I think that someday it wont be un-common to have gaming "super-star" players that people will talk about while sitting with a beer in the pub with their mates, much like people do today with football / any sport players today. I think "pro-gaming" in terms of online tournaments and championships will be pushed a lot further and may gain television backing and official leaderboards and divisions will be setup globally and per country to track these "cyber athletes" progress.

In terms of how mainstreaming will affect the actual games - This will probably mean a lot more "casual" games such as The sims and other "playing reality" and sandbox games where players dont need to be hardcore to progress and have fun, also consoles will come to the forefront and perhaps even overtake the pc on the game development front as they are much more accessible to newcomers.

While I dont think that games content will be toned down, I think an enforced rating scheme will be put into place much like there is with films these days, so you really do need to be 18 to play doom5 and Quake7 ... 

Games are going to need to evolve WELL beyond where they are now to become spectator sports. It's already a challenge to make players care about their avatars, it's a whole other thing to get Joe Shmoe to care about those avatars being controlled by someone else.

Plus, unlike a real sport which can evolve with the times, yet keep the same basic rules and mechanics... computer games aren't there. Before even thinking of making games a mainstream event, developers will need to start creating flexible game architectures AS WELL AS interesting and dynamic game designs that will stand the test of time, and allow future upgrades. Lots of extra time to turn around games for little garenteed results.

Already in 7 years we've had vastly differant Quake games... along with a huge amount of other FPS games... PLUS plenty of OTHER multiple games. An amount of standardization is needed to get mainstream audiences to understand rules, regulations, and what the hell those things on the screen are doing. This won't happen anytime soon, as it's harmful to the industry that relies on people buying new games all the time AND has a consumer that trives on getting something new and cool.

In 'real sports' you have very few choices, and only the very involved can keep track of what's going on in each. Try to do the same with all current video games... it's near-impossible... and there'll only be more infomation to keep track of if worldwide cyber-sports was made a reality.

Varity may be the spice of life, but the main course is always the same drab thing. Games already have tons of genres and sub genres... and even within those, gamers have wide amount of tastes in game styles. Trying to satisfy all tastes would mean new games needed all the time, which means lost interest in one 'event' and an eventual loss of interest in the whole of spectator games.

And let's be honest... 'cyber-athletes'? People care about sports for the same reason they always have... other humans pushing their bodies and using their strength to be the best. Nobody wants a pasty 14 year old nerd as a hero. Look how exciting tournement chess is... brains and skill aren't things people want to watch. The best games can do is add gloss to the fact someone is just sitting at a keyboard and mouse and hitting buttons.

I agree that someday, interactive media may equal/overtake real spectator sports, but I doubt it something we need to be concerned about nowadays. 

 

They have Starcraft tournaments on national TV. 

and in a few years? No more kekes and no more OMG ZERG RUSHes. Try to do it in america, it'll be a cute fad for maybe 5 years tops, and then it'll go the way of Who Wants to be a Millonaire and co. 

Well here's an example of how not to do it:

http://www.bbcfightbox.co.uk/

It's a game so crap looking and with such retarded mechanics that you wouldn't want to play it yourself, let alone be bored senseless by watching other people playing it. I have no idea how many people actually watch it, but I have a horrible feeling that it might actually be enough that they consider a second series worthwhile. I guess it might appeal to the sort of idiot six-year olds that think generic Disney platform games are the pinnacle of the games industry's achievements. 

a shining beacon of stupidity in the mist of creativity and intelligence. I mean, why use an existing game that people like to play, made by people who are paid to make games? Why not get the BBC effects department to make a game instead? And then why not make the game the same every week, the same stages, or levels, or whatever you want to call them. And then, lets build a super-expensive set, with a gladiatorial/bullfighting style arena, surrounded by a studio audience!

"but wait!" I hear you say, "why is there an arena when there's nothing to go IN the arena?". Well, that's the ingenius part, because we can pretend the 3d characters are actually playing the game in the arena itself! Even though the audience only sees them on a big video display screen, the viewer at home sees them in the arena! That's money well spent, it couldn't have been used to make the show entertaining, or anything.

Oh! and contestents get to design their own characters. So they look like shit. And, er, where do they control their imaginary fighters from? From stupid fucking pods that are raised from the ground and look down on the arena. Just a few more magic touches left, like employing the animation and graphics engine from Rise of the Triad, and stealing all the ideas from Robot Wars, like house robots ("sentients") and most of the stupid puzzles. Whoa, I nearly forgot the lamest presenting team I've ever seen, Lisa Snowdon and Trevor Nelson... maybe someone should have noticed they AREN'T ACTUALLY PRESENTERS.

Argh, the saddest thing is you know they think they're doing something original and amazing, unaware that severely damaging the reputation of video games is nothing new.

Seriously, you have to doubt the mental capacity of someone who likes that shit. 

Firstly, it is possible to follow worldwide gaming if you really want to. You can get news, demos, and live TV/radio commentary.

The problem is that it's still fairly minor in terms of the mainstream entertainment/sports industries.

The games change too rapidly to build up a regular audience base (even CS has only lasted a few years). The lack of a consistent game for each genre means that the players/game dynamics change too often to build up stable corporate sponsorship (needed to increase the 'scope' of competitive gaming).

Gaming will slowly become more mainstream as more corporate money starts to go into clans and competitions (SK being the obvious clan example and the CPL (evile as they are) the biggest competition), more stable entities than single players.

Give it all 50 years though of course :)