Brands from scratch
They tried to re-invent the wheel, by creating new brands from scratch when the esport community already had very strong ones. SK, MYM, 3D, coL, mouz, fnatic, wNv (and the list goes on). Why not take advantage of that instead, this would have promoted their own league and would have been much cheaper for them.
Wrong games
There is one very basic rule when it comes to creating a new league, and that is picking the right games. People might argue that CS:Source is a good game, maybe it is, but you need the most competitive community, and for that you pick 1.6. By not picking it, you got a league with no real stars, some, like the coL/3D players converted, but they were stars in another game. CGS did not get any of the major fixed stars, they go to no SpawN, no walle, no neo, no forest, no solo etc
Changing game rules
Something that has been proven for a long time now, do no change the games to fit TV, change TV to fit the games. We do not want those weird formats, players and fans have created the best rules over time, lets use them!
Salaries and prize money
Salaries are important, specially for players who have been professional for a long time. With the things mentioned above CGS had about 5% really professional players at the start, the other 95% were not even used to salary. Why pay so much money to someone who didn't really need it. They tried to fix it later with the different player levels within a team, but it was way to late. Also they did not need to spend that much amount of prize money, it felt more like covering up a bad concept.
What could they have done
First of all they should not have tried to create an exclusive league. They should have used the existing organizations and their brands, the knowledge combined was just vastly superior. In using these teams they would have been able to save costs on salary, brand recognition, PR etc.
Why is this bad for esport
The money spent could have promoted everyone involved in esports for a very long time, instead it will make potential investors cautious. It also shows that even if you have a lot of money it wont make a good esport concept. You need the knowledge of the people who have been in this scene for a very long time.
Why is this good for esport
Finally (and hopefully) we will be able to see the big clashes again between US, Europe, Asia and the rest of the world. Like CPL Winter 2005 with teams such as SK, Lunatic Hai, Fnatic, 3D, NiP, coL, mouz, g3x. Question is whether another organizer will take over the US market or was this the perfect timing for ESL and their Masters concept?
All in all, if you want to make business in the esport world, you need to do it together with the organizations out there...
News
CGS CGS CGS
This day didn't really come as a surprise, if the economic climate would have been better than it is now, CGS might have lived another year. Would they have succeeded? No. There are a couple of basic reasons why they didn't.
Loading comments...
More related news
de_nuke 1v1 tournament with face, Jaegarn and more (109)Sky vs Infi and Who vs Fly in final stage of PGL (27)Lyn in group with Moon, Infi and Fly at EM Asia Finals (15)ESWC releases qualification information (33)WhO's zeppelin micro ends PGL for Lyn (20)Volt Gaming loses power (57)PGL: Th000 and Wulin out, Happy and Lyn still in (19)Ahl, vesslan & co back to CS1.6 (238)EPS Scandinavia with its first IFNG (24)Grubby and Moon join NGL ONE participants (34)eSKlusive: Tommy "toMpa" Andersson (17)SK Gaming to keep EU PvP squad for 2009 (28)Tetris, a good way to forget bad things (36)Blizzard borrows from Serennia (26)SK Sweden vs PlayZone in EPS (83)
Popular related news
Kil'Jaeden DOWN World First (293)M'uru down World First & Recruitment (187)Global Player Rankings Added (20)Kil'Jaeden Movie Released (71)M'uru Movie Released (64)SK Gaming WoW PvE is now Recruiting (133)Best Warrior in the World Speaks - Interview with Serennia (100)Eredar Twins down by SK Gaming (67)Best Female WoW Gamer gets sponsored - Hafu Interview (76)Level 70 on 1 day, 19 hours and 39 minutes (138)WoW Gold Limit Reached by a Player (99)WoW world first list (53)SK takes world first Felmyst kill (45)Interview with Cherekee - Worlds Highest Rated Player (37)Kil'jaeden gate is open - Preview (45)
ESL MASTERS rulez!!!
Personally, I'm glad the CGS folded, as it should rekindle the CS 1.6 community's spirits!
Glad that CGS folded o/
But you got the point! Absolutely agree with you!
WCG,ESWC,KODE5,Extreme Masters,WCG would ALL fold 1.6 because pro teams would have joined up with CGS. Or at least it would have cut the scene bigtime. Probarly bigger then it did now.
The other orga's(WCG,ESWC,..) would have selected other games. Like call of duty and i don't think they would have switched back easily to 1.6 when CGS folded.
So, i don't know if that would have happend. But it was a possibility and thats why i'm happy they picked CSS.
The newspiece i published about this yesterday was the happiest piece it has ever been my privilige to write.
Though I have to admit I would have watched CGS if it had aired at decent hours. I follow CS 1.6, warcraft 3 and Quake. I have played Quake and CS since beta6 so those games i started following because i played them. I have never played WC3, but i follow it because it has nice competitive scene. It took some time to get the idea what is happening in the games but now I understand enough to enjoy the games. Since then i have also started playing WC3.
The solid base of eSports, which was mostly initiated by the community, still stands today. It has been the foundation for many years already. CGS somehow proofs that large corporations outside gaming and eSports, are not capable of understanding this 'sport'. Not just the sport, but the entire world of eSports.
But I also do believe that the only way to develop eSports industry is through offering consistency. A lot of money will be needed for that and we have seen too many failures already. Combine that with the economic crisis, this is definitely (again) a black chapter in eSports.
Wrong games: well this is pretty much true, CS 1.6 has always been the nr. 1 FPS and is together with Warcraft 3 the biggest esport title, why use some random game? Lets face it CSS it not a bad game but CS 1.6 is just better in all ways except for the graphical part but do people really care about presentation? do men prefer to watch women play soccer or do they prefer to watch men play soccer. thats exactly the same thing, CSS is like women playing soccer. nothing wrong with that, i prefer to look at a girl but the level isn't even close as high and the fanbase is very small, thats why i prefer to watch men play.
Changing game rules: agree on this one, when soccer went to tv we didnt change soccer did we? its not like we changed gametime from 90 minutes to 15 minutes for more action or make the goal bigger for more goals. the soccer rules were pretty much perfect so were the cs 1.6 rules.
Salaries and prize money: have to agree, they could have spend their money much more wisely. if people want to be a professional gamer then let them work for their money, nothing in this world comes for free.
Why is this good for esport: i think you forgot to mention that CGS was still good for esports, I mean it didnt receive as much viewers as they hoped for but it was still an eye opener for many people who didnt even know e-sports existed and suddenly watched CGS on tv.
As far as I'm concerned, I believe that the real problem out there was to give away such huge prize money and to even salary the players themselves. They wanted to buy out the american "association" to get a monopoly over it.
Nice article btw
That only explains why they tried to buy out every team competing in it (LA. Complexity for one) or creating new ones (Chicago Chimaera for example).
That surely does not explain why they did not pay attention to how things where done every where else when you see that every major actor on the scene is watching what the others do (ESWC, WCG, ESL ...) to improve their own show. They believed they could do better from nothing...
They didn't try to create brands from scratch. You along with Alex have proven this. They talked to the teams and tried to co-operate. Whether their offers were realistic is the real issue. It was obviously good enough for some teams. Another point: they had the biggest brand in competitive gaming working with them from day one – Fatal1ty.
Wrong games/Salaries and prize money:
Because they decided on exclusivity it limited them in other area's and forced them into certain situations. An exclusive league has a fixed set of teams, and has to pay wages. Which means they could try and split a very competitive '1.6 scene, or have the pick of the entire 'Source scene.
'Source is the second biggest online-FPS, and their selection is justified on literally every respect. I don't think many CS players actually consider how 'dangerous' it would've been if the CGS had actually picked 1.6.
If they decided not to go for exclusivity then there's nothing to differentiate them from the ESL, ESWC and WCG. What they did wasn't wrong, but it was just a different approach and I can sympathise when they consider themselves as “ahead of their time”.
I'm sorry to reiterate the obvious, but CS 1.6 is one game. They had the best players in driving and DOA. Ignoring the German FIFA scene they had a good number of stars in that game as well. In CS, they'd the best North American and UK players. The European players (they admitted that the CGS in Europe wasn't strong) were made up from the best native 'Source players as well as a couple of '1.6 players. The Norwegian team which just finished fourth at WCG – a number of those played under the CGS.
You're being very narrow minded in this respect. If they don't have exclusivity then you know it limits budgets and the potential to market their brand. They outlined their approach from the get go, and the only eSports organisation I've seen mentioned in the mainstream media is the CGS. That was in the Guardian (spiritual opposite to The Times and Sun [which News Corporation own]).
Alex mentioned how it was a waste of money. What he means is that it was a waste because it didn't line the pockets of the G7 teams. For News Corporation the money is completely irrelevant. Despite the sponsorship deals the majority of the money was from them, and if you assume another non-standard company will not invest in eSports because of their choices then you're wrong. They're more likely to look into eSports.
Let me be very specific. The only eSports organisation I've seen in the UK media – ever – is the CGS. The only eSports competition I can saw in the UK was the CGS. The WCG, ESWC and ESL are doing a great job it must be said, but they're breaking no new ground.
“Did CGS succeed? No. Which pretty much sums up that what you are saying is completely incorrect. I like you, you try to look at everything from a different angle, but you have not been around long enough to actually know what you are talking about.”
Oh, you're calling my experience into question – again. I mean it's great that you've this shifting sense of morality about what's considered good, bad, right and wrong, but be reasonable for a change. The fact you equate success with survival is quite ironic. Why not compare how many “proper” eSport competitions and teams have “failed” over the years. How many squads has SK taken in for games which never quite made it? Perhaps, you too are as guilty of failure. Or, you could reasonable and make accurate comparisions.
The CGS was one organisation who took a calculated risk which didn't work out. They didn't collapse in the middle of a season like the WSVG; they didn't owe teams money and collapse like the CPL; they didn't drastically lower prize money and stop hosting events like the ESWC did. The CGS did more for eSports in its short life than the ESWC or WCG has ever done. I'm no fan of the CGS, and for me to say that means something.
You made one really good point about the money which would've perhaps extended their “failure”. I absolutely agree that they didn't need to be so generous. But, that was part of their success. They created their own infrastructure with well paid players, shoutcasters, admins and writers. I think we should look for the good in everything: even the CGS.
(I'd leave a more exhaustive comment, but I'm in a hurry. Give me a shout later on if you want me to explain myself a little better.)
News Corporation has pumped a huge amount of money in to the CGS. They expect to rule the eSports world by showing dollar signs to everyone. Their huge network has brought them all the publicity they needed to promote the league. News Corp. owns many media outlets across the world, especially in the UK, so that’s easy. So of course you have heard more of them than any other organization.
Back in 2005, when I was still with Fnatic, I took care of the PR around Vo0. Some of the stops in the World Tour were poorly ran and extremely boring, but it did brought the eSports community 10 events with $50k prize money a stop just in one year. When Vo0 won so many of them, every single Dutch media outlet picked it up. Even popular talkshows were eager to hear his story. The publicity was immense. If the CPL World Tour and Vo0 had continued, eSports would have been a lot more popular in Holland. But the only reason why the media was interested was because of his winning streak and the big money he had won (and could win), not because of the CPL.
The CGS was in a very unique position by being capable of using the network of News Corporation. WCG, ESWC or any other similar initiative will never be able to have such a media access. But these organizations do have access to a very strong element of eSports: the community, the gamers. Even though people knew of CGS existence, they have never reached the ‘core’ of eSports. Of course you can argue about the game choice, the concept and everything else, but the fact is: They have failed and WCG and ESWC are still there. I also believe that the CGS couldn’t run a healthy business or eSports did not meet their expectations.
As for your media point; dignitas have been featured in newspapers and on the bbc website numerous times. PCGamer had their own eSports clan for a while. fnatic had their own documentary and then there are all of the SK instances BDS listed.
As always an arrogant rant by _evan backed up with faulty information or just complete bullshit. Please go away.
/no links etc
1. The CGS failed in comparison because “WCG and ESWC are still there.” Firstly, you've to look at the 'demise' of the CGS. It wasn't a demise at all. They'd a budget and they stuck to it. They didn't go bust in the middle of the season or lower prize money simply to survive. They ended their 'campaign' at the end of their second season.
They were trying to make money. Companies like News Corp. spend millions on educated gambles because it's better to waste money monopolising concepts with high growth potential rather than trying to establish a new brand in an existing market; especially in the online space. This is without considering the actual amount of money invested - it's literally nothing to a company of that size.
It's quite ironic that you insist “the CGS couldn’t run a healthy business” because it's certainly not the case. Do you think the WCG or ESWC makes money? I mean, actual profit. A good company in eSports is one that breaks even at the end of the year, and that's without considering the [in]stability of their income.
If you want to make comparisons: consider the number of squads SK took in 2008; of which subsequently 'failed' – numerous WoW PvP and PvE squads, CoD4 and not to mention numerous alterations to the CS teams. The CGS is one company, and like SK they made a judgment based on what they can support and hope to achieve. Failure is relative to investment as part of the whole.
2. As I've already mentioned: the amount of money involved is insignificant to News Corp. You're right, however, they'd try to “rule the eSports world by showing dollar signs to everyone”. But, the money they'd and were willing to invest was relative to that strategy. If they spread their money over a longer period then they would've to have changed their entire strategy [and more than likely had less money to play with]. They weren't prepared to be another ESWC because that business model is fundamentally flawed, unprofitable and insecure.
3. What's worrying is how you essentially agree – in principle – with me, but draw conflicting conclusions to support your perception of real eSports. “You can’t compare them with each other.” Essentially, you're right. But, why do you justify “[t]he fact that [the] CGS collapsed after just 2 years” by drawing conclusions against the ESWC and WCG? Not only did “each one of them [...] focus on a different concept of how to bring eSports”, but they'd fundamentally different ambitions – profit versus survival.
4. “I truly wonder how you come the conclusion that the CGS has done more for eSports than ESWC and WCG ever did?” Please don't assert that the CGS' concepts failed because they “collapsed” [hopefully I've convinced you of the nonsensical nature of this argument by now].
There are fundamental similarities between the CGS and the ESWC. The CGS picked games on their suitability for their target audience - just like the EWSC. The CGS picked games which weren't always the most popular – just like the ESWC [the justifications may be different but the aims are the same]. The CGS tried to monopolise a market for profit, whereas the ESWC is trying to monopolise a market for competitive growth [in a theoretical sense – see their support of Trackmania as proof of building legal and competitive experience], but even this support is marginalising. The prize money for the core eSport titles has dwindled over the years, and eventually the ESWC – when push comes to shove [just like the ESL recently] – will have to decide whether their survival is more important than their aim.
The CGS decided their aim was more important than their survival. Take a look at all the eSport organisers and how their opinions and values shift year-on-year. I'm supposed to believe these guys know what they're doing. That they've some grand scheme in mind. They don't.
Where the fuck is Painkiller now? Take a look at 75% of the WCG games – they're trash. The ESL drops WC3 in place of an inferior competitive title, and I'm supposed to turn a blind eye because the self-serving bastards choose to support themselves for another year? The problem with the CGS has always been a problem of CS [1.6]. Outside of the CS community you'll find the support was unanimous.
The CGS tried to consolidate (albeit badly!) the existing market and artificially stimulate the growth by pushing eSports into the mainstream – through their existing partners. Regardless of their “failure” they've exposed eSports [you may argue about the legitimacy of the concept exposed] to a mainstream audience. The ESWC and WCG has never done that in the Western world.
Apologises for the delayed reply.
I'm not going to compensate for your lack of reading skills. The only eSports company which has been consistently covered in the [UK] mainstream media - since I've followed eSports - has been the CGS.
"As for your media point; dignitas have been featured in newspapers and on the bbc website numerous times. PCGamer had their own eSports clan for a while. fnatic had their own documentary..."
Q1/2 of 2008 compared to 2007 showed sales growth of 42% for the UK gaming industry. Sales in the PC market dropped by 29% in the same period - the only platform not to have record growth. The PC makes up about 10% of the entire gaming market in the UK, and it's declining rapidly. eSports is only a tiny part - generally not contributing that much either - of that 10%.
eSports being mentioned once every couple of months in hardware and [PC] gaming magazines is absolutely worthless in terms of exposure. Dignitas has only been mentioned once, according to their website, in the national media in 2008 so far. The article focuses largely on the CGS (link below). And, it wasn't even a lead article either. It was on page five or six in the technology supplement - which a lot of people don't bother reading.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/03/games.news
Your level of maturity hasn't changed at all. You can choose to be as naive as you want it makes no difference to me. How did Inside-eSports work out by the way?
Since when did consistencey come into it? You said the ONLY eSports company you "can saw" in the UK media was the CGS, I prove you wrong stating that other organisations have been mentioned in the media and now you decide the one you've seen consistently mentioned is the CGS meaning you've seen others mentioned just not as often; surely thats a contradiction of your first statement?
Yes the CGS did get a lot of mainstream media coverage, but I know some of that they paid to be done themselves, for example they paid BBC Online to send journalists the the first world finals as well as giving them a per diem.
As for you're ever so subtle burn, Inside-eSports didnt work out as I'd hoped but I knew that was the most likely possibility - it didnt stop me trying something I believed could work and I have no regrets whereas you've deliberately alienated and insulted your whole readership at SK and MYM leading yourself to being jobless (in eSports) and working as a glorified dinner lady.
I mention consistency because it's the best indicator of relative success and growth in real terms. Your [and javax's] counter-argument has no relation to my basic assertion – they were the only company I saw. What you saw has absolutely no impact on my point.
I don't contradict myself. What I did do was follow your counter argument, and undermine the usefulness of where other companies had been mentioned. It has the effect of actually strengthening, or legitimatising my original point. Turning it from a highly subjective premise with no proof into something unarguable.
“Yes the CGS did get a lot of mainstream media coverage, but I know some of that they paid to be done themselves, for example they paid BBC Online to send journalists the the first world finals as well as giving them a per diem.”
And? Do you not realise how the media actually works? The CGS paid for SK staff to attend the Birmingham event as well.
“As for you're ever so subtle burn, Inside-eSports didnt work out as I'd hoped but I knew that was the most likely possibility - it didnt stop me trying something I believed could work and I have no regrets whereas you've deliberately alienated and insulted your whole readership at SK and MYM leading yourself to being jobless (in eSports) and working as a glorified dinner lady.”
I don't know why you keep trying to validate yourself against me. It just shows how little you've learned, and how immature you still are. You make assumptions about my behavior and then draw comparisons to yourself. It wasn't subtle burn at all. And, if what I did was deliberate then I knew what I was doing, and what the consequences would be. So why exactly would your opinion matter or make a difference?
I wrote one article for MYM and it was incredibly popular. My columns on SK were the most popular. It doesn't sound like I was alienating anyone. It's not some freak occurrence. You don't mistakenly click my work every single week [and it's pretty obvious when something was written by me] by accident. You can make judgments about my behavior and way of doing things, but that just means you're almost certainly going to be wrong because you make assumptions about what I wanted to achieve and why I was doing this.
For someone who obviously trolls my internets you should've noticed the timing of 'the incident', and how it coincided with me going back to uni'. Even despite my apparent alienation and unpopularity I received a number of job offers within eSports the day after. I left SK on relatively good terms with bds and Carmac. If I wanted to write on any eSports webs