Why 40k as it is cant work with E-sports values

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Unit1126PLL**

PieInTheSky wrote:
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.

Well, yes, but this is GW we're talking about.

**LunarSol**

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.

**Overread**

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.

**PieInTheSky**

ERJAK wrote:
Irkjoe wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
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...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunarSol wrote:
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.

**LunarSol**

PieInTheSky wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunarSol wrote:
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**

LunarSol wrote:
PieInTheSky wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunarSol wrote:
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?

**gundam**

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PieInTheSky wrote:
LunarSol wrote:
PieInTheSky wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunarSol wrote:
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.

**PieInTheSky**

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.

**gundam**

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 40k TTS regularly.

**stratigo**

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.

**endlesswaltz123**

stratigo wrote:
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.

**Cybtroll**

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.

**endlesswaltz123**

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.

**Slipspace**

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
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.

**gundam**

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
stratigo wrote:
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

**stratigo**

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
stratigo wrote:
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.

**Slayer-Fan123**

It doesn't work as an eSport because nobody wants to tune in for a game where one players turn can be half an hour to an hour with no interaction.