7 ms·

I think that the base concepts of this article are wrong. eSports is not saving PC gaming because the games require the best hardware. In fact competitve games

I think that the base concepts of this article are wrong. eSports is not saving PC gaming because the games require the best hardware. In fact competitve games have some of the lowest requirements possible. Riot(League of Legends) goes out of their way all the time to make sure that their game will work even on the most outdated computers and really none of the competitive games have the most astonishing graphic. For the pros too it's not about the hardware or graphics, many use the lowest possible settings to make sure they get a decent performance. I don't know if it's still a thing but in Counter Strike people use very low resolutions to enhance performance, have better vision and reduce mouse movement. We are talking about games where a few ms can make a difference. What is selling hardware is not eSports. It's all those games that look amazing and perform the best on great hardware. Skyrim(or even GTA V) for example, on a console will never look as good as on a PC. A recent controversy was that on PC Watchdogs was "downgraded" before release to look more like the console version because they weren't powerful enough. Here's another thing that is saving the PC industry, the mod community. If there is one thing for sure is that phone gaming wont destroy PC gaming.

rlu 11y ago
Re: Counter-Strike https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyCuEmmZc4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyCuEmmZc4A
atom-morgan 11y ago
> I don't know if it's still a thing but in Counter Strike people use very low resolutions to enhance performance, have better vision and reduce mouse movement. I can't say for sure with CS but I know it's definitely the case with StarCraft. I saw it firsthand when I was in Vegas for a competition and had the chance to spectate behind some of the competitors irl. All that I saw were on the lowest graphics settings.
- freehunter 11y ago
  When I played CS:S in CAL Open, I saw a lot of people putting the graphics all the way down so their vision wasn't obscured by dust in the air, or fluffy bushes, or sun glare, or particle effects. I never played seriously enough to go as far as finding out if it made a difference. I just liked to play a pretty game.
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    CS:GO isn't that graphically advanced over CS:S. A lot of the more serious players will turn off props/doodads that don't have player collision. Turning off bloom is always a good decision IMO... just looks ugly most of the time.
- danielvinson 11y ago
  This was a big thing in Counter Strike 1.6 due to it giving you in-game advantages. For example, all leagues eventually started requiring you to use 32-bit graphics because people were using 16-bit graphics to be able to see through smoke grenades. If you ran the bare minimum settings, you would be able to minimize the distractions and increase the contrast between players and the level, letting you focus on winning. The main reason pros will use lower settings for CS:S or CS:GO is because it is incredibly important that the game runs perfectly smoothly so that it reacts consistently to their input. Since everyone is on 144hz monitors now, that means they will need to stay above 144fps at all times. Now, most CS pros who are sponsored will have good hardware and can do this on 1920x1080, but the problem is that at LAN tournaments in foreign countries, it is much less common that hardware which can do this is available. So the pro players will purposely use something like 1024x768 because they know 100% that the computer they will be given at any tournament will handle that, and changing something like resolution would take a few days to get used to and they won't get that chance.
- goeric 11y ago
  Former professional Counter-Strike player here, can confirm. A lot of the top players still play on 1024x768 even on widescreen monitors (some have it stretched, some have black bars on the side). While I can't explain the technical reasons behind it, from experience I can definitely say the blocky nature of low-resolution gives you does feel like it's easier to get headshots. I always performed better at low resolutions, even with a gaming PC more-than-capable of running at 1080p 200FPS+.
- drawk 11y ago
  My understanding is that low settings used to make stealth units easer to see in SC2 (and heroes of the storm, which is on the SC2 engine). Supposedly they've patched it in newer versions, but I'm sure people who've logged a ton of hours in low modes still prefer it. In HotS some of the ability effects show through the fog of war, and supposedly that's easier to spot on low settings still. It also reduces the business on the screen when everyone in the game is teamfighting in one area.
kin 11y ago
You make a good point but all the best streamers absolutely need good hardware to be able to a stream high quality video feeds at a good frame rate. In addition, they get sponsored by hardware companies to mention what hardware they're using. There is no doubt eSports is selling hardware. Counter Strike is really not as popular in eSports nowadays as moba.
- daheza 11y ago
  Sometimes these streamers are even buying a second box and using a capture card to send the video to their streaming PC.
  - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
    Which is how Podcasters do it have a slave pc to run skype
- eterm 11y ago
  Counter-strike global offensive is actually one of the fastest growing esports. It gets more monthly viewer hours than DOTA (outside of The International, DOTA doesn't get many viewers), although is still some way behind LoL. However, CSGO majors viewing figures went from ~150k to ~300k to ~1mil to ~1.2m for the last few majors, so it's growing really fast.
  - ddorian43 11y ago
    I think you get (random?) items in the game when you view these events in CSGO, so many people are viewing with multiple accounts.
    - danielvinson 11y ago
      There is a small chance that a case drops for you which is worth $5-$40 depending on which map you are watching that contains "Souvenir" items for the event signed by the players. You only get drops if your Steam account that owns the game is linked to a twitch account that is watching, and is IP restricted (you won't get more drops unless you watch from different IPs at the same time). View botting exists, but it requires a lot of time/money to do, and the Twitch viewership numbers are actually more accurate than you would think.
soylentcola 11y ago
I think another aspect that isn't always touched upon is the fact that many people will own some form of PC even as tablets and smartphones deliver more frequent updates and sales numbers. I've owned consoles in the past (last one I bought was an Xbox360 when it was on sale some years back) but I've always had a PC in the house. For all the talk of how expensive PC gaming is, for me it's always been the least expensive way to play video games. On the surface, a PC (of any stripe) will look more expensive than a game console at $500-1500 for a typical computer versus ~$400 for a game console. But to me, a game console is an additional $400 that I'd be spending for another box just for playing games. I think for a while, the growing popularity of laptops and fewer desktop sales might have affected this balance since notebooks were generally more expensive for equivalent hardware and often lacked the GPU power needed for even modest gaming. But now I see even more modest laptops with integrated graphics that can handle at least some level of game performance as well as a crop of reasonably priced ($800-1000) notebooks that come with some sort of dedicated GPU. I'm sure that for a lot of people whose computing usage can be handled solely with mobile-grade hardware (tablets, phones) the game console is a cheap and easy way to keep playing video games on a screen larger than 5 or 10 inches. But for anyone who already needs a laptop or a desktop, the cost difference to add a bit more RAM and a decent video card is less than the cost of a game console and even the base level specs are getting to the point where you can expect at least a decent level of gaming capability. I guess the tl;dr version is: eSports help and more powerful phones/tablets may be cutting into the desktop/laptop markets but at the same time, desktops and laptops continue to improve and even mainstream PCs can handle games now (even better if you put an extra $150-250 into RAM and GPU). As has historically been the case, the PC (whether a $600 Asus or a $2000 Macbook) is the gaming platform many people already own so it stands to reason that many will continue to use it as such.
- kqr 11y ago
  > But for anyone who already needs a laptop or a desktop ...which is basically anyone who is a white-collar worker or studying.
moistgorilla 11y ago
> I don't know if it's still a thing but in Counter Strike people use very low resolutions to enhance performance, have better vision and reduce mouse movement. We are talking about games where a few ms can make a difference. While this is true pros still have very high performance pcs because there is an advantage to playing at 300 - 400 frames per second.
kllrnohj 11y ago
> I don't know if it's still a thing but in Counter Strike people use very low resolutions to enhance performance, have better vision and reduce mouse movement. Not anymore. There are plenty of pros playing at 1920x1080 with all settings on high + MSAA. High-end video cards are common as a result (as the target is ~200-300fps on 144hz monitors) I think the reasons for this are a combination of that's what this generation of pros grew up expecting AND the rise of twitch streaming. Better looking streams attract more viewers. There have been some investigation of settings and high vs. low generally doesn't give you an advantage or disadvantage either way.
- edias 11y ago
  Even still Counter Strike GO is not a resource intensive game. No one needs a top of the line PC to play that game at max settings. Also pretty much any tournament is not broadcasting from the players computer but have dedicated observers that will always run the game at max settings. Plenty of CS pros still use 4:3 aspect ratios, but their games would be broadcast in HD. >There have been some investigation of settings and high vs. low generally doesn't give you an advantage or disadvantage either way. Yes and no. In a game like Starcraft where cloaked units give a slight glimmer when moving, pros universally optimize settings to enhance this glimmer as much as possible, and low graphics is one of the settings they use. More so though pros just stick to what their used to regardless of objective performance. It's why so many CS pros still use 4:3 aspect ratio.
  - mafuyu 11y ago
    CS:GO is a terribly optimized game (a hack of the L4D2 engine ported from Xbox to PC!), and requires 300 in-game fps in the Source engine for competitive play. 300 fps is the sweet spot for no mouse acceleration and smooth mouse movements, as well as no frame drops on a 144 Hz monitor. CS:GO perf is CPU-limited, and my i7 2600 can only go up to 250 fps on all low settings, so I'm upgrading to a Skylake 6600k. Blizzard has done a much better job with SC2; one of their goals from the start has been to optimize for low-end computers.
  - kllrnohj 11y ago
    > Yes and no. In a game like Starcraft where cloaked units give a slight glimmer when moving Sorry I wasn't clear, I was specifically talking about CSGO. Seeing through smokes & fires isn't any better at low vs. high settings. > It's why so many CS pros still use 4:3 aspect ratio. Hmmm I disagree. Many of the current CSGO pros using 4:3 AR came from CS 1.6 and I think they just never felt like changing. There's no competitive advantage to it. If anything it's a FOV loss and thus a slight disadvantage but it's so minor as to not matter most of the time.
Shivetya 11y ago
the mod community for XCOM has been very active and for the most part the developers don't try to stop them. If anything features in the next version of the game show a lot of requests for what previously had to be modded are to be added. With regards to eSports and the sites that cater to them, I would like to see them impact on game sales as well as the hardware used to run them. If anything watching others play a new game is a great way to determine if its even worth buying
BMFX 11y ago
Not so much, while you are right that the requirements of the games has more than been met in most competitive games. Go try and stream that game in HD using twitch - and now you will see why its saving the PC gaming market. To stream a mid-level detailed game in HD takes a ton of performance, more than you'd think.
Joof 11y ago
I disagree. eSports provides a low price entry point into the platform and greatly expands the PC base. The hardware sales come with the culture of PC gaming along with what you said, but the people become PC gamers first and hardware buyers second.

rlu 11y ago

Re: Counter-Strike https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyCuEmmZc4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyCuEmmZc4A

atom-morgan 11y ago

> I don't know if it's still a thing but in Counter Strike people use very low resolutions to enhance performance, have better vision and reduce mouse movement. I can't say for sure with CS but I know it's definitely the case with StarCraft. I saw it firsthand when I was in Vegas for a competition and had the chance to spectate behind some of the competitors irl. All that I saw were on the lowest graphics settings.

freehunter 11y ago
When I played CS:S in CAL Open, I saw a lot of people putting the graphics all the way down so their vision wasn't obscured by dust in the air, or fluffy bushes, or sun glare, or particle effects. I never played seriously enough to go as far as finding out if it made a difference. I just liked to play a pretty game.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  CS:GO isn't that graphically advanced over CS:S. A lot of the more serious players will turn off props/doodads that don't have player collision. Turning off bloom is always a good decision IMO... just looks ugly most of the time.
danielvinson 11y ago
This was a big thing in Counter Strike 1.6 due to it giving you in-game advantages. For example, all leagues eventually started requiring you to use 32-bit graphics because people were using 16-bit graphics to be able to see through smoke grenades. If you ran the bare minimum settings, you would be able to minimize the distractions and increase the contrast between players and the level, letting you focus on winning. The main reason pros will use lower settings for CS:S or CS:GO is because it is incredibly important that the game runs perfectly smoothly so that it reacts consistently to their input. Since everyone is on 144hz monitors now, that means they will need to stay above 144fps at all times. Now, most CS pros who are sponsored will have good hardware and can do this on 1920x1080, but the problem is that at LAN tournaments in foreign countries, it is much less common that hardware which can do this is available. So the pro players will purposely use something like 1024x768 because they know 100% that the computer they will be given at any tournament will handle that, and changing something like resolution would take a few days to get used to and they won't get that chance.
goeric 11y ago
Former professional Counter-Strike player here, can confirm. A lot of the top players still play on 1024x768 even on widescreen monitors (some have it stretched, some have black bars on the side). While I can't explain the technical reasons behind it, from experience I can definitely say the blocky nature of low-resolution gives you does feel like it's easier to get headshots. I always performed better at low resolutions, even with a gaming PC more-than-capable of running at 1080p 200FPS+.
drawk 11y ago
My understanding is that low settings used to make stealth units easer to see in SC2 (and heroes of the storm, which is on the SC2 engine). Supposedly they've patched it in newer versions, but I'm sure people who've logged a ton of hours in low modes still prefer it. In HotS some of the ability effects show through the fog of war, and supposedly that's easier to spot on low settings still. It also reduces the business on the screen when everyone in the game is teamfighting in one area.

kin 11y ago

You make a good point but all the best streamers absolutely need good hardware to be able to a stream high quality video feeds at a good frame rate. In addition, they get sponsored by hardware companies to mention what hardware they're using. There is no doubt eSports is selling hardware. Counter Strike is really not as popular in eSports nowadays as moba.

daheza 11y ago
Sometimes these streamers are even buying a second box and using a capture card to send the video to their streaming PC.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  Which is how Podcasters do it have a slave pc to run skype
eterm 11y ago
Counter-strike global offensive is actually one of the fastest growing esports. It gets more monthly viewer hours than DOTA (outside of The International, DOTA doesn't get many viewers), although is still some way behind LoL. However, CSGO majors viewing figures went from ~150k to ~300k to ~1mil to ~1.2m for the last few majors, so it's growing really fast.
- ddorian43 11y ago
  I think you get (random?) items in the game when you view these events in CSGO, so many people are viewing with multiple accounts.
  - danielvinson 11y ago
    There is a small chance that a case drops for you which is worth $5-$40 depending on which map you are watching that contains "Souvenir" items for the event signed by the players. You only get drops if your Steam account that owns the game is linked to a twitch account that is watching, and is IP restricted (you won't get more drops unless you watch from different IPs at the same time). View botting exists, but it requires a lot of time/money to do, and the Twitch viewership numbers are actually more accurate than you would think.

soylentcola 11y ago

I think another aspect that isn't always touched upon is the fact that many people will own some form of PC even as tablets and smartphones deliver more frequent updates and sales numbers. I've owned consoles in the past (last one I bought was an Xbox360 when it was on sale some years back) but I've always had a PC in the house. For all the talk of how expensive PC gaming is, for me it's always been the least expensive way to play video games. On the surface, a PC (of any stripe) will look more expensive than a game console at $500-1500 for a typical computer versus ~$400 for a game console. But to me, a game console is an additional $400 that I'd be spending for another box just for playing games. I think for a while, the growing popularity of laptops and fewer desktop sales might have affected this balance since notebooks were generally more expensive for equivalent hardware and often lacked the GPU power needed for even modest gaming. But now I see even more modest laptops with integrated graphics that can handle at least some level of game performance as well as a crop of reasonably priced ($800-1000) notebooks that come with some sort of dedicated GPU. I'm sure that for a lot of people whose computing usage can be handled solely with mobile-grade hardware (tablets, phones) the game console is a cheap and easy way to keep playing video games on a screen larger than 5 or 10 inches. But for anyone who already needs a laptop or a desktop, the cost difference to add a bit more RAM and a decent video card is less than the cost of a game console and even the base level specs are getting to the point where you can expect at least a decent level of gaming capability. I guess the tl;dr version is: eSports help and more powerful phones/tablets may be cutting into the desktop/laptop markets but at the same time, desktops and laptops continue to improve and even mainstream PCs can handle games now (even better if you put an extra $150-250 into RAM and GPU). As has historically been the case, the PC (whether a $600 Asus or a $2000 Macbook) is the gaming platform many people already own so it stands to reason that many will continue to use it as such.

kqr 11y ago
> But for anyone who already needs a laptop or a desktop ...which is basically anyone who is a white-collar worker or studying.

moistgorilla 11y ago

> I don't know if it's still a thing but in Counter Strike people use very low resolutions to enhance performance, have better vision and reduce mouse movement. We are talking about games where a few ms can make a difference. While this is true pros still have very high performance pcs because there is an advantage to playing at 300 - 400 frames per second.

kllrnohj 11y ago

> I don't know if it's still a thing but in Counter Strike people use very low resolutions to enhance performance, have better vision and reduce mouse movement. Not anymore. There are plenty of pros playing at 1920x1080 with all settings on high + MSAA. High-end video cards are common as a result (as the target is ~200-300fps on 144hz monitors) I think the reasons for this are a combination of that's what this generation of pros grew up expecting AND the rise of twitch streaming. Better looking streams attract more viewers. There have been some investigation of settings and high vs. low generally doesn't give you an advantage or disadvantage either way.

edias 11y ago
Even still Counter Strike GO is not a resource intensive game. No one needs a top of the line PC to play that game at max settings. Also pretty much any tournament is not broadcasting from the players computer but have dedicated observers that will always run the game at max settings. Plenty of CS pros still use 4:3 aspect ratios, but their games would be broadcast in HD. >There have been some investigation of settings and high vs. low generally doesn't give you an advantage or disadvantage either way. Yes and no. In a game like Starcraft where cloaked units give a slight glimmer when moving, pros universally optimize settings to enhance this glimmer as much as possible, and low graphics is one of the settings they use. More so though pros just stick to what their used to regardless of objective performance. It's why so many CS pros still use 4:3 aspect ratio.
- mafuyu 11y ago
  CS:GO is a terribly optimized game (a hack of the L4D2 engine ported from Xbox to PC!), and requires 300 in-game fps in the Source engine for competitive play. 300 fps is the sweet spot for no mouse acceleration and smooth mouse movements, as well as no frame drops on a 144 Hz monitor. CS:GO perf is CPU-limited, and my i7 2600 can only go up to 250 fps on all low settings, so I'm upgrading to a Skylake 6600k. Blizzard has done a much better job with SC2; one of their goals from the start has been to optimize for low-end computers.
- kllrnohj 11y ago
  > Yes and no. In a game like Starcraft where cloaked units give a slight glimmer when moving Sorry I wasn't clear, I was specifically talking about CSGO. Seeing through smokes & fires isn't any better at low vs. high settings. > It's why so many CS pros still use 4:3 aspect ratio. Hmmm I disagree. Many of the current CSGO pros using 4:3 AR came from CS 1.6 and I think they just never felt like changing. There's no competitive advantage to it. If anything it's a FOV loss and thus a slight disadvantage but it's so minor as to not matter most of the time.

Shivetya 11y ago

the mod community for XCOM has been very active and for the most part the developers don't try to stop them. If anything features in the next version of the game show a lot of requests for what previously had to be modded are to be added. With regards to eSports and the sites that cater to them, I would like to see them impact on game sales as well as the hardware used to run them. If anything watching others play a new game is a great way to determine if its even worth buying

BMFX 11y ago

Not so much, while you are right that the requirements of the games has more than been met in most competitive games. Go try and stream that game in HD using twitch - and now you will see why its saving the PC gaming market. To stream a mid-level detailed game in HD takes a ton of performance, more than you'd think.

Joof 11y ago

I disagree. eSports provides a low price entry point into the platform and greatly expands the PC base. The hardware sales come with the culture of PC gaming along with what you said, but the people become PC gamers first and hardware buyers second.