than 50 games a year (me) including all RTT's and GT's they go to. Some play a lot more. Most of them don't "chase" the meta that hard. There was some chasing with formations in 7th but honestly most haven't shifted to heavily from army to army or anything since or before. Unless you ever played nids. Then you've definitely just switched armies if you want to compete cause god they're terrible They might tweak their army and add units here and there but that's no different than green fees, upgrading clubs, or driving range costs for people quasi competitive with golf. Are they paying to win?
The basic skills do translate from one edition to another. It's not like the game is massively different than 3rd right now. Most of the "huge" changes have been actual tweaks. Even the shift from 7th to 8th was more just a reset than a truly massive change. List building is a skill and then on the table performance is a skill. Gotta manage both but not individually. It has to be done togther. Like it or not skill is a factor. Telling yourself it isn't is just making yourself feel better about not being able to bridge that gap. Not that it's an amazing skill or makes someone at 40k better than anyone else outside of 40k. It's just another skill. I don't claim my aunt pays to win at baking contests held at county fairs because she's better at baking than I'll ever be. I just accept it's a skill that I won't have at that level and can enjoy it at the level I do have it.
That said I don't understand 40k as an e-sport. There is zero entertainment value as anything other than background and it moves to slowly to cool plays to really be picked up. The sheer amount of dice rolling is nuts and it's not generally able to be followed on screen. Underworlds I could see working of all GW's games because it's always just a couple of dice which means it's easy to see and follow with specific rigs.
That said I don't understand 40k as an e-sport. There is zero entertainment value as anything other than background and it moves to slowly to cool plays to really be picked up. The sheer amount of dice rolling is nuts and it's not generally able to be followed on screen. Underworlds I could see working of all GW's games because it's always just a couple of dice which means it's easy to see and follow with specific rigs.
What about Chess - where the action is even slower in some competitive events.
In the end its important to realise that sometimes watching is a different hobby and interest in itself. There are many who love playing football who hate watching it and vis versa; just as there are many who like both aspects.
I'd also say that a lot of the competitive sporting side for 40K is really in its infancy. GW has never pushed it so a lot of the production elements have issues because its just not held up to a high standard nor has heavy investment in it. We don't have someone with a live video camera able to skirt the game board to dip in and out action scenes; heck many events don't even have multiple cameras to show dice rolls in trays and action on the table overhead. We don't have many commentators etc...
Basically part of the reason of its limitations is that we don't have the underlaying infrastructure and skill training to support it.
The real issues might revolve around the quality of rules writing and structure; indeed if GW wanted to get serious about it they'd likely have to improve internal and inter army balance and also the overall quality of their writing just to cut down on issues. The actual concept of a wargame being entertainment isn't the issue, its more the underlaying mechanics needing tightening up and then on top a big investment into the media side of things. All very doable. Don't forget in the past no one would have thought youtube channels playing games would have been popular or services like Twitch would ever take off. Part of that was lack of vision, part was simply lack of having the infrastructure in place to allow it - easy streaming software and internet connections being fast enough etc... Players who invest in good microphones and good audio recording etc...
We're basically saying the same thing Overread. I dont see the value now. But thats because primarily of the set ups and such.
I dont think chess is comparable though. The core of chess is soneasy that anyone watching can at least follow the primar action and can sometimes see a bit into the future moves. 40k because of all the random plus the sheer rules depth is a different place.
There are obviously games much more suited to e-sports
The are even GW games more suited to e-sports (not perfectly, suited, but better). Warhammer Underworlds for example. Much smaller board you can focus on with a camera. A game takes .. 10 minutes? You play best of 3 or best of 5 and still be done in under an hour. No tape measures, templates, etc.. that introduce unnecessary ambiguity. Etc..
But ultimately, Glasshammer Gaming, Art of War, FLG, etc.. don't wanna push the E-sport angle on the miniatures game that would be most suitable to it.
They wanna push the E-sport angle on the miniatures game they can squeeze the most money out of, and that is currently 40K.
If 40K and, dunno, Malifaux would magically switch their share in the market tomorrow, they would all switch their outfits to now do E-Sport Malifaux. Not because the game is suited for it, but because that game would then be the one with the most customers.
Tyranid Horde wrote: If your biggest issue with 40k is the pay to win aspect, let me introduce you to card games, sports, anything else that requires an investment. Magic the Gathering, Hearthstone, F1 are all examples where cash is needed in a sport or esport that changes when regulations or rules change, it's the same with Warhammer.
Skill is a pretty real aspect of the game, and in a shallow game, I am amazed at some of the nuanced plays you actually see in 40k.
Skill of course develops where the gaming groups play competitively, it's a game of one-up-manship the entire time, that's how you get better. Casual play is never going to help your game if you aren't treating it like a tournament game. That is how you see the same names make appearances at the top tables consistently, if it wasn't a game with a high enough ceiling, anyone could do it.
Oh yeah I played in a few Hearthstone local events / grinding to near Legend and probably have $1000 on my account. Unlike MTG which I sold off my net deck
There's definite skill involved in 40k, and the better players do tend to win. It's just within a certain bubble. Not everything is viable, and yes, you need significant money to pursue what is viable at a certain time if you want to win events.
I don't think any of those things preclude it as an e-sport. What does make me doubt it will ever turn into anything major is the sheer time requirements involved in getting an army into a good condition, combined with the sheer length of games. This makes it a tough sell both for competitors and for watchers.
A secondary element is the RNG inherent in dice games. Although dice rolls rarely actually determine games in 40k, they are a constant reminder that chance is a huge part of the basic engine, and that makes it a hard sell for an e-sports environment.
yukishiro1 wrote: What does make me doubt it will ever turn into anything major is the sheer time requirements involved in getting an army into a good condition, combined with the sheer length of games. This makes it a tough sell both for competitors and for watchers.
It's not only the money but the TIME is so long, and they "require" more stringent painting standards. Cleaning and assembling takes long enough, but painting to a certain standard takes forever.
I work FT and it is HARD to find enough time to finish my army. For that reason, I started buying painted armies from ebay.
Hulksmash wrote: The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).
Genuine query: given the huge changes 40k has undergone over those 5+ editions, does this indicate there is some underlying "40k skill" that separates these players from everyone else, or is it down to the factors other people have pointed out above - mainly having the time, money and enthusiasm to chase the meta with a likeminded bunch of people?
As far as 40k as an e-sport, I think it's a complete non-starter. There simply isn't enough skill or depth involved in the the game and it's too unbalanced to hold enough people's interests at the more competitive end of the game. Crucially, it's also really, really bad as a streamed experience, at least in the way it's done now. Games are too long and involve too many dice rolls and the visual spectacle is often lacking too.
I mean, time and enthusiasm is something that's needed to be good at anything unless you're a prodigy. But reasonably I know half a dozen people who have been winning best general/best overall when BP was king since it became a thing in 4th edition but mostly 5th edition. Most of them have taken breaks here and there from the hobby due to life or what not but whenever they play they are normally in the running. Some of them literally play less than 50 games a year (me) including all RTT's and GT's they go to. Some play a lot more. Most of them don't "chase" the meta that hard. There was some chasing with formations in 7th but honestly most haven't shifted to heavily from army to army or anything since or before. Unless you ever played nids. Then you've definitely just switched armies if you want to compete cause god they're terrible They might tweak their army and add units here and there but that's no different than green fees, upgrading clubs, or driving range costs for people quasi competitive with golf. Are they paying to win?
The basic skills do translate from one edition to another. It's not like the game is massively different than 3rd right now. Most of the "huge" changes have been actual tweaks. Even the shift from 7th to 8th was more just a reset than a truly massive change. List building is a skill and then on the table performance is a skill. Gotta manage both but not individually. It has to be done togther. Like it or not skill is a factor. Telling yourself it isn't is just making yourself feel better about not being able to bridge that gap. Not that it's an amazing skill or makes someone at 40k better than anyone else outside of 40k. It's just another skill. I don't claim my aunt pays to win at baking contests held at county fairs because she's better at baking than I'll ever be. I just accept it's a skill that I won't have at that level and can enjoy it at the level I do have it.
That said I don't understand 40k as an e-sport. There is zero entertainment value as anything other than background and it moves to slowly to cool plays to really be picked up. The sheer amount of dice rolling is nuts and it's not generally able to be followed on screen. Underworlds I could see working of all GW's games because it's always just a couple of dice which means it's easy to see and follow with specific rigs.
All you have to do is compare 40k to another competitive game to see how little decision making is involved and how it is outdone in every measurable aspect of gameplay.
I was genuinely taken aback when I got back into 40k and heard that there are tournaments with prize money now.
Really? Have you never played in a tournament with prize support or store credit?
Sure, like painted minis or t-shirts or token trophies at blood bowl tourneys, but never cash. However perhaps I should have mentioned that last time I played 40k was 2nd edition and I was just a kid down the local games club. I am overawed by how big it's got and mostly that's a good thing, but I don't remember anyone getting into debt for the hobby back then like I hear about now. I guess money sloshing around is a mixed blessing.
yeah its insane how much the hobby costs now. So many people have their life savings, hundreds/thousands of free time, etc invested in plastic toys
Hulksmash wrote: The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).
Genuine query: given the huge changes 40k has undergone over those 5+ editions, does this indicate there is some underlying "40k skill" that separates these players from everyone else, or is it down to the factors other people have pointed out above - mainly having the time, money and enthusiasm to chase the meta with a likeminded bunch of people?
As far as 40k as an e-sport, I think it's a complete non-starter. There simply isn't enough skill or depth involved in the the game and it's too unbalanced to hold enough people's interests at the more competitive end of the game. Crucially, it's also really, really bad as a streamed experience, at least in the way it's done now. Games are too long and involve too many dice rolls and the visual spectacle is often lacking too.
plus dont forget the innacuracy of measuring by hand
I mean, time and enthusiasm is something that's needed to be good at anything unless you're a prodigy. But reasonably I know half a dozen people who have been winning best general/best overall when BP was king since it became a thing in 4th edition but mostly 5th edition. Most of them have taken breaks here and there from the hobby due to life or what not but whenever they play they are normally in the running. Some of them literally play less than 50 games a year (me) including all RTT's and GT's they go to. Some play a lot more. Most of them don't "chase" the meta that hard. There was some chasing with formations in 7th but honestly most haven't shifted to heavily from army to army or anything since or before. Unless you ever played nids. Then you've definitely just switched armies if you want to compete cause god they're terrible They might tweak their army and add units here and there but that's no different than green fees, upgrading clubs, or driving range costs for people quasi competitive with golf. Are they paying to win?
The basic skills do translate from one edition to another. It's not like the game is massively different than 3rd right now. Most of the "huge" changes have been actual tweaks. Even the shift from 7th to 8th was more just a reset than a truly massive change. List building is a skill and then on the table performance is a skill. Gotta manage both but not individually. It has to be done togther. Like it or not skill is a factor. Telling yourself it isn't is just making yourself feel better about not being able to bridge that gap. Not that it's an amazing skill or makes someone at 40k better than anyone else outside of 40k. It's just another skill. I don't claim my aunt pays to win at baking contests held at county fairs because she's better at baking than I'll ever be. I just accept it's a skill that I won't have at that level and can enjoy it at the level I do have it.
That said I don't understand 40k as an e-sport. There is zero entertainment value as anything other than background and it moves to slowly to cool plays to really be picked up. The sheer amount of dice rolling is nuts and it's not generally able to be followed on screen. Underworlds I could see working of all GW's games because it's always just a couple of dice which means it's easy to see and follow with specific rigs.
All you have to do is compare 40k to another competitive game to see how little decision making is involved and how it is outdone in every measurable aspect of gameplay.
I am not trying to say that there isnt a cadre of players that have the skill to consistently rise to the top. Clearly there has been over time and I believe it is a combination of skill, time invested and money invested.
But I think people underplay the time and money investment to be competitive in this hobby. Golf is an expensive hobby but the rules dont change suddently with a new rulebook or codex produced that necessitates beginners to catch up with both equipment and knowledge. A golf amateur can use the same skills he learnt 10 years ago today. With 40k some of the skills clearly would still apply but catching up with the meta will require a time and equipment (miniatures) investment.
Nidzrule! wrote: I am not trying to say that there isnt a cadre of players that have the skill to consistently rise to the top. Clearly there has been over time and I believe it is a combination of skill, time invested and money invested.
But I think people underplay the time and money investment to be competitive in this hobby. Golf is an expensive hobby but the rules dont change suddently with a new rulebook or codex produced that necessitates beginners to catch up with both equipment and knowledge. A golf amateur can use the same skills he learnt 10 years ago today. With 40k some of the skills clearly would still apply but catching up with the meta will require a time and equipment (miniatures) investment.
I disagree. The primary skills like movement and in game planning translate with every edition. People really over rate the extent of change between editions. Also while the overall rules of golf dont change the equipment does and physical skills need t9 be maintained or regained. Ask anyone who stopped playing for a few years.
@irkjoe
If the game is so shallow why is it the same people winning over and over?
Also hearthstone and magic dont have many more deep decisions during game play than 40k. But theyre c9nsidered extremely competitive.
Nidzrule! wrote: I am not trying to say that there isnt a cadre of players that have the skill to consistently rise to the top. Clearly there has been over time and I believe it is a combination of skill, time invested and money invested.
But I think people underplay the time and money investment to be competitive in this hobby. Golf is an expensive hobby but the rules dont change suddently with a new rulebook or codex produced that necessitates beginners to catch up with both equipment and knowledge. A golf amateur can use the same skills he learnt 10 years ago today. With 40k some of the skills clearly would still apply but catching up with the meta will require a time and equipment (miniatures) investment.
yeah I agree with that. The money and, most importantly, the time sink needed to get started it will probably keep 40k from being a viable competitive hobby. The way the meta changes, missions, etc. Needing to read and study 3 or 4 books just for your main army, it is another underplayed time sink in this hobby.
You can more easily stop playing something else and come back with it less rest than in 40k .
In just a few editions, you would need a completely new army and 3 or 4 books. And that is only if you play one army. You are talking about several hundreds of hours in paid work and free time painting this army.
Nidzrule! wrote: I am not trying to say that there isnt a cadre of players that have the skill to consistently rise to the top. Clearly there has been over time and I believe it is a combination of skill, time invested and money invested.
But I think people underplay the time and money investment to be competitive in this hobby. Golf is an expensive hobby but the rules dont change suddently with a new rulebook or codex produced that necessitates beginners to catch up with both equipment and knowledge. A golf amateur can use the same skills he learnt 10 years ago today. With 40k some of the skills clearly would still apply but catching up with the meta will require a time and equipment (miniatures) investment.
I disagree. The primary skills like movement and in game planning translate with every edition. People really over rate the extent of change between editions. Also while the overall rules of golf dont change the equipment does and physical skills need t9 be maintained or regained. Ask anyone who stopped playing for a few years.
@irkjoe
If the game is so shallow why is it the same people winning over and over?
Also hearthstone and magic dont have many more deep decisions during game play than 40k. But theyre c9nsidered extremely competitive.
The movement staying the same is not really accurate. Tau castle of 8th is completely worthless now. The movement that worked 2 editions ago, would likely lead to disaster with half of the armies now.
Another problem with 40k is the unbalance as well. The buy now meta keeps this from being completely balanced. Also I agree with Nidzrule on the reasons listed above. I can go and pick up my golf clubs and football cleats. I would probably find out I need to buy 3+ books and spend hundreds of dollars and hours assembling and painting a new army.
You dont need to reassembl/painte other hobby equipment and follow new rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nidzrule! wrote: I saw the thread on the Florida Iron Man tournament and that represents my concern that 40k is being pushed too hard into becoming something it is not - i.e. Esports.
While Frontline Gaming and Nova have done a lot to increase the popularity of the "competitive" scene, the fundamental issue I have is that 40k has a pay to win element within it. Now I am not saying that this is the "be all and end all" reason for doing well in 40k as I also believe that player skill does factor into it, however, even 9th edition 40k is a much shallower game compared to chess or even League of Legends. The skill ceiling is not that high.
I have been in and out of the competitive scene and I did come to the eventual realisation that with the issuance of new editions and codices, the meta can change drastically. If you dont pivot or play a meta busting army, then you have to chase to place well in tournaments.
The fact that there are these outfits like Glasshammer Gaming, Art of War, etc. is concerning to me as they try to promote a reality where its all about player skill through their coaching services but I dont think that's true.
I think you are right about it. I dont really see 40k becoming a viable competitive scene unless GW spends a LOT of money on play testing (i.e. they dont pay their play testers, Art of War has said so on streams that they dont get paid.) and coming up with balanced books that come out in bulk instead of a drip schedule, which works towards their main goal which is sale of minis. It would require to basically redo their whole business model and game set up which they will not do.
Also your point about this game just being about exploding holes just hits the nail about this game being more swallow than other games such as League of Legends.
This thread about how the last LVO was won on a broken shady ruleset, that should have been ruled illegal, basically just went in and easily won the tournament. It was obviously ruled illegal after but at the time they judges couldn't agree that it should haven't been used.
Nidzrule! wrote: I am not trying to say that there isnt a cadre of players that have the skill to consistently rise to the top. Clearly there has been over time and I believe it is a combination of skill, time invested and money invested.
But I think people underplay the time and money investment to be competitive in this hobby. Golf is an expensive hobby but the rules dont change suddently with a new rulebook or codex produced that necessitates beginners to catch up with both equipment and knowledge. A golf amateur can use the same skills he learnt 10 years ago today. With 40k some of the skills clearly would still apply but catching up with the meta will require a time and equipment (miniatures) investment.
I disagree. The primary skills like movement and in game planning translate with every edition. People really over rate the extent of change between editions. Also while the overall rules of golf dont change the equipment does and physical skills need t9 be maintained or regained. Ask anyone who stopped playing for a few years.
@irkjoe
If the game is so shallow why is it the same people winning over and over?
Also hearthstone and magic dont have many more deep decisions during game play than 40k. But theyre c9nsidered extremely competitive.
I suspect the main reason the same people win is because they're the ones who put the time and money into the game having already developed the fairly basic skills required to do well. They're also the ones who travel to most of the big tournaments (See above re: money).
As for why Hearthstone or MTG are considered competitive, I think it's likely down to more in-game decisions with hidden information leading to greater skill expression than you see in 40k. I don't really follow competitive MTG and haven't followed competitive HS for a while now, but a large part of being at the top of HS was certainly the ability to analyse the meta, build effective decks that are both powerful and not countered by the prevailing meta, and use the limited resources at your disposal better than your opponent. The way those games are structured you often don't know if your decisions were correct or not until after the game has finished and you have a chance to analyse your plays. I think that's where 40k often falls down. Information is all open in 40k and decisions are often obviously correct or incorrect because of it whereas in games like HS or MTG you need to think about plays your opponent may make even without knowing if they even have the opportunity to make them.
I suspect the main reason the same people win is because they're the ones who put the time and money into the game having already developed the fairly basic skills required to do well. They're also the ones who travel to most of the big tournaments
The ones who win the most are the ones that find the most busted combos/obscure rules (that inevitable get fixed after) not necessarily the best strategy. You would think that after 30+ years GW would have developed a balanced game. But their profit and growth relies on meta changes and broken rules.
@Hulksmash A confluence of willingness to travel, keep up with the newest releases, and being connected to organizers. The point was that 40k is a poor vehicle for competitive play. Hope it goes the way of warmachine.
Irkjoe wrote: @Hulksmash A confluence of willingness to travel, keep up with the newest releases, and being connected to organizers. The point was that 40k is a poor vehicle for competitive play. Hope it goes the way of warmachine.
Warmachine had its issues too, whilst the rules were much tighter and better written, their push toward a much more dynamic user tested system has somewhat backfired. Granted other things happened as well, but in general trying to take a PC game based speed of feedback and changing stats into a physical wargame creates a huge disconnect with physical and digital media.
Personally I think digital should support the physical, but not attempt to replace it functionally.
Warmachine has had huge issues focusing purely on the competitive to the point whre its basically where Old World Fantasy was in years past - dwindling loyal experienced gamers and very low recruitment of new gamers with a big skill level gap.
Personally I'm hoping PP is testing the waters with Warcaster and will port over working ideas into Warmachine/Hordes in a big reboot effort to get their name and games back on the mainstream market.
Agreed, I meant that I hope the competitive e-sports element of 40k destroys itself in the same way. The video game moba influence dumbs down the rules, art, and miniature aesthetic. Pretty much everything is made worse by it imo.
I honestly think there's a happy middleground element, plus you can't deny that competitive events run in a more organised fashion can have major benefits including increased marketing, exposure, focus and points of regional and national geek unity.
One of the major issues we often read about online is when people of different skill levels are playing together, often (esp with GW games) the rules get blamed for the power disparity, but often as not its a secondary element to the players also having very big differences in skill level.
More networking and marketing and awareness means a chance for different hobby and game groups to network and link together. this becomes very important once people leave schools/universities and it honestly becomes a lot harder to form groups and even be aware of other groups around.
Pushing GW toward a tighter approach to rules is also not a bad thing, its something we can all benefit from.
Warmachine benefited greatly in its early and mid days from the competitive focus. Their problems were not just the competitive end which caused their issues, it was one part of many that happened at the same time.
Rules updates and Errata GW already coves with 1 annual book per game and FAQ/Errata free downloads. Many of which, for specific armies, are not that big. Plus if they were pushed to write better in the first place those documents would get smaller.
In general they could adapt to a happy middleground where competitive can help promote and advertise and make the world more aware of the game, whilst at the same time not dominating it. Ergo learn from PP's mistakes and improve.
PP did indeed have problems following the digital rules approach; it split lore and rules; it resulted in lore falling away entirely; it shifted a focus on buying and building armies and its had a long series of issues. But it can work - Infinity seems to make it work and GW could do more to make it work a bit more for them without changing anything at a fundamental level in how they operate or release the game - its more about tightening up the system that is already in place not replacing it.
Overread wrote: I honestly think there's a happy middleground element, plus you can't deny that competitive events run in a more organised fashion can have major benefits including increased marketing, exposure, focus and points of regional and national geek unity.
Pushing GW toward a tighter approach to rules is also not a bad thing, its something we can all benefit from.
tbh that would be the biggest benefit. I don't think we should be wishing for the competitive side of things to fall apart but a tighter approach to rules would make the game better.
Hulksmash wrote: The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).
Genuine query: given the huge changes 40k has undergone over those 5+ editions, does this indicate there is some underlying "40k skill" that separates these players from everyone else, or is it down to the factors other people have pointed out above - mainly having the time, money and enthusiasm to chase the meta with a likeminded bunch of people?
As far as 40k as an e-sport, I think it's a complete non-starter. There simply isn't enough skill or depth involved in the the game and it's too unbalanced to hold enough people's interests at the more competitive end of the game. Crucially, it's also really, really bad as a streamed experience, at least in the way it's done now. Games are too long and involve too many dice rolls and the visual spectacle is often lacking too.
I mean, time and enthusiasm is something that's needed to be good at anything unless you're a prodigy. But reasonably I know half a dozen people who have been winning best general/best overall when BP was king since it became a thing in 4th edition but mostly 5th edition. Most of them have taken breaks here and there from the hobby due to life or what not but whenever they play they are normally in the running. Some of them literally play less than 50 games a year (me) including all RTT's and GT's they go to. Some play a lot more. Most of them don't "chase" the meta that hard. There was some chasing with formations in 7th but honestly most haven't shifted to heavily from army to army or anything since or before. Unless you ever played nids. Then you've definitely just switched armies if you want to compete cause god they're terrible They might tweak their army and add units here and there but that's no different than green fees, upgrading clubs, or driving range costs for people quasi competitive with golf. Are they paying to win?
The basic skills do translate from one edition to another. It's not like the game is massively different than 3rd right now. Most of the "huge" changes have been actual tweaks. Even the shift from 7th to 8th was more just a reset than a truly massive change. List building is a skill and then on the table performance is a skill. Gotta manage both but not individually. It has to be done togther. Like it or not skill is a factor. Telling yourself it isn't is just making yourself feel better about not being able to bridge that gap. Not that it's an amazing skill or makes someone at 40k better than anyone else outside of 40k. It's just another skill. I don't claim my aunt pays to win at baking contests held at county fairs because she's better at baking than I'll ever be. I just accept it's a skill that I won't have at that level and can enjoy it at the level I do have it.
That said I don't understand 40k as an e-sport. There is zero entertainment value as anything other than background and it moves to slowly to cool plays to really be picked up. The sheer amount of dice rolling is nuts and it's not generally able to be followed on screen. Underworlds I could see working of all GW's games because it's always just a couple of dice which means it's easy to see and follow with specific rigs.
All you have to do is compare 40k to another competitive game to see how little decision making is involved and how it is outdone in every measurable aspect of gameplay.
Spoken like someone who is really, really terrible at 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Irkjoe wrote: Agreed, I meant that I hope the competitive e-sports element of 40k destroys itself in the same way. The video game moba influence dumbs down the rules, art, and miniature aesthetic. Pretty much everything is made worse by it imo.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and are just tossing out buzzwords. Seriously, MOBA? Oh right, I forgot about 9th edition added lanes and a base, and characters that level up and creeps and items you can buy with gold generated during the game or any of the other absolute basics required to call a game a MOBA. Your ideas are stupid.
There's very little decision making involved when all of your units can do everything all of the time and threaten the entire board. Competitive 40k is just target priority where you can lose turn one without giant walls to hide behind, relative to warmachine for example.
Some more buzzwords that apply, disney's warhammer heroes the authentic and dark game returns to its roots in 9th edition. Players take on the role of Guilliman and pretend the game is good. Complete with in-app purchases.
In the past, some of these complaints were fairly true (there were armies that were either invulnerable or could just blast you anywhere on the board and it didn't matter). Balance has actually improved quite a bit in 9th edition. 8th had a sweet spot right before marine supplements were released when things were quite diverse and they're steadily moving back to it.
It's also true that tournaments were very 'clique-ey' and there was an ingroup and an outgroup (the majority of players). This, too, has been falling down and we're seeing more diversity. Guys like Nanavati were struggling to rack up wins while Siegler came on the scene last year and won basically everything. So there is improvement here.
When it comes to depth and tactics we've also been seeing improvement thanks to 9th's mission system. 'The wedge' is the first real non-datasheet strategy I've scene come up and be wildly successful. Playing the corners is now an option against lists that favor the center. We've still got a ways to go and there are strong improvements to be made but GW really did take a step forward in the right direction.
Can 40k work as e-sports with shoutcasters? I've been predicting for years that GW would try (and I remember getting scolded down here on Dakka that there was no way GW was trying to do that so here's my 'I told you so'). I'm not sure it'll work either. 40k does have some serious lag time and watching miniatures get pushed around isn't nearly as exciting as the spectacle video games offer for e-sports.
That said, Chess is popular enough to have attention and watchers, just not on a mass level. That may be 40k's future. A sustainable niche market develops where people who are really into it watch and analyze to improve, but it never hits the huge numbers e-sports has.
40K has disagreements over rule interpretations same as MTG - meanwhile tennis has players screaming and crying over if the ball landed on the line or not to the point they now have satellite cameras and lasers and multiple angle cameras all just pointed at the boundary lines.
Overread wrote: 40K has disagreements over rule interpretations same as MTG - meanwhile tennis has players screaming and crying over if the ball landed on the line or not to the point they now have satellite cameras and lasers and multiple angle cameras all just pointed at the boundary lines.
I agree that many TTG and TTCG have rules issues but 40k stands apart in a competitive environment as the philosophy behind the rules isn't even 'filthy casual' (I say this tongue in cheek) I would argue its 'here are some words and numbers we scribbled down, you have to work at them to make them fit your games....have fun'.
As for tennis. The rules are clear. Umpires decision is final. Arguing in the heat of the moment is fine.
If tennis were 40k you would have to have an errata to replace all instances of the word 'Lime' with 'Line'. Discussion would take place before each game as to what what constitutes a 'clay court'. Players receiving the serve could make the serving player commit a foot fault just by moving.
.
If MTG were 40k I would take a basic starter deck and scribble on them. I now have a meta burn deck. Looks good on TV.
Overread wrote: 40K has disagreements over rule interpretations same as MTG - meanwhile tennis has players screaming and crying over if the ball landed on the line or not to the point they now have satellite cameras and lasers and multiple angle cameras all just pointed at the boundary lines.
I agree that many TTG and TTCG have rules issues but 40k stands apart in a competitive environment as the philosophy behind the rules isn't even 'filthy casual' (I say this tongue in cheek) I would argue its 'here are some words and numbers we scribbled down, you have to work at them to make them fit your games....have fun'.
As for tennis. The rules are clear. Umpires decision is final. Arguing in the heat of the moment is fine.
If tennis were 40k you would have to have an errata to replace all instances of the word 'Lime' with 'Line'. Discussion would take place before each game as to what what constitutes a 'clay court'. Players receiving the serve could make the serving player commit a foot fault just by moving.
.
If MTG were 40k I would take a basic starter deck and scribble on them. I now have a meta burn deck. Looks good on TV.
I mean, most major tournaments handle the pre-game stuff in their packets (X is X and Y is Y). NOVA was probably the best at this with 'every table will have exactly this terrain and no different, this terrain functions exactly this way and no different'. ITC and NOVA also put out statements in advance (not really far enough in advance, but in advance) regarding how certain combos involving Genestealers and IH will be handled and what interpretation would be followed.
I do a lot of streaming on my channel and the major fundamental problem with 40k as an E-sports is
1) Lack of concise rules that video games have
2) Its excessively boring to fracking watch.
2.5) Too much focus on the game and not about being a "personality"
Overread wrote: 40K has disagreements over rule interpretations same as MTG - meanwhile tennis has players screaming and crying over if the ball landed on the line or not to the point they now have satellite cameras and lasers and multiple angle cameras all just pointed at the boundary lines.
I agree that many TTG and TTCG have rules issues but 40k stands apart in a competitive environment as the philosophy behind the rules isn't even 'filthy casual' (I say this tongue in cheek) I would argue its 'here are some words and numbers we scribbled down, you have to work at them to make them fit your games....have fun'.
As for tennis. The rules are clear. Umpires decision is final. Arguing in the heat of the moment is fine.
If tennis were 40k you would have to have an errata to replace all instances of the word 'Lime' with 'Line'. Discussion would take place before each game as to what what constitutes a 'clay court'. Players receiving the serve could make the serving player commit a foot fault just by moving.
.
If MTG were 40k I would take a basic starter deck and scribble on them. I now have a meta burn deck. Looks good on TV.
I mean, most major tournaments handle the pre-game stuff in their packets (X is X and Y is Y). NOVA was probably the best at this with 'every table will have exactly this terrain and no different, this terrain functions exactly this way and no different'. ITC and NOVA also put out statements in advance (not really far enough in advance, but in advance) regarding how certain combos involving Genestealers and IH will be handled and what interpretation would be followed.
I think 40k does have great potential to become an esport in its own way. The terrain design, minis design and the custom paint jobs give them an edge over many other hobbies. I think the rules are moving in the right direction at least.
The drawbacks are the higher than usual entry point with not only the cost of the army but also the time required to have such army ready for tournament standard.
Kirasu wrote: I do a lot of streaming on my channel and the major fundamental problem with 40k as an E-sports is
1) Lack of concise rules that video games have
2) Its excessively boring to fracking watch.
2.5) Too much focus on the game and not about being a "personality"
Ugh, I always hated 3, but it seems to be the consensus it sells (and I have no data to dispute that). 2 is right for 40k though. It's almost better being treated like a radio show rather than a video. Just something to listen to.
Kirasu wrote: I do a lot of streaming on my channel and the major fundamental problem with 40k as an E-sports is
1) Lack of concise rules that video games have
2) Its excessively boring to fracking watch.
Point 2 is the most important. Go and find a recording of a live stream from any of the big name 40k channels and I think most people would agree it's really difficult to get through the full 3.5 - 4 hours (or more!) And that's from channels with fairly charismatic players who are making a concerted effort to engage with the audience. Once you're left with other people commentating on a game it gets even worse. I remember trying to watch some of the LVO livestreams either this year or last year and my overriding impression was that the commentators were often just as confused about what units were which and what each dice roll was for as I was.
Many people don't even like the more condensed 60-minute YT battle report. I think 40k as an e-sport is destined for failure simply because it's just not even 10% as exciting to watch as it is to play.
Overread wrote: 40K has disagreements over rule interpretations same as MTG - meanwhile tennis has players screaming and crying over if the ball landed on the line or not to the point they now have satellite cameras and lasers and multiple angle cameras all just pointed at the boundary lines.
I agree that many TTG and TTCG have rules issues but 40k stands apart in a competitive environment as the philosophy behind the rules isn't even 'filthy casual' (I say this tongue in cheek) I would argue its 'here are some words and numbers we scribbled down, you have to work at them to make them fit your games....have fun'.
As for tennis. The rules are clear. Umpires decision is final. Arguing in the heat of the moment is fine.
If tennis were 40k you would have to have an errata to replace all instances of the word 'Lime' with 'Line'. Discussion would take place before each game as to what what constitutes a 'clay court'. Players receiving the serve could make the serving player commit a foot fault just by moving.
.
If MTG were 40k I would take a basic starter deck and scribble on them. I now have a meta burn deck. Looks good on TV.
I mean, most major tournaments handle the pre-game stuff in their packets (X is X and Y is Y). NOVA was probably the best at this with 'every table will have exactly this terrain and no different, this terrain functions exactly this way and no different'. ITC and NOVA also put out statements in advance (not really far enough in advance, but in advance) regarding how certain combos involving Genestealers and IH will be handled and what interpretation would be followed.
I think 40k does have great potential to become an esport in its own way. The terrain design, minis design and the custom paint jobs give them an edge over many other hobbies. I think the rules are moving in the right direction at least.
The drawbacks are the higher than usual entry point with not only the cost of the army but also the time required to have such army ready for tournament standard.
It's true that will slow down people actually playing, but there is a subset of people who watch e-sports but don't play the games they watch (as is true of football and most anything else I'd imagine).
40k does look nice when painted and on a good board, but the combat is all imagined by the players from mono-pose. A video game presents, quite literally, a movie for the audience.
I mean, most major tournaments handle the pre-game stuff in their packets (X is X and Y is Y). NOVA was probably the best at this with 'every table will have exactly this terrain and no different, this terrain functions exactly this way and no different'. ITC and NOVA also put out statements in advance (not really far enough in advance, but in advance) regarding how certain combos involving Genestealers and IH will be handled and what interpretation would be followed.
Which is great.
I guess if GW want to get into bed with comp players or events they could....rule themselves on wonky interactions? So every organiser is singing from the same page?
Kirasu wrote: I do a lot of streaming on my channel and the major fundamental problem with 40k as an E-sports is
1) Lack of concise rules that video games have
2) Its excessively boring to fracking watch.
Point 2 is the most important. Go and find a recording of a live stream from any of the big name 40k channels and I think most people would agree it's really difficult to get through the full 3.5 - 4 hours (or more!) And that's from channels with fairly charismatic players who are making a concerted effort to engage with the audience. Once you're left with other people commentating on a game it gets even worse. I remember trying to watch some of the LVO livestreams either this year or last year and my overriding impression was that the commentators were often just as confused about what units were which and what each dice roll was for as I was.
Many people don't even like the more condensed 60-minute YT battle report. I think 40k as an e-sport is destined for failure simply because it's just not even 10% as exciting to watch as it is to play.
I agree, it is extremely boring to watch. I think the only thing that gets me through some games sometimes are the memes in chat. Take live chat out of 40k, I wouldn't watch a single livestream
I still enjoy watching things like Wargamer Girls Warmachine videos - but they clearly take a lot of preparation to work and aren't the same as live recording a game.
Like I said before I think that with the right staff and tools you can record a live game and have it be engaging; but it requires room around the table and gamers used to "the camera" being there and moving around not just an overhead that hardly shows anything.
Edited battle reports can be good watches from an entertainment point of view, but that's something totally different from live streaming, which I agree is super problematic from an e-sports perspective.
Even the best live streams are more like "hangout time" than actually watching the game itself. The game simply takes too long to play, and isn't engaging enough to watch in real time.
From an e-sports perspective, I think it's simply an insurmountable problem. You can't have an e-sports game that can't be streamed live, and that takes 2+ hours for a match, with at least 80% of the time just fiddling around with models or dice.
Overread wrote: I still enjoy watching things like Wargamer Girls Warmachine videos - but they clearly take a lot of preparation to work and aren't the same as live recording a game.
Like I said before I think that with the right staff and tools you can record a live game and have it be engaging; but it requires room around the table and gamers used to "the camera" being there and moving around not just an overhead that hardly shows anything.
They are doing something right at TableTop titans since it averages 10x-20x than any other 40k stream. But they also have a full team to handle chat/cameras, got started at YouTube Studios, have $30,000 worth of camera equipment, an insider at YouTube to get a blessing on the mighty algorithm (one of the guys works at Google) and have access to many more things due to their work/salary.
Given all of that, it looks like that is the MINIMUM required headstart to have a watchable 40k stream. And 95% of 40k streamers will probably never be able to get enough traction to get over the low views hump before they give up.
It is one of those things that the rich just get richer type of situations.
I mean, most major tournaments handle the pre-game stuff in their packets (X is X and Y is Y). NOVA was probably the best at this with 'every table will have exactly this terrain and no different, this terrain functions exactly this way and no different'. ITC and NOVA also put out statements in advance (not really far enough in advance, but in advance) regarding how certain combos involving Genestealers and IH will be handled and what interpretation would be followed.
Which is great.
I guess if GW want to get into bed with comp players or events they could....rule themselves on wonky interactions? So every organiser is singing from the same page?
I'm all for uniformity so not a problem in my book. I think GW is trying to go that way with terrain keywords. That way tournaments can just say 'our terrain has the following keywords' and call it a day.
Overread wrote: I still enjoy watching things like Wargamer Girls Warmachine videos - but they clearly take a lot of preparation to work and aren't the same as live recording a game.
Like I said before I think that with the right staff and tools you can record a live game and have it be engaging; but it requires room around the table and gamers used to "the camera" being there and moving around not just an overhead that hardly shows anything.
They are doing something right at TableTop titans since it averages 10x-20x than any other 40k stream. But they also have a full team to handle chat/cameras, got started at YouTube Studios, have $30,000 worth of camera equipment, an insider at YouTube to get a blessing on the mighty algorithm (one of the guys works at Google) and have access to many more things due to their work/salary.
Given all of that, it looks like that is the MINIMUM required headstart to have a watchable 40k stream. And 95% of 40k streamers will probably never be able to get enough traction to get over the low views hump before they give up.
It is one of those things that the rich just get richer type of situations.
Aye, but we are talking about competitive esports style events here - so in theory that 30K for equipment would be easily afforded once you add sponsors and event money and the backing of something like GW standing behind the event itself. Ergo we aren't talking about Joe Average doing this. Just the same as pro-league football has thousands sunk into camera equipment whilst your local football club is lucky if they've got a local photographer and Uncle Dave with a video camera to turn up to a match.
Also for $30K I'd expect enough camera equipment, for steaming, to easily support several concurrent games. At least if they are using DSLRs and not using top end video cameras (because chances are for steaming you don't need that kind of equipment). Of course if the budgets grew you can bet they'd invest in higher and higher spec kit over time and as demands required it.
Obviously if we're talking about a fully sponsored event then equipment costs are not a problem. The cost of a top-tier streaming set-up is not cheap but it's well within a very reasonable budget for an organisation the size of GW. They already have at least one for Warhammer TV.
That still doesn't get around the single biggest problem with streaming which is that the game is just not suited to it. You can have the very best cameras and microphones all you want, it won't solve that problem. I think you'd need to come up with something truly innovative as far as the presentation of the game goes to make 40k even start to be attractive as an e-sport style event.
LunarSol wrote: I am curious if Combat Patrol has better legs for this. The more shorter run time and action resolutions seem more watchable at least.
Shorter definitely helps. Kill Team would be fastest buuut you lose the fun of big centerpiece models. So yeah, 1,000-1,500 might be a bit better for streaming.
Models are bigger
Diversity of models is greater
Unit sizes are bigger.
Basically most things have grown to the point where some former FW models are now smaller than their plastic equivalents (Greater Demon of Nurgle). The thing is people have bought those models and they want to use them; meanwhile GW has made those models and wants to sell them.
So the 2K game is going to be a big drawing point. Yes 9th edition GW has reigned things in a little with army size; there is a balance and they clearly don't want to slip into the trap of expanding things so much that its only attractive to long term, big collection customers.
Perhaps the real trick is to avoid a 1 system approach. Perhaps start with killteam or other smaller format games; build a reliable sport around it and an infrastructure and then steadily scale things up
People watch golf and bowling, so I'm not willing to dismiss the idea of people watching streamed games of 40k. For that matter, people watch chess and go streaming...
As someone who doesn't honestly really care to watch a video of someone else playing a game, I don't have any idea what it would it take to make it interesting enough to be "marketable".
I'd bet someone a pot of paint that it'd be easier to mimic pro-wrestling to make wargaming interesting, than to try to recreate the commentary and analysis that gets added to other games.
solkan wrote: People watch golf and bowling, so I'm not willing to dismiss the idea of people watching streamed games of 40k. For that matter, people watch chess and go streaming...
As someone who doesn't honestly really care to watch a video of someone else playing a game, I don't have any idea what it would it take to make it interesting enough to be "marketable".
I'd bet someone a pot of paint that it'd be easier to mimic pro-wrestling to make wargaming interesting, than to try to recreate the commentary and analysis that gets added to other games.
You are right, it all comes down to expensive equipment and engaging commentary. People watch arguably more boring stuff
solkan wrote: People watch golf and bowling, so I'm not willing to dismiss the idea of people watching streamed games of 40k. For that matter, people watch chess and go streaming...
As someone who doesn't honestly really care to watch a video of someone else playing a game, I don't have any idea what it would it take to make it interesting enough to be "marketable".
I'd bet someone a pot of paint that it'd be easier to mimic pro-wrestling to make wargaming interesting, than to try to recreate the commentary and analysis that gets added to other games.
You are right, it all comes down to expensive equipment and engaging commentary. People watch arguably more boring stuff
I'm not sure those are really directly comparable. Golf and bowling may both take a while to complete a game but they are easily broken down into smaller, bite-size chunks that are meaningful and impactful on their own. Golf, for example, usually covers each set of shots by the players on a hole, then jumps to a different group of players. I'm not sure there's really a suitable comparison between a golf hole and an activity in 40k.
Chess can be played in rapid or bullet formats, which are popular for streaming and only take 5-10 minutes for a complete game. For the more traditional, classical, chess format the time tends to be filled with in-depth analysis. You could do something similar in 40k, but the problem there is there isn't the same downtime in a 40k game to do the analysis. Stuff's always happening, it's just often not very exciting.
LunarSol wrote: I am curious if Combat Patrol has better legs for this. The more shorter run time and action resolutions seem more watchable at least.
Shorter definitely helps. Kill Team would be fastest buuut you lose the fun of big centerpiece models. So yeah, 1,000-1,500 might be a bit better for streaming.
KillTeam or Space Hulk could indeed work in terms of timescale.
OG Space Hulk would probably fit the best, the rules are very clear cut, not too many dice per roll, and the marine player has a time limit for finishing their turn.
I dont agree you'd necessarily need big centerpiece models. In terms of visual interest, you could add it with esquisite looking boards, lights, special fx like smoke & pyrotechnics..
Furthermore, the models would be gorgeous in no time flat. Pro Comission painters would make all the minis of the biggest players, who'd have the best sponsorship deals, and so on.. It could look at least as good as anything that's on display at Warhammer World.
I like that idea about taking it towards WWE-style things! Players could wear cosplay stuff, they could have backstories written to them and so on, just like in wrestling hehe
solkan wrote: People watch golf and bowling, so I'm not willing to dismiss the idea of people watching streamed games of 40k. For that matter, people watch chess and go streaming...
As someone who doesn't honestly really care to watch a video of someone else playing a game, I don't have any idea what it would it take to make it interesting enough to be "marketable".
I'd bet someone a pot of paint that it'd be easier to mimic pro-wrestling to make wargaming interesting, than to try to recreate the commentary and analysis that gets added to other games.
You are right, it all comes down to expensive equipment and engaging commentary. People watch arguably more boring stuff
I'm not sure those are really directly comparable. Golf and bowling may both take a while to complete a game but they are easily broken down into smaller, bite-size chunks that are meaningful and impactful on their own. Golf, for example, usually covers each set of shots by the players on a hole, then jumps to a different group of players. I'm not sure there's really a suitable comparison between a golf hole and an activity in 40k.
Chess can be played in rapid or bullet formats, which are popular for streaming and only take 5-10 minutes for a complete game. For the more traditional, classical, chess format the time tends to be filled with in-depth analysis. You could do something similar in 40k, but the problem there is there isn't the same downtime in a 40k game to do the analysis. Stuff's always happening, it's just often not very exciting.
as you say it can jump from one table to another one, because golf is also terribly boring to watch.
With GW coming round to promoting their Primaris range via events/event organisers/'big time players' there is an avenue to communicate directly with Nottingham about shenanigans.
as you say it can jump from one table to another one, because golf is also terribly boring to watch.
Golf isn't really my thing so I agree it's not the most exciting sport to watch. There are those who clearly disagree, just as there may be for people who like watching 40k streams. However, I'm not sure what you propose is really directly analogous with golf coverage. In golf each shot is a self-contained event that you don't really need any context to understand. Yes, there might be more pressure on a specific shot due to the circumstances of the tournament, but a good shot is a good shot regardless of that. In 40k I'm not sure what discrete 30-60 second moment in time would equate to that. Even resolving the shooting for a single unit could take longer than that and a single unit shooting still probably isn't as interesting to watch or as impactful to the overall game as a single shot in golf.
I'm not quite sure how many us watched the LVO finals almost a year ago - but I don't think it was an extremely small number. To be fair I think the livestreams do suffer from the issues raised, and I think could be much improved with better camera work and commentators.
As we see, while its not quite the same as a live match, the number of 40k battle report channels on youtube seems to constantly expand - as I think do the views. Which suggests some demand is there.
Yes, it probably is more like golf - or Test cricket - than something where every second over several hours counts (or, rather, has the illusion of counting). But somehow these things do continue to exist and find their way on to TV.
I don't know whether you'll be booking out stadiums in order for people to watch 40k on big screens. But then the fact people do this for say League or Hearthstone is a bit beyond me. I think Formula 1 has to be one of the most boring sports in the world. Different people like different things.
Tyel wrote: I think Formula 1 has to be one of the most boring sports in the world. Different people like different things.
I agree that some tracks are incredibly boring since they are badly designed but unfortunately the amount of exciting tracks are reduced each year. A bit ironic that Covid gave us one of the most memorable seasons in recent history.
Back to 40k, it seems to be growing in demand. I think once GW decides there is money to be made and invests in camera work and commentators, with TableTop Titans being the bare minimum quality threshold, Then I can see 40k live streams becoming more and more popular. Having $30,000 worth of equipment and help with the YouTube algorithm from working at Google, is not something most 40k YT channels will never get.
I don't think we'll see widespread live streams with massive audiences, but that's more to do with limited interest in 40K in general society. We're fairly niche. Having said that, video battle reports have taken leaps and bounds. I'm seeing two broad groups having some success on Youtube etc.
First we have the hobby room batrep with the host as one of the players, recording the battle and focusing on certain aspects. If the host is engaging and the editing is good then people will invest the time (one or two hours) to watch. Winters SEO, Hellstorm, The Glacial Geek and others give you a fun vicarious 40K experience. Very timely during the various lockdowns! Then we have the studio based BATREPs such as Tabletop Tactics, MiniWargaming (perhaps a hybrid) and 40K in 40 Minutes. These folks will have multiple camera angles, special effects and sometimes a commentator. I will admit to spending some of my free time of watching these BATREPs. Of course there are the very popular hobby channels such as Midwinter Minis, Goobertown and Squidmar. So there is an industry of sorts out there!
While I would not likely watch too many live stream tournament games, I would watch well produced studio versions of top tables if they could film it at the venue and then edit/post a few days later. I venture that there is a segment of our community that does not actually play any real games, but rather watches BATREPs, theory-hammers and posts on forums. Sometimes life gets in the way and people can't game (new kids, move to a remote area etc). The video BATREP industry gives those folks (and I've been one them from time to time) and outlet to remain connected.
As for the competitive scene, there is absolutely skill involved to place well consistently. There is scope for shenanigans, but that it true for any competitive endeavor and does not take away from the skill-level required to come out on top of a six-round tourney.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I don't think we'll see widespread live streams with massive audiences, but that's more to do with limited interest in 40K in general society. We're fairly niche. Having said that, video battle reports have taken leaps and bounds. I'm seeing two broad groups having some success on Youtube etc.
First we have the hobby room batrep with the host as one of the players, recording the battle and focusing on certain aspects. If the host is engaging and the editing is good then people will invest the time (one or two hours) to watch. Winters SEO, Hellstorm, The Glacial Geek and others give you a fun vicarious 40K experience. Very timely during the various lockdowns! Then we have the studio based BATREPs such as Tabletop Tactics, MiniWargaming (perhaps a hybrid) and 40K in 40 Minutes. These folks will have multiple camera angles, special effects and sometimes a commentator. I will admit to spending some of my free time of watching these BATREPs. Of course there are the very popular hobby channels such as Midwinter Minis, Goobertown and Squidmar. So there is an industry of sorts out there!
While I would not likely watch too many live stream tournament games, I would watch well produced studio versions of top tables if they could film it at the venue and then edit/post a few days later. I venture that there is a segment of our community that does not actually play any real games, but rather watches BATREPs, theory-hammers and posts on forums. Sometimes life gets in the way and people can't game (new kids, move to a remote area etc). The video BATREP industry gives those folks (and I've been one them from time to time) and outlet to remain connected.
As for the competitive scene, there is absolutely skill involved to place well consistently. There is scope for shenanigans, but that it true for any competitive endeavor and does not take away from the skill-level required to come out on top of a six-round tourney.
Yeah I think GW is finally seeing the potential given MetaWatch and featuring some competitive players. It reminded of how Apple let Microsoft spent hundreds of millions of dollars into introducing tablets and changing the public perception only for Apple to introduce the ipad after Microsoft had laid the ground work.
GW is letting streamers, stores and everyone else spent hundreds of thousands of combined hours/money for years to prove the viability of competitive warhammer. I dont think it is something that will compete toe to toe with LoL but given what you mentioned about 250k+ subs channels, there is certainly a big enough market to become a bigger niche than it is now.
I think the bottom line is not enough people care about little toy soldiers being pushed around a table, compared to something like Golf, or Tennis, or even Madden, where at least people know the teams being used.
In addition, watching a 2-3 hour game via stream , to me, is like watching paint dry. Dan: "And here, Jim, we have Adam getting ready to launch his assault into the ork line. Oooh! He rolls a 3, that's not gonna make it!" "
Jim: "That'll leave them out of position for sure."
Dan: "But wait! He's got a strategem! He gets to re-roll! Wow, what a surprise! He rolls a 9, he made it!"
Jim: "That'll leave a mark!"
20 minutes later.
Dan: "The chargers have moved, and the orks have counter charged, and everyone has shuffled around, now its time for the attack roll. He picks up his 60 dice... Wow! I dont know how many hit, its a carpet of poorly contrasting pips. We'll have to wait. Hold on, he's got an ability, and he's picking up his misses. He rolls another half a carpet full of dice! Oooh! Still no idea how many that is from here. Ok, its 59 hits! Let's move on to wounds.... "
Jim: zzzzzz
Yeah, that sounds like a blast. There is a reason that even with Madden, they play like 5 minute quarters. No one would tune in to watch some guy run the same exact play with specially selected bonus button ability at RB for 15 minutes a quarter as an esport.
Cruentus wrote: I think the bottom line is not enough people care about little toy soldiers being pushed around a table, compared to something like Golf, or Tennis, or even Madden, where at least people know the teams being used.
You can use that same argument for any non-telivisionised mass media event. I'm sure if greyhound racing got on the TV and got prime time on BBC2 and the like it would pick up in popularity and people would start to know "top dogs" and such.
Well, a big misconception is that Esports are always natural and as long as you have a good competitive game it will automatically become a big Esport.
Fact of the matter is, most of the major Esports still currently running on healthy numbers are being propped up by their parent companies with constant cash injections. Dota 2 and CSGO are the only ones in recent years to actually have somewhat organic growth and an independent scene. But, if Riot didn't put obscene amounts of money into the LoL pro-scene then there would be no LoL pro-scene, because the game just isn't that competitively viable and never has been. It's actual ratio of players to Esport watchers is embarrassingly low and that's even if those viewer numbers can be trusted (since Riot are well known to use bots to inflate numbers while also having major influence over Twitch). Same with basically every Esport Blizzard themselves have tried to cultivate and push. Overwatch's viewer and player numbers were even more shocking, even after ActiBlizz dumped $20 million into making the Overwatch League, but it at least had some viewership until it obviously became too financially unviable. The game just wasn't built for competitive play on a fundamental level and the majority of people playing the game reacted negatively to its push. CoD is much the same. You might see a massive media blitz for some random event every now and then, paid for and constructed by Activision, but outside of those the CoD pro scene is basically a joke.
Quite frankly, even if GW did pump tons of money into this sort of thing for 40k I think it would basically pan out like the above examples. The game just isn't a great competitive game to watch or play and I'm saying this as someone who plays and watches it competitively. I like it, sure, but average viewer numbers of the stuff that already goes on kind of bares this out. To be fair I think there's actually a ton of people into playing the game competitively but it doesn't work as a spectator experience even for them. Even if you sort the balance issues and unclear rules out (which honestly 9th is overall fairly good when it comes to these) you're still left with a clunky, slow-paced experience where it can be difficult to tell what's going on to anyone observing the game and not actually playing it themselves. Even the best production values in the world when it comes to livestreaming batreps with Tabletop Titans it's often just completely unclear as to the state of the table from an overhead shot. Certain games can survive and do somewhat well in terms of people watching, but they probably lose their parent company gigantic amounts of money to keep supporting; I recall this certainly being the case with Riot and LoL. With 40k I don't think it could sustain enough numbers to justify the investment.
Bosskelot wrote: It's actual ratio of players to Esport watchers is embarrassingly low and that's even if those viewer numbers can be trusted (since Riot are well known to use bots to inflate numbers while also having major influence over Twitch)
Cruentus wrote: I think the bottom line is not enough people care about little toy soldiers being pushed around a table, compared to something like Golf, or Tennis, or even Madden, where at least people know the teams being used.
You can use that same argument for any non-telivisionised mass media event. I'm sure if greyhound racing got on the TV and got prime time on BBC2 and the like it would pick up in popularity and people would start to know "top dogs" and such.
or the spelling B contests. I mean there is so much garbage out there getting TV time that it is not inconceivable that 40k should get some. As the meme says, it might be trash but it is our trash lol
GW has games that would work well for streaming competitions. Underworlds and Bloodbow (maybe killteam but it seems dead) are quick with tight rule sets and relative balance. Many decision points that can wildly influence the game. Unfortunately, they have much smaller player bases then flagship games of 40k or AoS.
40k and AoS take so long, rules are sloppy, balance is worse. Game deciding decisions happen early with hours of gameplay wrap up to follow. Game streams are popular, but I wonder how many people skip around to interesting points rather then watch for a few hours.
I can't think of anything worse for 40k than reinforcing the idea that it's meant to be played 'competitively'. That's what GW supporting an eSport league would do.
I would genuinely be more interested in watching narrative scenarios with an ongoing story.
Customised armies with nice paint jobs, nice terrain, interesting custom scenarios and a sense of progression and growth through the narrative with some engaging and happy players enjoying themselves is something I would love to watch in a well edited video format.
Livestreams of people taking the game very seriously wouldn't really be entertaining for me.
MegaDombro wrote: GW has games that would work well for streaming competitions. Underworlds and Bloodbow (maybe killteam but it seems dead) are quick with tight rule sets and relative balance.
With 9th pushing for Combat Patrol and their boxes, it really makes no sense to get people started in kill team when full blown 40k in combat patrol is the perfect gateway.
I think lastly, the hobby itself does not lend itself to be super competitive and mainstream. How long does it take to get an army "battle ready" so you dont lose 10 pts? Plus add the cost of the models itself. It would be good for them to release combat patrols with paints, and maybe some dice and a ruler.
Allow people to buy 2 boxes of whatever armies they got. They can continue releasing box sets but having combat patrols for all armies would go a long way.
Battle Ready for 40k takes a while. The more streamlined games (Underworlds, Bloodbowl, Killteam) have much less hobby time to get started.
If there is going to be a push for eSports, or streaming games, it seems like it should start from those games, not 40k/AoS, even though they have larger player bases.
If Kill Team is just a gateway into 40k, then yes Combat Patrol is better, but as it was, it played much different then a 40k game.
I do not think that live streaming of gameplay would be very exciting. However, it it were edited down, some informational graphics placed, and some witty commentary, you could easily have something that people would watch. I am sure they said the same thing about televised poker. If you don't like it, its boring. But, if you are into poker and love the nuance, it can be riveting.
Televised 40K could be the same thing. With that said, I also agree that the more narrative battles with well painted armies and terrain would be better suited to this. To REALLY make it worth watching, I would offer up Cotton McKnight and Pepper Brooks doing play by play and color would be amazing.
It's 40K, because 40K is the biggest. Post-COVID, the most tickets sold to Front-Line-Gaming tournaments and similar events. The most clicks on strategy videos and podcasts and such to prepare for the events. The most "coaching clients" to further prepare for those events. The most paint-studio orders to get the army ready for those events.
If real-life Thanos showed up and snapped the most popular miniatures game from 40K into the Walking Dead Miniatures game or whatever, that entire gaggle of "competitive folks" around FLG/AoW, whatever would switch to that game instead. Whether the game itself (or its presentation in streams, etc..) is suited for it is completely irrelevant. What matters is doing it for the game with the biggest audience.
40k and AoS take so long, rules are sloppy, balance is worse. Game deciding decisions happen early with hours of gameplay wrap up to follow. Game streams are popular, but I wonder how many people skip around to interesting points rather then watch for a few hours.
I'm quite guilty of watching intros and army breakdown/displays and either shutting it off, skipping to the end to see who won, or wandering off for a couple hours only to come back and realize they're still on the first turn....
There's room for long form content but as most have pointed out, 4 hour live streams from one camera angle aren't exactly thrilling to watch, and that's even if it's a "global" view aka wide enough to see the whole board, and often it isn't, it's a tight shaky meandering camera thats more obsessed with dice rolls than pretty miniatures, and that's the final point, people will live steam a video for 4 hours of miniatures with 0 hours of painting on boards that aren't exactly inspiring. Which speaks to the concerns about esports. As long as the hobby side doesn't lose out entirely, ie there's at least a visual reason to tune in for eye candy, possible even pre-roll clips to fill dead air showing off the beautiful models or terrain. Competition is fine but if it comes at the cost of ignoring or glossing over all the other aspects that bring people into the hobby it just seems doomed to fail. I think for me it's more about standards, like fully painted armies and terrain. I want there to be a reason someone who jet sets around the country competing at least has an army that doesn't look like crap.
Nurglitch wrote: Must resist urge to shill Titanomachina on merits of speed and competitive space...
Shill away. Quick search revealed it took have a look and feel to Giga-Robo, a gem from my last Adepticon go around.
Speed and competitiveness don't seem to be big draws in the mini game industry. 40k is the biggest, and those are probably its weakest features.
Awesome! One of my design goals was to have a multiplayer game that could be played in an hour or so, and allow players to do Warhammer-style list-building allowing for a 5-round tournament in a single day. Still trying to figure out ways to produce it as a physical hard-copy, but I figure the more people I show the Tabletop Simulator version, the better chance of developing that core of competitive players. I mean, I also prefer having a game like this be about an hour to play, but the faster it can play comfortably the better it seems. Speed and competitiveness aren't a premium, as you say, but pacing and cool moments are, and I think Titanomachina hits both notes.
I should add that I also completely removed dice, although perhaps amusingly I've used dice for buildings in both the TTS implementation and a hard-copy prototype. There's something to be said, I think, from the perspective of watching the game to see a card played and then the following action carried out without mucking around with dice.
It's not because you make a coverage of your battle reports by streaming that it makes it an e-sport. It's just media coverage, in the end.
I feel like there is a confusion about the definition of what actually makes an e-sport. I'm not especially sure even Magic the Gathering being played IRL can be defined as such...even Wizard of the Coast talk more of a "Pro league" more than e-sport in itself. The e-sport version only applies to the digital version. We have no such thing for Warhammer 40k.
If the question is about making a "Pro-league" 40k the same way than MTG...I do believe the main obstacle is the time needed for the games. Otherwise, it's just a natural evolution of the competitive scene, to me. But aren't the international tournaments something very close to it in the end ?
40k does not have a stable meta, stable strategies, or even *coherent* rule design. It is a game where it is possible to win by out-rulelawyering or by exploiting rules loopholes that should have been caught in the most rudimentary playtesting. This is a game where "the most important rule" is to roll-off to determine if a particular interpretation of a rule is correct, and you might as well pirate your Codex for most the rules will be patched or errata'd the next week anyway.
(Note: There is just a little bit of salt behind this snark).
On a more serious note, the game puts a lot of emphasis on first-turn, or other "low-quantity/high-impact rolls" (though not as extreme as, say, non-ITC D in 7th), such that winning the game becomes an abstract LARP of Russian Roulette. Tournaments need to create their own implementation of Objectives or victory conditions on a general basis, because GW also has a history of adding "random point scoring" for Maelstrom, just to make it so two players who are "tied" in terms of progress can end up not stalemating...
Don't forget that accidentally bumping the table so that something falls over and has to be placed again can affect the outcome Yeah, WH40K is less of a game and more of a "have fun moving toy soldiers around" experience, so it doesn't fit competitive requirements.
It's less accidently bumping the table that would be a concern as just moving models normally.
I see some truly ridiculous 6" moves in my games.
Calling up an umpire with a theodolite would be a necessary part of every small movement in the game were 40k to be viable in a major pro-setting.
That's why you need an umpire on each table to make on the spot judgement calls like any other sport. "No the model was here.." "That is not 6" move it back and try again."
If we want 40k to be treated as a sport we have to treat it as a sport.
Tygre wrote: That's why you need an umpire on each table to make on the spot judgement calls like any other sport. "No the model was here.." "That is not 6" move it back and try again."
If we want 40k to be treated as a sport we have to treat it as a sport.
Exactly, the only reason we don't do this now is there isn't enough money in the system for most events to have someone at every table so they have to float. Even when things are recorded using video it takes a report or such to make them check again after because its a lot of material for the handful of volunteers to go through etc...
Basically some of the issues we have are simply a result of the scale of things. If things scaled up to generate profits and incomes that would allow for more officials then things would tighten up. We might even see new tools for movement much like widgets and lasers have become popular.
That said there's always going to be a grey area and an aspect of sportsmanship in these competitions; its the nature of the beast.
Seriously, stop calling "sport" anything while it's irrelevant. E-sport was already stretching it, 40k isn't and will never be a sport in itself. Throwing dice on a table isn't the definition of physical activity. Sport doesn't mean "anything taken seriously and somewhat made professionnal / highly competitive".
Call it "competitive game" or "pro-league" if you want, but don't use words that have a definition for something they do not define.
About putting an arbiter at every table, it's actually possible...you just need the manpower for it. It's not especially a question of money, there are a lot of volunteers involved in tournaments after all. If you really want to make a high level "pro-league" 40k tournament, it just asks for an organization thought for it and it's perfectly conceivable.
The real question is "is it really worth it ?"
Even though it's indeed possible to train playing 40k and approach the game with a high level competitive mind, fact is a lot of its mechanisms are still ruled by randomness. It's not the most skilled player who wins, it's also the lucky one. It's the antithesis of sport, to me.
MegaDombro wrote: Battle Ready for 40k takes a while. The more streamlined games (Underworlds, Bloodbowl, Killteam) have much less hobby time to get started..
Yeah 40k 2k tournament scene is a money trap and a time sink, just like this store owner said in a competitive 40k Facebook group.
Overread wrote: I dunno if I can take a store owner seriously if they describe a core selling product "crap"
Gatcha Games (e.x. Fire Emblem Heroes) or other stuff with a P2W mechanic are like a certain South Park episode. It's not about getting $5 from 1000 people via microtransactions, but getting $1000 from 5 people. Those players that are willing to drop so much cash for that instant power spike? FEH forums call them "whales".
Overread wrote: I dunno if I can take a store owner seriously if they describe a core selling product "crap"
He very likely is not a fan of the game but sells it in his store because he understands 40k is a whale driven hobby. But he also sells other things that he probably likes much better.
It is no different from people going to a job that they aren't particularly passionate for, but it pays their bills and hobbies.
Overread wrote: I dunno if I can take a store owner seriously if they describe a core selling product "crap"
He very likely is not a fan of the game but sells it in his store because he understands 40k is a whale driven hobby. But he also sells other things that he probably likes much better.
It is no different from people going to a job that they aren't particularly passionate for, but it pays their bills and hobbies.
Yeah, but you don't tell the customers in your social media group that it's crap
Overread wrote: I dunno if I can take a store owner seriously if they describe a core selling product "crap"
He very likely is not a fan of the game but sells it in his store because he understands 40k is a whale driven hobby. But he also sells other things that he probably likes much better.
It is no different from people going to a job that they aren't particularly passionate for, but it pays their bills and hobbies.
Yeah, but you don't tell the customers in your social media group that it's crap
He is asserting dominance, basically T-Posing lol
"What are they going to do? Go play something else? "
Overread wrote: I dunno if I can take a store owner seriously if they describe a core selling product "crap"
He very likely is not a fan of the game but sells it in his store because he understands 40k is a whale driven hobby. But he also sells other things that he probably likes much better.
It is no different from people going to a job that they aren't particularly passionate for, but it pays their bills and hobbies.
Yeah, but you don't tell the customers in your social media group that it's crap
I know several shop owners who are honest about the stuff they sell, and are honest about 40k
LOTR is a more tactical game for sure, but it also suffers even more than 40k from most of the action being either painstakingly moving models or standing around planning how to painstakingly move models.
Small skirmish games likes Necromunda, Killteam, or Infinity I think have core gameplay much more suited to professional/competitive entertainment.
Decisions can be enacted and played out quickly and play switches back and worth quickly so the plays and counterplays are fairly obvious.
Similarly Bloodbowl or Underworlds for the same reasons.
Large scale games like 40k are just too slow to follow.
Maybe if they edit it back to their highlights. There's a Japanese guy I follow on Twitter that uses 40k models to tell Super Sentai stories, with special effects 'shopped into the pictures. Someone else, not sure if I follow, said today about the board game Tang Garden, said they enjoy it because each game was a diorama with a story, and I think 40k could do that with proper editing and coverage. Mind you, most miniatures games should do that, right?
Thing is, 40k and all it's darker grimier cousings (MTG, SW) all have really bad cheating scandals that rocked the professional foundation. Between deck fixing or trick shuffling in Magic, to judge fixing in SW, it's not really good to transition into main stream E-sports. 40k already has issues with cheating at every major, and several of the current "top" players in the meta are former outed cheaters. Say what you want about the FGC or the other E-sports markets, (FGC is scummy and full of trash human beings as a bad 4chan thread) but they at least aren't easy to cheat.
it's why we will likely never see e-sports competition of 40k. Same with other board games like DND.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Thing is, 40k and all it's darker grimier cousings (MTG, SW) all have really bad cheating scandals that rocked the professional foundation. Between deck fixing or trick shuffling in Magic, to judge fixing in SW, it's not really good to transition into main stream E-sports. 40k already has issues with cheating at every major, and several of the current "top" players in the meta are former outed cheaters. Say what you want about the FGC or the other E-sports markets, (FGC is scummy and full of trash human beings as a bad 4chan thread) but they at least aren't easy to cheat.
it's why we will likely never see e-sports competition of 40k. Same with other board games like DND.
I'm pretty sure 4Chan has less pedophiles than fighting games do.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Thing is, 40k and all it's darker grimier cousings (MTG, SW) all have really bad cheating scandals that rocked the professional foundation. Between deck fixing or trick shuffling in Magic, to judge fixing in SW, it's not really good to transition into main stream E-sports. 40k already has issues with cheating at every major, and several of the current "top" players in the meta are former outed cheaters. Say what you want about the FGC or the other E-sports markets, (FGC is scummy and full of trash human beings as a bad 4chan thread) but they at least aren't easy to cheat.
it's why we will likely never see e-sports competition of 40k. Same with other board games like DND.
I'm pretty sure 4Chan has less pedophiles than fighting games do.
I'm not sure but you may be right. Certainly less LTG types or homophobia.
Looks like a group of "Content Creators" are getting together for a tourney "No Retreat Legends" on a cruise ship in May: Winters SEO, Tabletop Tactics, MWG etc. Could be fun to watch, as the emphasis will likely be on fun, engaging content rather than super-competitive.
Its not even the fact that games are too slow, its that viewers don't know any information about the game unless they have the rulebook and codexes.
You can eventually figure out how Starcraft works if you watch it a couple times (gather resources to spend on troops, kill your enemy with the troops). But with 40k you won't know what dice they're rolling or why. I mean I don't know any of the new necron special rules or statlines so how would I know how a matchup is even supposed to play out? A monetary barrier to viewing is a big issue.
Also yea, games are slow and its easier to cheat than other esports. It was designed as a beer and pretzels past time. Warhammer has never been super balanced or competitive. Even tournaments are like 1% of the actual playerbase.
Don Savik wrote: Even tournaments are like 1% of the actual playerbase.
0.1%
Yeah it takes hours to figure whats going on. You dont have that burden with most esports
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Looks like a group of "Content Creators" are getting together for a tourney "No Retreat Legends" on a cruise ship in May: Winters SEO, Tabletop Tactics, MWG etc. Could be fun to watch, as the emphasis will likely be on fun, engaging content rather than super-competitive.
Not sure how advisable it would be to attend...but I might just watch on Youtube!
For reference on views etc, the Tabletop Tactics Batrep featuring Deathguard that went up last weekend has over 91K views to this point. There is a demand signal for content. Perhaps not livestreams of top tables, but a demand signal nonetheless.
I like the idea of competitive war-gaming "sport" (I won't say eSport ... because does it really qualify the "e" part?) and I hope it happens, but I can't see it happening with 40K at least.
The big problem is that it's a very expensive, monopolized product being sold by a single company. It's not chess.
The second reason is that the rules are constantly changing. There's a new edition every second or third year. It is of course price-gouging considering when I asked the question here, the "best" editions seem to be 3rd and 5th in most people's eyes. So they keep changing the rules ... just because they can and then you have to buy new books. That's never going to be a solid enough platform for a true competitive "sport".
I would love to see GW just settle on one rules-set and just saying, "this is it for the foreseeable future". Even if it is done in full knowledge that those rules will be very carefully modified, sculpted and tweaked over time. But still one solid base rule-set and no more "editions". That would provide the non-arbitrary fundamental base that you could use for a real competitive venture.
But as it is now, it will only ever be a miniature game hobby.
P.S. I honestly don't see "not knowing the rules" as a problem as far as this question goes. I barely know the rules and I've still been enjoying watching play-throughs. It's not exactly rocket science. Chess is far more complicated and requires far more skill and knowledge to understand what's going on, and it's the most popular board game in human history.
The issue with it being an e-sport is predominantly how complex it is for the players.
I watch TTT all the time, and almost every game the chat has to remind them of some rule that they've forgotten. Now imagine it's a tournament, where the chat isn't allowed to interfere/remind the players, and then imagine how many mistakes are made.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The issue with it being an e-sport is predominantly how complex it is for the players.
I watch TTT all the time, and almost every game the chat has to remind them of some rule that they've forgotten. Now imagine it's a tournament, where the chat isn't allowed to interfere/remind the players, and then imagine how many mistakes are made.
That would be partly solved by my post above. A consistent, non-arbitrary ruleset over the years. It will never be an "eSport" without that kind of fundamental base.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The issue with it being an e-sport is predominantly how complex it is for the players.
I watch TTT all the time, and almost every game the chat has to remind them of some rule that they've forgotten. Now imagine it's a tournament, where the chat isn't allowed to interfere/remind the players, and then imagine how many mistakes are made.
That would be partly solved by my post above. A consistent, non-arbitrary ruleset over the years. It will never be an "eSport" without that kind of fundamental base.
PieInTheSky wrote: I like the idea of competitive war-gaming "sport" (I won't say eSport ... because does it really qualify the "e" part?) and I hope it happens, but I can't see it happening with 40K at least.
The big problem is that it's a very expensive, monopolized product being sold by a single company. It's not chess.
The second reason is that the rules are constantly changing. There's a new edition every second or third year. It is of course price-gouging considering when I asked the question here, the "best" editions seem to be 3rd and 5th in most people's eyes. So they keep changing the rules ... just because they can and then you have to buy new books. That's never going to be a solid enough platform for a true competitive "sport".
Neither of these issues have really stopped Starcraft, Street Fighter, Overwatch, or anything else the trend is modeled after.
Yeah plus the costs to go pro for a wargamer in terms of the models are no different to those of a fan - its building an army. IF anything building a purely pro army is cheaper than most collectors build.
The only real costs are attending events and practice time - which is the same for any competitive event.
Hulksmash wrote: The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).
Genuine query: given the huge changes 40k has undergone over those 5+ editions, does this indicate there is some underlying "40k skill" that separates these players from everyone else, or is it down to the factors other people have pointed out above - mainly having the time, money and enthusiasm to chase the meta with a likeminded bunch of people?
As far as 40k as an e-sport, I think it's a complete non-starter. There simply isn't enough skill or depth involved in the the game and it's too unbalanced to hold enough people's interests at the more competitive end of the game. Crucially, it's also really, really bad as a streamed experience, at least in the way it's done now. Games are too long and involve too many dice rolls and the visual spectacle is often lacking too.
I mean, time and enthusiasm is something that's needed to be good at anything unless you're a prodigy. But reasonably I know half a dozen people who have been winning best general/best overall when BP was king since it became a thing in 4th edition but mostly 5th edition. Most of them have taken breaks here and there from the hobby due to life or what not but whenever they play they are normally in the running. Some of them literally play less than 50 games a year (me) including all RTT's and GT's they go to. Some play a lot more. Most of them don't "chase" the meta that hard. There was some chasing with formations in 7th but honestly most haven't shifted to heavily from army to army or anything since or before. Unless you ever played nids. Then you've definitely just switched armies if you want to compete cause god they're terrible They might tweak their army and add units here and there but that's no different than green fees, upgrading clubs, or driving range costs for people quasi competitive with golf. Are they paying to win?
The basic skills do translate from one edition to another. It's not like the game is massively different than 3rd right now. Most of the "huge" changes have been actual tweaks. Even the shift from 7th to 8th was more just a reset than a truly massive change. List building is a skill and then on the table performance is a skill. Gotta manage both but not individually. It has to be done togther. Like it or not skill is a factor. Telling yourself it isn't is just making yourself feel better about not being able to bridge that gap. Not that it's an amazing skill or makes someone at 40k better than anyone else outside of 40k. It's just another skill. I don't claim my aunt pays to win at baking contests held at county fairs because she's better at baking than I'll ever be. I just accept it's a skill that I won't have at that level and can enjoy it at the level I do have it.
That said I don't understand 40k as an e-sport. There is zero entertainment value as anything other than background and it moves to slowly to cool plays to really be picked up. The sheer amount of dice rolling is nuts and it's not generally able to be followed on screen. Underworlds I could see working of all GW's games because it's always just a couple of dice which means it's easy to see and follow with specific rigs.
All you have to do is compare 40k to another competitive game to see how little decision making is involved and how it is outdone in every measurable aspect of gameplay.
Spoken like someone who is really, really terrible at 40k.
You speak as if being awesome at the ultimate Dorritos & neck-beard pass time is something to aspire to...
PieInTheSky wrote: I like the idea of competitive war-gaming "sport" (I won't say eSport ... because does it really qualify the "e" part?) and I hope it happens, but I can't see it happening with 40K at least.
The big problem is that it's a very expensive, monopolized product being sold by a single company. It's not chess.
The second reason is that the rules are constantly changing. There's a new edition every second or third year. It is of course price-gouging considering when I asked the question here, the "best" editions seem to be 3rd and 5th in most people's eyes. So they keep changing the rules ... just because they can and then you have to buy new books. That's never going to be a solid enough platform for a true competitive "sport".
Neither of these issues have really stopped Starcraft, Street Fighter, Overwatch, or anything else the trend is modeled after.
They don't apply in the same way. Those things are both far cheaper and much more consistent.
PieInTheSky wrote: I like the idea of competitive war-gaming "sport" (I won't say eSport ... because does it really qualify the "e" part?) and I hope it happens, but I can't see it happening with 40K at least.
The big problem is that it's a very expensive, monopolized product being sold by a single company. It's not chess.
The second reason is that the rules are constantly changing. There's a new edition every second or third year. It is of course price-gouging considering when I asked the question here, the "best" editions seem to be 3rd and 5th in most people's eyes. So they keep changing the rules ... just because they can and then you have to buy new books. That's never going to be a solid enough platform for a true competitive "sport".
Neither of these issues have really stopped Starcraft, Street Fighter, Overwatch, or anything else the trend is modeled after.
They don't apply in the same way. Those things are both far cheaper and much more consistent.
In the age of monetized microtransaction content, Fighters passes and all things DLC, I don't think that's really true. Between the game, the extras, the console and a competitive quality joystick; its not hard to hit over a grand if you're in the esports scene for fighting games. If you're in a PC games genre you're probably spending even more for top end hardware. Both demand the best connection money can buy. Paying the base cost for most esports games gets you about as far as making an army out of the starter box.
PieInTheSky wrote: I like the idea of competitive war-gaming "sport" (I won't say eSport ... because does it really qualify the "e" part?) and I hope it happens, but I can't see it happening with 40K at least.
The big problem is that it's a very expensive, monopolized product being sold by a single company. It's not chess.
The second reason is that the rules are constantly changing. There's a new edition every second or third year. It is of course price-gouging considering when I asked the question here, the "best" editions seem to be 3rd and 5th in most people's eyes. So they keep changing the rules ... just because they can and then you have to buy new books. That's never going to be a solid enough platform for a true competitive "sport".
Neither of these issues have really stopped Starcraft, Street Fighter, Overwatch, or anything else the trend is modeled after.
They don't apply in the same way. Those things are both far cheaper and much more consistent.
In the age of monetized microtransaction content, Fighters passes and all things DLC, I don't think that's really true. Between the game, the extras, the console and a competitive quality joystick; its not hard to hit over a grand if you're in the esports scene for fighting games. If you're in a PC games genre you're probably spending even more for top end hardware. Both demand the best connection money can buy. Paying the base cost for most esports games gets you about as far as making an army out of the starter box.
You are probably right.
I just don't know enough about it. It just strikes me in my ignorance at least that changing the rules around every few years is going to be detrimental to the formation of a serious professional level competition. I would assume there has to be some stability. But then again, what would I know about it?
PieInTheSky wrote: The big problem is that it's a very expensive, monopolized product being sold by a single company. It's not chess.
The second reason is that the rules are constantly changing.
But as it is now, it will only ever be a miniature game hobby.
those were good points. Being an overpriced monopolized product is indeed a huge reason that will hold it back. It does feel like it is a minis hobby with a game aspect attached to it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I watch TTT all the time, and almost every game the chat has to remind them of some rule that they've forgotten. Now imagine it's a tournament, where the chat isn't allowed to interfere/remind the players, and then imagine how many mistakes are made.
I did notice that quite a bit on their Channel. So if guys that do this quite a bit can't keep track of their 3 or 4 armies they play each, it shows that the amount of rules being added, taken away and modified are just a bit too much.
PieInTheSky wrote: I like the idea of competitive war-gaming "sport" (I won't say eSport ... because does it really qualify the "e" part?) and I hope it happens, but I can't see it happening with 40K at least.
The big problem is that it's a very expensive, monopolized product being sold by a single company. It's not chess.
The second reason is that the rules are constantly changing. There's a new edition every second or third year. It is of course price-gouging considering when I asked the question here, the "best" editions seem to be 3rd and 5th in most people's eyes. So they keep changing the rules ... just because they can and then you have to buy new books. That's never going to be a solid enough platform for a true competitive "sport".
Neither of these issues have really stopped Starcraft, Street Fighter, Overwatch, or anything else the trend is modeled after.
They don't apply in the same way. Those things are both far cheaper and much more consistent.
In the age of monetized microtransaction content, Fighters passes and all things DLC, I don't think that's really true. Between the game, the extras, the console and a competitive quality joystick; its not hard to hit over a grand if you're in the esports scene for fighting games. If you're in a PC games genre you're probably spending even more for top end hardware. Both demand the best connection money can buy. Paying the base cost for most esports games gets you about as far as making an army out of the starter box.
You are probably right.
I just don't know enough about it. It just strikes me in my ignorance at least that changing the rules around every few years is going to be detrimental to the formation of a serious professional level competition. I would assume there has to be some stability. But then again, what would I know about it?
but he is comparing apples to oranges, while also not factoring the amount of time required to hobby a meta competitive army (so something around 3-4k points).
Even before you have painted the army, you are looking at well over a thousand just on models. Add the paint, books, but also factor in the hobby at a minimum hourly wage rate to make your army "battle ready" and you are likely looking at well over $2,000-3,000. Also comparing these to people trying to make a living in esports, is a stretch. How many people make a living off 40k vs esports? most people are looking for a competitive casual hobby, you can spend $1,200-1,600 and get a solid computer that you can game with but also used it for other stuff, and even use it to make money. Your plastic toy army cant do any of that.
There's no question 40K is ludicriously over-priced, which is why I'm so tentative to get into it. I might pick up an old 5th edition rule book, strip down some second hand old models from eBay and make up a couple of little skirmish armies, treat it like a home board game for rainy days and my own friends. But without a quantum shift in attitude from GW there's now way I'm going to start a competitive army with the latest edition and latest models and go out looking for strangers to play against at the local shop or anything. By the time I've finished the army and learned the rules they're liable to release a new edition with new rules and new over priced miniatures in a different scale.
PieInTheSky wrote: There's no question 40K is ludicriously over-priced, which is why I'm so tentative to get into it. I might pick up an old 5th edition rule book, strip down some second hand old models from eBay and make up a couple of little skirmish armies, treat it like a home board game for rainy days and my own friends. But without a quantum shift in attitude from GW there's now way I'm going to start a competitive army with the latest edition and latest models and go out looking for strangers to play against at the local shop or anything. By the time I've finished the army and learned the rules they're liable to release a new edition with new rules and new over priced miniatures in a different scale.
I would still get into it but I would have def would have remained at 2 armies. I think you can still get into it, the lore is cool, a lot of people are cool (stay away from the neckbeards), if you like marines buy the indomitus rerelease and paint the army without chapter markings. You can change chapters around without buying new models. If you just stick with one army and not meta chase aka buy 12 erads+12 Bladeguard then you can likely keep your costs pretty low. It's the army hopping, where you never finish stuff and you never really get to play an army well enough that can get expensive.
Take advantage of TTS, I know people who dont own a single model and yet play 40kTTS regularly.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Not sure how advisable it would be to attend...but I might just watch on Youtube!
For reference on views etc, the Tabletop Tactics Batrep featuring Deathguard that went up last weekend has over 91K views to this point. There is a demand signal for content. Perhaps not livestreams of top tables, but a demand signal nonetheless.
I think there's a demand for well produced and editted content and less a demand for a topdown can't see gak stream. . But I may be projecting my personal preferences too much. Honestly, I'd rather recorded games with editing and camera work than live games.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Not sure how advisable it would be to attend...but I might just watch on Youtube!
For reference on views etc, the Tabletop Tactics Batrep featuring Deathguard that went up last weekend has over 91K views to this point. There is a demand signal for content. Perhaps not livestreams of top tables, but a demand signal nonetheless.
I think there's a demand for well produced and editted content and less a demand for a topdown can't see gak stream. . But I may be projecting my personal preferences too much. Honestly, I'd rather recorded games with editing and camera work than live games.
Another factor not considered is player personality. The guys at TTT are for the most part genuinely entertaining, funny, charismatic and those that aren't so much still bring a lot to the table and are endearing at the very least etc etc, on the other hand, I do not find such an allure to watch other channels, frontline gaming for example does not do it for me whatsoever, and other channels can be hit and miss, miniwargaming can be a bit all over the place to be honest in terms of personalities, some of the guys I inherently don't like watching, some I specifically don't like watching when playing certain armies as they tend to get a bit well, WAAC and obnoxious.
Basically, you cannot just look at viewing numbers for one outlet to suggest there is a strong demand for content across the board when the product from that one outlet has many many reasons other than just popularity of the game for it's growth and strong viewing figures.
I think 'e' sport style 40k could be so so so awful to watch just because of the evident interaction of the player personality within the game. It doesn't matter in computer games etc if the player has the personality of a rock as they don't really need it other than communication to team members and the speed of the games. The personality of certain players could get so grating over the period of time of a game that you wouldn't be inclined to watch that person again. Harsh I know, but when it comes to entertainment and presenting, personality and charisma are very important, and the players are inherently presenters in games, whether they want to be or not.
Just my 2 cents anyway.
SN battle reports is another channel that puts out a good well rounded product also I think, with the guys being good on the camera. Hellstorm also however it is a bit too competitive for my personal tastes all the time but still it works.
I agree that a montage/summary may work, otherwise watching a game of 40k is akin to watching a bycycle race... You can get a look while you're doing something else, bit is not the essence of captivating content.
Almost any other Specialists games in MUCH more suited for becoming an entertainment. And, compared to e-sport as commonly intended, there is also an additional bonus in terms of long-term consequences (think about a Bloodbowl championship: your heroes may die. That can't happen in any videogame, where any game is a separate one).
Short single game, emerging storytelling, simple rules, few dice rolls... There are better GW game for that. 40k in this case is a victim of its own success: it's a sledgehammer that people want to use as a scalpel.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And to add about personality: if you need a showmanship and personality to create an engaging content, well the thing you're doing is probably the wrong one.
Showmanship can make a tax refund engaging. That doesn't mean that tax refund are esport.
Cybtroll wrote: I agree that a montage/summary may work, otherwise watching a game of 40k is akin to watching a bycycle race... You can get a look while you're doing something else, bit is not the essence of captivating content.
Almost any other Specialists games in MUCH more suited for becoming an entertainment. And, compared to e-sport as commonly intended, there is also an additional bonus in terms of long-term consequences (think about a Bloodbowl championship: your heroes may die. That can't happen in any videogame, where any game is a separate one).
Short single game, emerging storytelling, simple rules, few dice rolls... There are better GW game for that. 40k in this case is a victim of its own success: it's a sledgehammer that people want to use as a scalpel.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And to add about personality: if you need a showmanship and personality to create an engaging content, well the thing you're doing is probably the wrong one.
Showmanship can make a tax refund engaging. That doesn't mean that tax refund are esport.
On the flip side of that, you can have the potential to be the best informed and knowledgeable teacher on the planet, if you cannot engage the people you are trying to inform, it will fall on deaf ears.... Personality and charisma is important, I know people don't like that but it is.
Obviously commentators could negate this need, but I don't know how you could logistically cover a 40k tournament with many many commentators or fewer dedicated multitasking commentators to breach this issue. Tournaments wouldn't be able to be very large at all. It would just really have to be well edited and packaged summaries as stated above.
Cybtroll wrote: I agree that a montage/summary may work, otherwise watching a game of 40k is akin to watching a bycycle race... You can get a look while you're doing something else, bit is not the essence of captivating content.
Almost any other Specialists games in MUCH more suited for becoming an entertainment. And, compared to e-sport as commonly intended, there is also an additional bonus in terms of long-term consequences (think about a Bloodbowl championship: your heroes may die. That can't happen in any videogame, where any game is a separate one).
Short single game, emerging storytelling, simple rules, few dice rolls... There are better GW game for that. 40k in this case is a victim of its own success: it's a sledgehammer that people want to use as a scalpel.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And to add about personality: if you need a showmanship and personality to create an engaging content, well the thing you're doing is probably the wrong one.
Showmanship can make a tax refund engaging. That doesn't mean that tax refund are esport.
On the flip side of that, you can have the potential to be the best informed and knowledgeable teacher on the planet, if you cannot engage the people you are trying to inform, it will fall on deaf ears.... Personality and charisma is important, I know people don't like that but it is.
Obviously commentators could negate this need, but I don't know how you could logistically cover a 40k tournament with many many commentators or fewer dedicated multitasking commentators to breach this issue. Tournaments wouldn't be able to be very large at all. It would just really have to be well edited and packaged summaries as stated above.
You'd only really need commentators for 2-3 tables - probably 1 or 2 at the top tables and maybe a specific match-up or weird army pulled out of the field for the other commentary. Even then I just don't think the visuals are engaging enough, certainly not in the way they're currently presented on stream. That's why edited content is usually better received. I still think one of the other problems is even knowledgeable commentators can't keep track of what's happening on the table because 40k has so many dice rolls it's almost impossible to keep up.
There was a comparison to Starcraft or Streetfighter 2 earlier and I think the key difference with those - especially fighting games - is they're really easy to follow even for people who know next to nothing about the game. I may not understand the nuances of match-ups and frame advantage in SF2 but I get the idea is to beat the other guy up until their health is gone and I can get good visual representations of who's being more successful at that and how. In 40k so much of the "action" is obscured by dice rolls and a requirement for at least some substantial knowledge of the game rules I just don't see it being attractive to an outside audience. Even a lot of 40k players probably wouldn't be interested, either because the presentation of the game isn't up to scratch or because it's fundamentally not that exciting to watch a game of 40k for a lot of people.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Not sure how advisable it would be to attend...but I might just watch on Youtube!
For reference on views etc, the Tabletop Tactics Batrep featuring Deathguard that went up last weekend has over 91K views to this point. There is a demand signal for content. Perhaps not livestreams of top tables, but a demand signal nonetheless.
I think there's a demand for well produced and editted content and less a demand for a topdown can't see gak stream. . But I may be projecting my personal preferences too much. Honestly, I'd rather recorded games with editing and camera work than live games.
Another factor not considered is player personality. The guys at TTT are for the most part genuinely entertaining, funny, charismatic and those that aren't so much still bring a lot to the table and are endearing at the very least etc etc, on the other hand, I do not find such an allure to watch other channels, frontline gaming for example does not do it for me whatsoever, and other channels can be hit and miss, miniwargaming can be a bit all over the place to be honest in terms of personalities, some of the guys I inherently don't like watching, some I specifically don't like watching when playing certain armies as they tend to get a bit well, WAAC and obnoxious.
I agree with that TTT personalities blend really well and are pretty entertaining. I believe Adrian went to Acting School so it would make sense. Some of other channels that you mentioned are just meh, and some of the personalities are kind of bland.
When you think about being the exact same content but different personalities is like streamers that play the same game but some are more entertaining than others. So it might be more of a demand of not bland personalities in 40k rather than 40k content
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Not sure how advisable it would be to attend...but I might just watch on Youtube!
For reference on views etc, the Tabletop Tactics Batrep featuring Deathguard that went up last weekend has over 91K views to this point. There is a demand signal for content. Perhaps not livestreams of top tables, but a demand signal nonetheless.
I think there's a demand for well produced and editted content and less a demand for a topdown can't see gak stream. . But I may be projecting my personal preferences too much. Honestly, I'd rather recorded games with editing and camera work than live games.
Another factor not considered is player personality. The guys at TTT are for the most part genuinely entertaining, funny, charismatic and those that aren't so much still bring a lot to the table and are endearing at the very least etc etc, on the other hand, I do not find such an allure to watch other channels, frontline gaming for example does not do it for me whatsoever, and other channels can be hit and miss, miniwargaming can be a bit all over the place to be honest in terms of personalities, some of the guys I inherently don't like watching, some I specifically don't like watching when playing certain armies as they tend to get a bit well, WAAC and obnoxious.
Basically, you cannot just look at viewing numbers for one outlet to suggest there is a strong demand for content across the board when the product from that one outlet has many many reasons other than just popularity of the game for it's growth and strong viewing figures.
I think 'e' sport style 40k could be so so so awful to watch just because of the evident interaction of the player personality within the game. It doesn't matter in computer games etc if the player has the personality of a rock as they don't really need it other than communication to team members and the speed of the games. The personality of certain players could get so grating over the period of time of a game that you wouldn't be inclined to watch that person again. Harsh I know, but when it comes to entertainment and presenting, personality and charisma are very important, and the players are inherently presenters in games, whether they want to be or not.
Just my 2 cents anyway.
SN battle reports is another channel that puts out a good well rounded product also I think, with the guys being good on the camera. Hellstorm also however it is a bit too competitive for my personal tastes all the time but still it works.
Talent's not an issue for casting tournaments. GW and FLG both have good talent and a willingness to hire great talent. It's production that is the hurdle.
They might tweak their army and add units here and there but that's no different than green fees, upgrading clubs, or driving range costs for people quasi competitive with golf. Are they paying to win?
. But I may be projecting my personal preferences too much. Honestly, I'd rather recorded games with editing and camera work than live games.
