Dean's World

I'm not sure sport is the right term. Unless you also count things like golf as real sport.

But to be serious for a moment it may be interesting if one day Virtual Reality develops to the point that men and women can really test both their physical prowess and mental adaptation, speed, and flexibility along with their psychological skills in "Gaming Contests."

I play games but would have no interest at all in watching others play games, though I reckon younger kids who were brought up on such games as a regular part of their lives might.

Still, I have my own theory of Gaming devoted to the idea that people ought to be able and that games should be designed so that people can learn, subconsciously or directly, new skills, capabilities, and abilities from gaming. That entertainment value and utility should be mixed evenly, and that things like games and Virtual Reality should not be merely an escape from real life, but a way to augment and enhance it, to solve problems (not just gaming problems), overcome obstacles, toughen one's self, and develop new skills. Games should be designed that way, as practice for real life, no matter whether one is practicing a physical skill, a mental capacity, a psychological capability, or a spiritual virtue. (For instance I can see and intend to develop games where one could learn a wide range of skills, everything from how to throw the discus or free-climb a small mountain, how to mix useful chemical compounds, how to negotiate favorably or how to track and manhunt someone who has gone missing, and/or how to pray effectively. And I don't mean how to do these things just within the gaming environment and according to a limited in-game format, but well enough to make use of the skills one can learn and practice in-game to successfully apply such skills, even if only modestly or in an amateur fashion [for nothing is a substitute for real world practice and experience, no matter how good the gaming scenario], in real life.)

So I'm not against the idea by nay means, I just personally don't think it has developed to the point where most folks would want to observe or would want to take their family to observe (though I'm sure a core sub-population, both individual and corporate, would) Gaming Matches.

But if Gaming ever reaches the point where it is more than primarily a distraction and a from of escapism from the real world, if it evolves into something which is utilitarian or inspirational for others, can evoke in others a desire to gain new skills, compete in meaningful ways, enhance current capabilities, then I think it would become a type of sport with a wide following and a popular audience of observers (as opposed to an audience composed almost entirely of other gamers).

Though I think both you and Vic are right about the fact that to at least a small audience it is already a type of sport.

Though I also can't help but think that sport is not really an appropriate term, that when it comes to competitors of this kind, or to future Virtual and Electronic Gaming compete, that a whole new term should be developed. Because it is not really a "sport" in the classical sense, and yet it has the potential to become much more than just electronic gaming.

I guess you could simply combine terms, like Gamesport, or Sportgaming, but something new needs to be introduce din my opinion to differentiate it from other activities.

First-person shootouts in Halo and Quake will sadly not make it on air because of the nature of the content.

To the younger audience who might actually be a real current observer market, this is probably a market-share deathknell for a television broadcast.
You have to give gamers what they want if they are to do nothing but observe, and this is equivalent to broadcasting a G rated movie
and expecting a large general audience of vicarious observers. It is unlikely to work in America successfully following that particular
format.

Americans are not Koreans or the Japanese. We're built differently.

According to South Park we have "big American penis."

That reminds me of an old story.
But yeah, it's something like that.

I find watching the screen as people play the latest generation of football video games more entertaining than watching professional football.

You gotta real point there.
Then again, who wouldn't?

We aren't far from the day where you can't tell game from reality in video game appearance except for the fact that physically impossible things will happen in them.

You gotta a real and very good point there. If you can make game material look like a movie or digital film (something else that needs it's own name), and can get really good players to make exciting and unusual things happen, then you might develop a real and devoted general audience.

You might even have developers creating "Special Version Games" specifically for broadcast, or developing an entirely new breed or class of game made specifically for Gamesport (or whatever you wanna call it) competition. Versions filled with special version Easter Eggs not found in other game versions, unique control schemes, extra plot lines and puzzles, maybe references and cross-overs, money or other prize checkpoints, encryptions and language variance, gaming skill, endurance, speed, or mental tests, and so forth. (That's something I should think about.)

However if you limit it to air guitar games and such instead of allowing things like Halo then CBS is shooting themselves in the hamstring as regards their ultimate market share.

I suspect though that satellite, cable, the internet, or special distributors could make more money at this because they could allow freer content and more efficient and varied delivery methods, like you implied.