What do you think?
Rate this book
Raising the Stakes: E-sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming
Competitive video and computer game play is nothing new: the documentary King of Kong memorably portrays a Donkey Kong player's attempts to achieve the all-time highest score; the television show "Starcade" (1982--1984) featured competitions among arcade game players; and first-person shooter games of the 1990s became multiplayer through network play. A new development in the world of digital gaming, however, is the emergence of professional computer game play, complete with star players, team owners, tournaments, sponsorships, and spectators. In "Raising the Stakes," T. L. Taylor explores the emerging scene of professional computer gaming and the accompanying efforts to make a sport out of this form of play. In the course of her explorations, Taylor travels to tournaments, including the World Cyber Games Grand Finals (which considers itself the computer gaming equivalent of the Olympics), and interviews participants from players to broadcasters. She examines pro-gaming, with its highly paid players, play-by-play broadcasts, and mass audience; discusses whether or not e-sports should even be considered sports; traces the player's path from amateur to professional (and how a hobby becomes work); and describes the importance of leagues, teams, owners, organizers, referees, sponsors, and fans in shaping the structure and culture of pro-gaming. Taylor connects professional computer gaming to broader issues: our notions of play, work, and sport; the nature of spectatorship; the influence of money on sports. And she examines the ongoing struggle over the gendered construction of play through the lens of male-dominated pro-gaming. Ultimately, the evolution of professional computer gaming illuminates the contemporary struggle to convert playful passions into serious play.
304 pages, Hardcover
Published March 23, 2012
18 people are currently reading
204 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
April 8, 2019
This is a fundamental reading requirement if you are working or seriously interested in esports.
First, the book has layers of esports history, from failed efforts to now "successful" ventures, whatever that currently means in esports, the book looks particularly at CSGO and StarCraft and contains a number of stories about early and developing tournaments, scandals, well-known players, and disputes. The information about Blizzard and its take on esports provided good history, contrast to its current efforts, and insight into esports development. The history helps in varied ways: showing what efforts have failed (either because of timing or just because they won't work in esports), providing a contrast to the present in how things have changed, and providing context for why some things are the way they are. It was nice to see some ideas I've had either struck down or confirmed or to see that others have (unsurprisingly) already been considering the same or similar ideas. And that's just why I found the history valuable.
Second, the book has a wonderful breakdown of the multi-layered rules and metarules of video game software and esports competition, which has parallels to law and society in general. To name just a few, there are the "rules" of the video game code itself, there are rules about in-game settings and mods and gameplay, there are norms about what is fair play, there are tournament rules, there are referees' interpretation of the rules, there are meta games, there's the public's influence on how games should be play, there's the influence of broadcasting on what makes a game watchable, and so on. I was reminded of how we have laws, the practical consideration of laws (e.g., what actually goes in contracts), the interpretation of laws, the enforcement of laws, the politics, etc.
Third, Taylor introduces the reader (or at least me as a straight, white male) to a number of different tools and considerations, particularly with respect to gender, sexuality, and identity aspects of esports. I found this generally valuable in looking at some aspects of the world in different ways, but even more particularly valuable as part of ongoing esports conversations on the topics. Some arguments (and rebuttals) were more familiar, sadly because they are still so common. Overall, Taylor's ability to provide tools that are applicable to the world more generally was an unexpected but welcome blessing of the book.
The fourth section was interesting but nothing stood out in particular. The fifth had more interesting history bits (though those were weaved throughout). I tried to go back and find some good quotes, but the sections of the book build on themselves, and the book is well worth reading as a whole. Also, it was harder to pull quotes for this than I remembered marking them. Indeed, I marked more than I pulled in my "re-read," which maybe speaks to how the book must be read as a whole instead of in its parts. Here are some of my favorites, or at least quotes that stood out:
Pp. 60-61 “Dreams that computation can fully step in, interpret, and regulate play misapprehend the complexity of human action. Players, theorists, analysts, and designers--anyone with an interest in the state of computer game play--must recognize that the humans involved in this domain remain important arbiters in what counts as ‘good’ or ‘fair’ play. Computer gaming is rife with robust discussions about the ‘spirit of the game’ versus the ‘letter of the law’ that we also see in sports. Computation can’t solve this because it is a conversation rooted in nuanced sociality. It should also then not be surprising that our lager massively multiplayer or broad network games are riddled with disputes and disagreements about cheating and fair play. Having a shared frame underpinning the gaming moment is key. My argument is not meant to simply reduce things down to a privileged position for humans. Humans that do not share a cultural context or epistemological frame encounter many of the same blockages in carrying out, and understanding, polymorphic action as machines do. And certainly far too often we have overlooked the significant role nonhuman actors play in our gaming, to the detriment of our analysis. Perhaps at some point computers can find a way to share cultural ground with us, or at least debate it to reach common understanding, albeit with sustained disagreement (which is what some humans certainly try). But until they can act as sophisticated cultural actors and interpreters, we have to make sure to pay careful attention to the labor the humans bring to the (computer game) table. To overlook that side of the story is as much a disservice as forgetting the other.
Finally, though game rules make up a special category of rules, we should remember that rules function in complex ways in all aspects of our life. Rule construction and violation are a normal part of human activity well beyond games, and part of the work we do as social creatures is constantly create, weigh, assess, accept, and refute various governing structures we encounter. Iszatt-White discusses, for example, rule violations within industrial settings. These were spaces where, given the potential severity of the hazards at hand and thus the elevated stakes, one would think such activity would be quite minimal. Such sites, where much more is often at stake than in mundane everyday play, are particularly interesting to consider in relation to professional e-sports. As she notes, ‘Where there are rules there will, almost inevitably, be rule violation, and this in turn has implications for management in terms of achieving a balance between rule following and heedfulness’ (2007, 452). She found that often workers’ ‘actions appeared to be prompted by constant attention to the environment and risks within which they were working, rather than by a conscious intention to comply with a rule. If asked, they would often describe their behavior as being “common sense” in the light of the environment in which they worked’ (455). Workers were thus always evaluating and refining, based on their situated contexts, their adherence to formal rule structures.”
P. 72 “Not only had the indeterminacy of the rules violation caused tumult, but the inability of the referees to decide the issue expediently and convey those decisions clearly to everyone, including spectators, raised serious flags for many at the match. Whether or not it was true, the perceived intervention by nonreferees into what was essentially a rules and procedure issue was deeply corrosive to the endeavor as a serious sporting event. In many ways the incident highlighted not only anxiety about rules in pro play, but the underlying relationship between these events as competitive sports and as consumer entertainment marketing venues.”
P. 108 “For many a notion of authentic game culture rests uneasily alongside requirements of professionalism.”
Pp. 120-21 “The insistence on moderation for women and girls goes to the heart of why geek identity can be such a profoundly oppositional identity for them. Assertions of knowledge, competency, and technical and scientific skill are core parts of geekdom for men and women alike. The geek girl is fundamentally upending systems of mastery and exclusion.”
P. 124 “Another theory, much more commonly heard, about why we don’t see more women in the pro scene is framed as a kind of perplexed question. The formulation typically goes: ‘Anyone can play computer games and anyone can enter tournaments so if women aren’t there it’s just because they aren’t good enough, aren’t trying hard enough, right?’ (see also Harper 2010). This model imagines both computer gaming and e-sports as a fundamentally individualistic and meritocratic venture. What it obviously misses is the deeply sociological nature of play and professionalization and the way structures shape access and opportunity.”
“Top female players face the double-identity challenge of not only pursuing an e-sports career (something men in the scene regularly identify as an often fraught path, at least until they start winning significant money) but doing so as women in a culture that generally speaking has no good model for (1) highly competitive women, (2) participation in an activity typically seen as violent and aggressive (particularly in the case of FPSs), and (3) understanding their being geeky, passionate about gaming, and having focused engagement with a specialized domain unrelated to areas linked to traditional femininity.”
Pp. 124-25 “Not only do girls and women often face an uphill battle when it comes to choosing computer games as a leisure (not to mention professional) identity, they are often marginalized in their access to communities through which they could develop their gaming expertise. . . . At the more extreme end, stories abound of women who can’t get practice matches if they are known to be a woman because ‘boys don’t like losing to girls.’ . . . Whereas a slightly less talented male player will sometimes be brought onto a team and skilled up (often based on their friendship and other network connections), women are very rarely (indeed I cannot think of any cases of this currently) given similar opportunities. As any athlete can tell you, being able to play with and against people slightly above your level is key to improving. If women are locked out of meaningful challenges that allow them to hone their skill they will not be able to compete at the same level as the men in the scene who, via their access to more robust networks and the easier occupation of gamer identity, are able to develop professional skills.”
P. 126 “The gendered division of competition is often seen as simply a stopgap measure until women are structurally supported and skilled up enough to be able to compete against men--though how that big leap will happen is typically little thought-out.”
P. 132 “A career trajectory from amateur to professional involves the transformation of what was once simply a leisure activity into a new serious endeavor. Structural factors, networks of opportunity and training, formulations of personal identity, and cultural legitimacy all form core components upon which the ability to become a pro gamer is built. As with all computer gaming, professional play doesn’t exist in a bubble where individual skill is the only factor that matters but is instead constituted via a complex process.”
P. 141 “Where people put their main reference point matters in how e-sports then get formulated and what kinds of institutional supports are built. The actualization of computer game play gets carried out via specific models, some of which will play up particular angles and downplay others. Situating e-sports as a form of sports entertainment will not only call forward a particular relationship with athletic identity, but a general orientation toward spectatorship and, likely, broadcast models.”
P. 145 “Comparing the CGS and ESL is convenient for the way it highlights some recurrent fundamental tension points in the development of the scene: traditional versus online media, broad community-based versus exclusively elite play and traditional media entertainment and (American) sports industry as jumping-off point versus computer game and Internet industry driven.”
Pp. 149-50 “Some owners (as well as other managers, league operators, etc.), particularly the slightly older ones who have had a career outside of e-sports, regularly situate themselves in a mentor/father/guardian roles in relation to the young men who play on their teams. For younger team owners I’ve not found paternalism but instead a kind of grudging caretaking. The guys on their teams may not be much younger (if at all) than them and player hijinks, disorganization, or laziness are more likely to be met with frustration rather than seeing them as young and in need of mentoring.”
P.153 “Despite this somewhat weakened version of owner power, we have not seen the skirmishes around player unionization that traditional sports have faced. Outlets like the G7 attempt to formalize (and perhaps thus preemptively manage) player relations to some degree but there has yet been no significant move among e-sports players to collectively organize and mitigate owner power. It is tricky to say why this has not happened. Part of it is likely owing to the relative age and inexperience of e-sports players, many of whom approach their new career with simple gratitude at being able to play computer games for a (modest) living or even just to get funding to cover their basic costs to attend tournaments. Dovetailing into this is the high churn rate for pro players. Many simply do not stay in the scene long enough for the costs of professionalization (extended out to health concerns, an ‘adult’ salary that could help support a family, and eventual retirement) to factor in. Finally, given many people do not yet see e-sports sustained or large-scale economic viability (aside a poster boy or two, there is no one yet really growing rich off e-sports) it may simply feel not worth it--there is no financial incentive to push for player rights.”
P. 165 Della Bitta: “I think that we would like the opportunity to at least give advice based on what we know and what works for our products and what the players and the communities surrounding our products enjoy. We have been observing this globally. We’re very familiar with our players and our communities. And again, more of a, if you will, a consultant role. We want everybody to succeed and we want e-sports to succeed, but again, it’s not our core business so to become involved in that regard it’s almost like you’re talking about creating its own organization, like a FIFA or something like that, to oversee the sport. Because e-sports is not based on a single sport. There’s games that come and go, you can base it on genres of games but it’s just a different environment than traditional sports.”
Pp. 167-68 KeSPA Statement: “[T]he developer pursues profits by declaring that their copyright is valid in the sports industry as well, then that is a large obstacle for E-sports’ growth and the establishment as a future sports-entertainment industry.”
“A small, but significant, idea embedded in this statement is the suggestion that something may shift once a game reaches ‘iconic’ status.”
“KeSPA does not see itself as merely asking permission from developers for use of their games but argues that it actually provides value back out to developers through authoriizing and legitimizing particular titles, a kind of KeSPA stamp of approval.”
P. 211 “Because television reformulates spectatorship by including audiences not present at the event and potentially not even involved in watching it live, it very often steps in to alter the formulation of the game itself.”
P. 223 “Given the key decisions made in the construction of the actual competition, the aesthetic choices do not appear as harmless as they might otherwise but instead got tied to a deeper overall impression about what the CGS initiative meant for e-sports in terms of representation and future. For the most cynical it was a kind of selling out, an undermining of e-sports authenticity. For the more optimistic it was typically seen as not ideal but needed, a step in trying to translate the subculture out to a broader audience and once and for all get it some real television coverage.
“While I was at the Grand Final, and during my site visit where I spoke with a number of the executives in charge, I had no idea that it would be the last production the organization made. Within four months the CGS had folded, citing unprofitability yet simultaneously reaffirming their own visionary role in e-psorts.”
First, the book has layers of esports history, from failed efforts to now "successful" ventures, whatever that currently means in esports, the book looks particularly at CSGO and StarCraft and contains a number of stories about early and developing tournaments, scandals, well-known players, and disputes. The information about Blizzard and its take on esports provided good history, contrast to its current efforts, and insight into esports development. The history helps in varied ways: showing what efforts have failed (either because of timing or just because they won't work in esports), providing a contrast to the present in how things have changed, and providing context for why some things are the way they are. It was nice to see some ideas I've had either struck down or confirmed or to see that others have (unsurprisingly) already been considering the same or similar ideas. And that's just why I found the history valuable.
Second, the book has a wonderful breakdown of the multi-layered rules and metarules of video game software and esports competition, which has parallels to law and society in general. To name just a few, there are the "rules" of the video game code itself, there are rules about in-game settings and mods and gameplay, there are norms about what is fair play, there are tournament rules, there are referees' interpretation of the rules, there are meta games, there's the public's influence on how games should be play, there's the influence of broadcasting on what makes a game watchable, and so on. I was reminded of how we have laws, the practical consideration of laws (e.g., what actually goes in contracts), the interpretation of laws, the enforcement of laws, the politics, etc.
Third, Taylor introduces the reader (or at least me as a straight, white male) to a number of different tools and considerations, particularly with respect to gender, sexuality, and identity aspects of esports. I found this generally valuable in looking at some aspects of the world in different ways, but even more particularly valuable as part of ongoing esports conversations on the topics. Some arguments (and rebuttals) were more familiar, sadly because they are still so common. Overall, Taylor's ability to provide tools that are applicable to the world more generally was an unexpected but welcome blessing of the book.
The fourth section was interesting but nothing stood out in particular. The fifth had more interesting history bits (though those were weaved throughout). I tried to go back and find some good quotes, but the sections of the book build on themselves, and the book is well worth reading as a whole. Also, it was harder to pull quotes for this than I remembered marking them. Indeed, I marked more than I pulled in my "re-read," which maybe speaks to how the book must be read as a whole instead of in its parts. Here are some of my favorites, or at least quotes that stood out:
Pp. 60-61 “Dreams that computation can fully step in, interpret, and regulate play misapprehend the complexity of human action. Players, theorists, analysts, and designers--anyone with an interest in the state of computer game play--must recognize that the humans involved in this domain remain important arbiters in what counts as ‘good’ or ‘fair’ play. Computer gaming is rife with robust discussions about the ‘spirit of the game’ versus the ‘letter of the law’ that we also see in sports. Computation can’t solve this because it is a conversation rooted in nuanced sociality. It should also then not be surprising that our lager massively multiplayer or broad network games are riddled with disputes and disagreements about cheating and fair play. Having a shared frame underpinning the gaming moment is key. My argument is not meant to simply reduce things down to a privileged position for humans. Humans that do not share a cultural context or epistemological frame encounter many of the same blockages in carrying out, and understanding, polymorphic action as machines do. And certainly far too often we have overlooked the significant role nonhuman actors play in our gaming, to the detriment of our analysis. Perhaps at some point computers can find a way to share cultural ground with us, or at least debate it to reach common understanding, albeit with sustained disagreement (which is what some humans certainly try). But until they can act as sophisticated cultural actors and interpreters, we have to make sure to pay careful attention to the labor the humans bring to the (computer game) table. To overlook that side of the story is as much a disservice as forgetting the other.
Finally, though game rules make up a special category of rules, we should remember that rules function in complex ways in all aspects of our life. Rule construction and violation are a normal part of human activity well beyond games, and part of the work we do as social creatures is constantly create, weigh, assess, accept, and refute various governing structures we encounter. Iszatt-White discusses, for example, rule violations within industrial settings. These were spaces where, given the potential severity of the hazards at hand and thus the elevated stakes, one would think such activity would be quite minimal. Such sites, where much more is often at stake than in mundane everyday play, are particularly interesting to consider in relation to professional e-sports. As she notes, ‘Where there are rules there will, almost inevitably, be rule violation, and this in turn has implications for management in terms of achieving a balance between rule following and heedfulness’ (2007, 452). She found that often workers’ ‘actions appeared to be prompted by constant attention to the environment and risks within which they were working, rather than by a conscious intention to comply with a rule. If asked, they would often describe their behavior as being “common sense” in the light of the environment in which they worked’ (455). Workers were thus always evaluating and refining, based on their situated contexts, their adherence to formal rule structures.”
P. 72 “Not only had the indeterminacy of the rules violation caused tumult, but the inability of the referees to decide the issue expediently and convey those decisions clearly to everyone, including spectators, raised serious flags for many at the match. Whether or not it was true, the perceived intervention by nonreferees into what was essentially a rules and procedure issue was deeply corrosive to the endeavor as a serious sporting event. In many ways the incident highlighted not only anxiety about rules in pro play, but the underlying relationship between these events as competitive sports and as consumer entertainment marketing venues.”
P. 108 “For many a notion of authentic game culture rests uneasily alongside requirements of professionalism.”
Pp. 120-21 “The insistence on moderation for women and girls goes to the heart of why geek identity can be such a profoundly oppositional identity for them. Assertions of knowledge, competency, and technical and scientific skill are core parts of geekdom for men and women alike. The geek girl is fundamentally upending systems of mastery and exclusion.”
P. 124 “Another theory, much more commonly heard, about why we don’t see more women in the pro scene is framed as a kind of perplexed question. The formulation typically goes: ‘Anyone can play computer games and anyone can enter tournaments so if women aren’t there it’s just because they aren’t good enough, aren’t trying hard enough, right?’ (see also Harper 2010). This model imagines both computer gaming and e-sports as a fundamentally individualistic and meritocratic venture. What it obviously misses is the deeply sociological nature of play and professionalization and the way structures shape access and opportunity.”
“Top female players face the double-identity challenge of not only pursuing an e-sports career (something men in the scene regularly identify as an often fraught path, at least until they start winning significant money) but doing so as women in a culture that generally speaking has no good model for (1) highly competitive women, (2) participation in an activity typically seen as violent and aggressive (particularly in the case of FPSs), and (3) understanding their being geeky, passionate about gaming, and having focused engagement with a specialized domain unrelated to areas linked to traditional femininity.”
Pp. 124-25 “Not only do girls and women often face an uphill battle when it comes to choosing computer games as a leisure (not to mention professional) identity, they are often marginalized in their access to communities through which they could develop their gaming expertise. . . . At the more extreme end, stories abound of women who can’t get practice matches if they are known to be a woman because ‘boys don’t like losing to girls.’ . . . Whereas a slightly less talented male player will sometimes be brought onto a team and skilled up (often based on their friendship and other network connections), women are very rarely (indeed I cannot think of any cases of this currently) given similar opportunities. As any athlete can tell you, being able to play with and against people slightly above your level is key to improving. If women are locked out of meaningful challenges that allow them to hone their skill they will not be able to compete at the same level as the men in the scene who, via their access to more robust networks and the easier occupation of gamer identity, are able to develop professional skills.”
P. 126 “The gendered division of competition is often seen as simply a stopgap measure until women are structurally supported and skilled up enough to be able to compete against men--though how that big leap will happen is typically little thought-out.”
P. 132 “A career trajectory from amateur to professional involves the transformation of what was once simply a leisure activity into a new serious endeavor. Structural factors, networks of opportunity and training, formulations of personal identity, and cultural legitimacy all form core components upon which the ability to become a pro gamer is built. As with all computer gaming, professional play doesn’t exist in a bubble where individual skill is the only factor that matters but is instead constituted via a complex process.”
P. 141 “Where people put their main reference point matters in how e-sports then get formulated and what kinds of institutional supports are built. The actualization of computer game play gets carried out via specific models, some of which will play up particular angles and downplay others. Situating e-sports as a form of sports entertainment will not only call forward a particular relationship with athletic identity, but a general orientation toward spectatorship and, likely, broadcast models.”
P. 145 “Comparing the CGS and ESL is convenient for the way it highlights some recurrent fundamental tension points in the development of the scene: traditional versus online media, broad community-based versus exclusively elite play and traditional media entertainment and (American) sports industry as jumping-off point versus computer game and Internet industry driven.”
Pp. 149-50 “Some owners (as well as other managers, league operators, etc.), particularly the slightly older ones who have had a career outside of e-sports, regularly situate themselves in a mentor/father/guardian roles in relation to the young men who play on their teams. For younger team owners I’ve not found paternalism but instead a kind of grudging caretaking. The guys on their teams may not be much younger (if at all) than them and player hijinks, disorganization, or laziness are more likely to be met with frustration rather than seeing them as young and in need of mentoring.”
P.153 “Despite this somewhat weakened version of owner power, we have not seen the skirmishes around player unionization that traditional sports have faced. Outlets like the G7 attempt to formalize (and perhaps thus preemptively manage) player relations to some degree but there has yet been no significant move among e-sports players to collectively organize and mitigate owner power. It is tricky to say why this has not happened. Part of it is likely owing to the relative age and inexperience of e-sports players, many of whom approach their new career with simple gratitude at being able to play computer games for a (modest) living or even just to get funding to cover their basic costs to attend tournaments. Dovetailing into this is the high churn rate for pro players. Many simply do not stay in the scene long enough for the costs of professionalization (extended out to health concerns, an ‘adult’ salary that could help support a family, and eventual retirement) to factor in. Finally, given many people do not yet see e-sports sustained or large-scale economic viability (aside a poster boy or two, there is no one yet really growing rich off e-sports) it may simply feel not worth it--there is no financial incentive to push for player rights.”
P. 165 Della Bitta: “I think that we would like the opportunity to at least give advice based on what we know and what works for our products and what the players and the communities surrounding our products enjoy. We have been observing this globally. We’re very familiar with our players and our communities. And again, more of a, if you will, a consultant role. We want everybody to succeed and we want e-sports to succeed, but again, it’s not our core business so to become involved in that regard it’s almost like you’re talking about creating its own organization, like a FIFA or something like that, to oversee the sport. Because e-sports is not based on a single sport. There’s games that come and go, you can base it on genres of games but it’s just a different environment than traditional sports.”
Pp. 167-68 KeSPA Statement: “[T]he developer pursues profits by declaring that their copyright is valid in the sports industry as well, then that is a large obstacle for E-sports’ growth and the establishment as a future sports-entertainment industry.”
“A small, but significant, idea embedded in this statement is the suggestion that something may shift once a game reaches ‘iconic’ status.”
“KeSPA does not see itself as merely asking permission from developers for use of their games but argues that it actually provides value back out to developers through authoriizing and legitimizing particular titles, a kind of KeSPA stamp of approval.”
P. 211 “Because television reformulates spectatorship by including audiences not present at the event and potentially not even involved in watching it live, it very often steps in to alter the formulation of the game itself.”
P. 223 “Given the key decisions made in the construction of the actual competition, the aesthetic choices do not appear as harmless as they might otherwise but instead got tied to a deeper overall impression about what the CGS initiative meant for e-sports in terms of representation and future. For the most cynical it was a kind of selling out, an undermining of e-sports authenticity. For the more optimistic it was typically seen as not ideal but needed, a step in trying to translate the subculture out to a broader audience and once and for all get it some real television coverage.
“While I was at the Grand Final, and during my site visit where I spoke with a number of the executives in charge, I had no idea that it would be the last production the organization made. Within four months the CGS had folded, citing unprofitability yet simultaneously reaffirming their own visionary role in e-psorts.”
April 11, 2014
Having read a lot of other material on game design and game studies, I'd say this look into e-sports is pretty light on the academic nitty-gritty of theorizing, contextualizing and throwing around a lot of complex jargon. Much of that is still there, but rather used with the aim of telling a compelling story of a niche cultural phenomenon in its growing pains, expanding into the unknown, often seeking the approval of society at large while sometimes attempting to remain a tightly knit subculture.
Taylor gives a solid overview of all the different actors involved in the phenomenon: from players, coaches and fans to team managers, commentators, sponsors, broadcasters and those representing corporate interest. As T.L. Taylor was an outsider to the e-sports scene herself, her observations should prove useful to anyone looking to gain an understanding of the phenomenon with little prior knowledge.
While focusing in on the niche of e-sports within the already somewhat obscure subculture of video gaming itself, I'd say this book is as good as any for providing an accessible look into video gaming in general. Something to give to your mum/significant other if he/she doesn't "get it" - particularly because Taylor demonstrated the close relationship between competitive computer play and traditional sports. Sports and more precisely sports entertainment turns out to be a great reference for understanding e-sports, for the latter hasn't simply grown out of the former, they continue to inspire one another and exist in type of technological symbiosis or convergence.
Definitely an interesting read!
Taylor gives a solid overview of all the different actors involved in the phenomenon: from players, coaches and fans to team managers, commentators, sponsors, broadcasters and those representing corporate interest. As T.L. Taylor was an outsider to the e-sports scene herself, her observations should prove useful to anyone looking to gain an understanding of the phenomenon with little prior knowledge.
While focusing in on the niche of e-sports within the already somewhat obscure subculture of video gaming itself, I'd say this book is as good as any for providing an accessible look into video gaming in general. Something to give to your mum/significant other if he/she doesn't "get it" - particularly because Taylor demonstrated the close relationship between competitive computer play and traditional sports. Sports and more precisely sports entertainment turns out to be a great reference for understanding e-sports, for the latter hasn't simply grown out of the former, they continue to inspire one another and exist in type of technological symbiosis or convergence.
Definitely an interesting read!
July 31, 2013
A wide-ranging look at eSports and negotiations of social, economic, ideological (and physical) spaces resulting from a network of actors with varying perceptions of the nature and purpose of their community and the activities they engage in.
Taylor takes on many vantage points to inform her analysis, moving between discussions of play as an always already embodied action, the nature of gameplay mediated by a combination of imperfect digital systems and imperfect human referees, the economic frameworks which players (and organizations) must navigate to be "professional," the complexities of arranging competition across a global network of local communities, the limited spectator-focus of high-level play events prior to Twitch.tv and other streaming services, the readings and displays of masculinity and gender more broadly within the overlapping space of gamer/athlete, and much more.
Across all these, Taylor always situates each as interrelated and interfacing with the others in forming the gestalt of eSports, and the many smaller communities that comprises.
A compelling survey of the field as it stands (and where it comes from) without any carnival-esque gawking or cloying praise of games as The Future of Sports.
Taylor takes on many vantage points to inform her analysis, moving between discussions of play as an always already embodied action, the nature of gameplay mediated by a combination of imperfect digital systems and imperfect human referees, the economic frameworks which players (and organizations) must navigate to be "professional," the complexities of arranging competition across a global network of local communities, the limited spectator-focus of high-level play events prior to Twitch.tv and other streaming services, the readings and displays of masculinity and gender more broadly within the overlapping space of gamer/athlete, and much more.
Across all these, Taylor always situates each as interrelated and interfacing with the others in forming the gestalt of eSports, and the many smaller communities that comprises.
A compelling survey of the field as it stands (and where it comes from) without any carnival-esque gawking or cloying praise of games as The Future of Sports.
March 29, 2014
Excellent primer on the world of e-sports (competitive video gaming) that seriously addresses the growth of the phenomenon. Dry and a bit of a slog at times, due to the academic treatment, but ultimately that is what makes the book important. It introduces game studies scholars who may not have even heard of e-sports to the field, which will help spawn further studies. It "reads raw" because of the newness of the field and also because of the breath of the book, so there is somewhat of a sense that the author is doing what she can with a nascent field. I would love to see a second edition because there have been many developments since publication in the field, in particular the rise of game streaming. Great overview and thought provoking for individuals interested in the field.
March 25, 2016
The start date is misleading, because I read a chapter for some background when starting a project, and this month I figured I should finish the rest of the book even though it is out of date. It's an important book about esports (one of a few, if not the only) and I actually really resonate with the perspective of games as complex social objects (it's kind of in line with ANT but it's a little bit more nuanced than that).
December 3, 2014
Long winded YET insightful.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews