Trouble in eSports Paradise (Article)

MadFrenchie

See the Kotaku article entitled "Shady Numbers and Bad Business: Inside the eSports Bubble", linked below:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kotaku.com/as-esports-grows-experts-fear-its-a-bubble-ready-to-po-1834982843/amp



Some interesting quotes that put the reality of eSports into shocking perspective:

"NewZoo analyst Jurre Pannekeet, who sees the revenues for 14 esports teams, says the majority of teams are operating at a loss, but declined to say how much on average, citing nondisclosure agreements. When pressed whether that majority was closer to 51 percent or 90 percent of teams operating at a loss, he said: “If you looked into it, it’s probably closer to 89 percent than 50 percent.”"

"Kotaku asked over a dozen esports professionals if they believe there is a path towards making money that is on par with the level of investment going into esports right now. Most of them said they really don’t know. “No one’s solved it yet,” said Daniel Herz, the chief revenue officer of Complexity Gaming . . . One Riot employee with knowledge of League of Legends’ esports revenue, when asked whether the League Championship Series makes money, laughed. Its current goal, they said, is to prevent it from losing money indefinitely."


"Esports diehards spent $5.00 each last year on esports, according to NewZoo, with mid-level fans generally spending half of that. Compared to traditional sports fans, that’s paltry; CNBCreported in 2017 that American fans spent an average of $710 per year attending traditional sporting events."

Asm0deus

MadFrenchie said:

See the Kotaku article entitled "Shady Numbers and Bad Business: Inside the eSports Bubble", linked below:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kotaku.com/as-esports-grows-experts-fear-its-a-bubble-ready-to-po-1834982843/amp



Some interesting quotes that put the reality of eSports into shocking perspective:

"NewZoo analyst Jurre Pannekeet, who sees the revenues for 14 esports teams, says the majority of teams are operating at a loss, but declined to say how much on average, citing nondisclosure agreements. When pressed whether that majority was closer to 51 percent or 90 percent of teams operating at a loss, he said: “If you looked into it, it’s probably closer to 89 percent than 50 percent.”"

"Kotaku asked over a dozen esports professionals if they believe there is a path towards making money that is on par with the level of investment going into esports right now. Most of them said they really don’t know. “No one’s solved it yet,” said Daniel Herz, the chief revenue officer of Complexity Gaming . . . One Riot employee with knowledge of League of Legends’ esports revenue, when asked whether the League Championship Series makes money, laughed. Its current goal, they said, is to prevent it from losing money indefinitely."


"Esports diehards spent $5.00 each last year on esports, according to NewZoo, with mid-level fans generally spending half of that. Compared to traditional sports fans, that’s paltry; CNBCreported in 2017 that American fans spent an average of $710 per year attending traditional sporting events."

I would argue that's because it's not really "sports"....lol

Amathe

$5.00 per person doesn't even cover the beer and chicken at the tailgate party before watching a "traditional" sport.  Heck, it doesn't cover the cost of a foam #1 finger.  

MadFrenchie

It gets more ominous as you read down it.


You find out that viewership numbers, including the "as many people as watched the Super Bowl!" were all unverified and, it seems likely, counted folks who merely navigated past the tournament stream thumbnail on Twitch's homepage, or that those whose sessions restarted or who closed their browsers and then returned were counted twice.


In fact, Nielsen refuses to put out any reports on projecting future viewership or revenue because there simply isn't enough verifiable data to build such a report.  Nielsen also agreed the numbers we do have seem inflated from their research.


The revenue from eSports is rarely differentiated by the game publishers from the game's general profits.  That means even the eSports revenue being made is questionable, because it's impossible in many cases to know whether the dollar spent was just on the cash shop, or on sponsored team merchandise in said cash shop.

None of this looks good for the idea of eSports.  Looks like maybe the success we've been hearing about has been more "successful in fooling folks" than "successful in building a new industry."

Amathe

The other day, I came across a tv broadcast of a playoff game for Overwatch. I watched for about 5 minutes. It may be tremendous fun to play Overwatch (I can't say) but I found it deadly dull watching other people play it. So I too wonder if the reported viewers were people who watched all or most of the broadcast, or who, like me, tuned out almost immediately. 

lahnmir

E-sports also function as advertisement. So you need to take that money into consideration as well when deciding whether or not its operating at a loss. And since advertisement costs a LOT of money I think you would get a very different outcome and find out that quite a few companies are more then willing to continue investing in E-sports. Just to compare, Blizzcon doesn’t make any money either, its the exposure that is the “profit.”

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

MadFrenchie

lahnmir said:

E-sports also function as advertisement. So you need to take that money into consideration as well when deciding whether or not its operating at a loss. And since advertisement costs a LOT of money I think you would get a very different outcome and find out that quite a few companies are more then willing to continue investing in E-sports. Just to compare, Blizzcon doesn’t make any money either, its the exposure that is the “profit.”

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

That's why the viewership numbers are interesting.


If the article is to be believed, even marketers are being duped into believing inflated numbers about the exposure eSports is giving them or other companies involved.  I mean, Blizzard recently shut down HoTS eSports, so Blizzard might be wising up with the help of Nielsen's new eSports division.

Hashbrick

Look I'm a huge esports guy (mostly counter-strike), been following it since the early days of Cal.  It has exploded within the last 2yrs, there is big money being flung around.  The sponsorship's usually pay for the salaries and then some.  I find this data very inaccurate to what esports is fueled on.  It's not fueled on the viewers it's fueled on the sponsors.  The metrics don't make sense.

If it wasn't big money why would we have big sports brands come in and buy teams, why would Mark Cubin even bother.  In fact there is so much money in it, everyone is piling in like the wild west because there is no player regulations and securities in place yet.  Once there is then it will start settling down.  ESForce has their hands in a lot of teams with a lot of questionable ethics that wouldn't be possible in actual sports since it would be considered damn near match fixing.

Our industry is a young boom much like the dotcom boom.  Everyone thought you needed money from the website members ie. subscriptions until they realized ads pay the bills.  It's the same thing.

Kotaku has no business making an article on something they don't understand and Jason Lake is a questionable character, he's been in it for a long time but his motivations are not for the scene.

MadFrenchie

Hashbrick said:

Look I'm a huge esports guy (mostly counter-strike), been following it since the early days of Cal.  It has exploded within the last 2yrs, there is big money being flung around.  The sponsorship's usually pay for the salaries and then some.  I find this data very inaccurate to what esports is fueled on.  It's not fueled on the viewers it's fueled on the sponsors.  The metrics don't make sense.

If it wasn't big money why would we have big sports brands come in and buy teams, why would Mark Cubin even bother.  In fact there is so much money in it, everyone is piling in like the wild west because there is no player regulations and securities in place yet.  Once there is then it will start settling down.  ESForce has their hands in a lot of teams with a lot of questionable ethics that wouldn't be possible in actual sports since it would be considered damn near match fixing.

Our industry is a young boom much like the dotcom boom.  Everyone thought you needed money from the website members ie. subscriptions until they realized ads pay the bills.  It's the same thing.

Kotaku has no business making an article on something they don't understand and Jason Lake is a questionable character, he's been in it for a long time but his motivations are not for the scene.

They quoted multiple folks from the beginnings of the eSports industry, not just one.  EDIT- in fact, the very first named source, Fields, is a manager of Corsair's sponsorship department.  He agrees with the article's premise.

They also aren't ignoring sponsors.  Sponsors want eyeballs on the tournaments.  DuPont didn't sponsor Jeff Gordon because they wanted to make his car look pretty.  And the article, which includes statements clearly consistent with their assertion from a dedicated Nielsen research group, submits that the viewership that's been touted isn't reliable.  That's not good news for sponsors, and not good news for those receiving the sponsorships.

In fact, it seems likely based on the information included that the data we're hearing surrounding eSports is super inaccurate to the point of being a mere educated guess.

If you have an authority greater than Nielsen for the ratings research, or better than the multiple named and unnamed sources cited here, I'm all for hearing it.

Kyleran

Big money is often spent on total boondoggles, it would be a mistake to assume the presence of people throwing money at eSports is any indicator of its "success."

MadFrenchie

Kyleran said:

Big money is often spent on total boondoggles, it would be a mistake to assume the presence of people throwing money at eSports is any indicator of its "success."

The most concerning thing (to me) isn't the money being invested- it's the lack of money even the most hardcore fans are willing to spend.


$5 average over a full year for ONLY the most hardcore fans?  You can't maintain a local bowling league with that kinda revenue per head.

Hashbrick

MadFrenchie said:

Hashbrick said:

Look I'm a huge esports guy (mostly counter-strike), been following it since the early days of Cal.  It has exploded within the last 2yrs, there is big money being flung around.  The sponsorship's usually pay for the salaries and then some.  I find this data very inaccurate to what esports is fueled on.  It's not fueled on the viewers it's fueled on the sponsors.  The metrics don't make sense.

If it wasn't big money why would we have big sports brands come in and buy teams, why would Mark Cubin even bother.  In fact there is so much money in it, everyone is piling in like the wild west because there is no player regulations and securities in place yet.  Once there is then it will start settling down.  ESForce has their hands in a lot of teams with a lot of questionable ethics that wouldn't be possible in actual sports since it would be considered damn near match fixing.

Our industry is a young boom much like the dotcom boom.  Everyone thought you needed money from the website members ie. subscriptions until they realized ads pay the bills.  It's the same thing.

Kotaku has no business making an article on something they don't understand and Jason Lake is a questionable character, he's been in it for a long time but his motivations are not for the scene.

They quoted multiple folks from the beginnings of the eSports industry, not just one.  EDIT- in fact, the very first named source, Fields, is a manager of Corsair's sponsorship department.  He agrees with the article's premise.

They also aren't ignoring sponsors.  Sponsors want eyeballs on the tournaments.  DuPont didn't sponsor Jeff Gordon because they wanted to make his car look pretty.  And the article, which includes statements clearly consistent with their assertion from a dedicated Nielsen research group, submits that the viewership that's been touted isn't reliable.  That's not good news for sponsors, and not good news for those receiving the sponsorships.

In fact, it seems likely based on the information included that the data we're hearing surrounding eSports is super inaccurate to the point of being a mere educated guess.

If you have an authority greater than Nielsen for the ratings research, or better than the multiple named and unnamed sources cited here, I'm all for hearing it.

I do, his name is Richard Lewis, maybe you heard of him?  He's the journalist that blew open the skins gambling going on and ibuypower match fix scandal.  He has a lot of information in the space, he's been there since the beginning.  His podcasts are huge eye opening experience into what is going on in esports.  The money in esports is wild, the amount of cash these teams have is insane.  There is teams being made up knowing they will lose and still make profit off the sponsors.  The viewer numbers may make sponsors think otherwise, but the article is spreading false doom and gloom.  Until the space grows up and viewership is actually a metric you can use and profit from then that article becomes more truth.

There is going to be varying degree depending what esport as well, the overwatch league is a huge buy in and that buy in is not paying off expect to Blizzard.  But others are alive and healthy by sponsorship alone.  If this article was changed to name the Overwatch league, 100% truth.  As an overall, it's ridiculous.

gervaise1

Riot have been pretty upfront in the past about how they only do e-sports for publicity; it makes a loss and - as said - their aim is simply not to spend to much!

Further evidence can be found by looking at Activision Blizzard. They bought - Major League whatever (the oldest established e-sports organisation etc. etc.) but a) didn't pay a great deal ($40Mish?) b) which just about covered the $35-$40M debts the org had accrued over 20+ years.

So: "oldest established" organisation hadn't been able to make a go of it.  And since then AB have announced cut-backs. 

FlyByKnight

eSports doesn't exist because of competition it exists because it's a marketing platform. eSports always gets exposed for what it is when you ask the fans to spend money on anything but the games and content.

Do I like watching NBA basketball? Yes!
Do I like some eSports competitions. YES!
Would I pay to watch some playoff basketball? ABSOLUTELY.
Would I pay to watch some League Of Legends or CS:GO live? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

At it's core eSports is a marketing platform first. Don't expect teams and players to get anything more than a corporate logo slapped on their goofy ass team shirts and foreheads. There's gaming chairs, energy drink, and RGB rainbow lights that need to be sold. 

MadFrenchie

Hashbrick said:

MadFrenchie said:

Hashbrick said:

Look I'm a huge esports guy (mostly counter-strike), been following it since the early days of Cal.  It has exploded within the last 2yrs, there is big money being flung around.  The sponsorship's usually pay for the salaries and then some.  I find this data very inaccurate to what esports is fueled on.  It's not fueled on the viewers it's fueled on the sponsors.  The metrics don't make sense.

If it wasn't big money why would we have big sports brands come in and buy teams, why would Mark Cubin even bother.  In fact there is so much money in it, everyone is piling in like the wild west because there is no player regulations and securities in place yet.  Once there is then it will start settling down.  ESForce has their hands in a lot of teams with a lot of questionable ethics that wouldn't be possible in actual sports since it would be considered damn near match fixing.

Our industry is a young boom much like the dotcom boom.  Everyone thought you needed money from the website members ie. subscriptions until they realized ads pay the bills.  It's the same thing.

Kotaku has no business making an article on something they don't understand and Jason Lake is a questionable character, he's been in it for a long time but his motivations are not for the scene.

They quoted multiple folks from the beginnings of the eSports industry, not just one.  EDIT- in fact, the very first named source, Fields, is a manager of Corsair's sponsorship department.  He agrees with the article's premise.

They also aren't ignoring sponsors.  Sponsors want eyeballs on the tournaments.  DuPont didn't sponsor Jeff Gordon because they wanted to make his car look pretty.  And the article, which includes statements clearly consistent with their assertion from a dedicated Nielsen research group, submits that the viewership that's been touted isn't reliable.  That's not good news for sponsors, and not good news for those receiving the sponsorships.

In fact, it seems likely based on the information included that the data we're hearing surrounding eSports is super inaccurate to the point of being a mere educated guess.

If you have an authority greater than Nielsen for the ratings research, or better than the multiple named and unnamed sources cited here, I'm all for hearing it.

I do, his name is Richard Lewis, maybe you heard of him?  He's the journalist that blew open the skins gambling going on and ibuypower match fix scandal.  He has a lot of information in the space, he's been there since the beginning.  His podcasts are huge eye opening experience into what is going on in esports.  The money in esports is wild, the amount of cash these teams have is insane.  There is teams being made up knowing they will lose and still make profit off the sponsors.  The viewer numbers may make sponsors think otherwise, but the article is spreading false doom and gloom.  Until the space grows up and viewership is actually a metric you can use and profit from then that article becomes more truth.

There is going to be varying degree depending what esport as well, the overwatch league is a huge buy in and that buy in is not paying off expect to Blizzard.  But others are alive and healthy by sponsorship alone.  If this article was changed to name the Overwatch league, 100% truth.  As an overall, it's ridiculous.

All that's fine and well, but sponsors won't float a league forever by themselves.

They aren't talking about teams folding individually, that's not the point of the article at all.  The entire industry is working around fudged numbers.  These sponsors chose to buy in for exposure- if that exposure was overblown, the sponsors aren't going to feel great about that.


You've cited one, but provided no actual quote or link to quote from him stating why these folks and Nielsen is wrong and he's right.


Nobody is saying people aren't pouring money into eSports.  They're saying that's the problem: these folks pouring money are not consumers, but investor's, and are doing it based on bad data.

Hashbrick

MadFrenchie said:

Kyleran said:

Big money is often spent on total boondoggles, it would be a mistake to assume the presence of people throwing money at eSports is any indicator of its "success."

The most concerning thing (to me) isn't the money being invested- it's the lack of money even the most hardcore fans are willing to spend.


$5 average over a full year for ONLY the most hardcore fans?  You can't maintain a local bowling league with that kinda revenue per head.

There is no monetization in esports so comparing it to an actual sport is why the metrics don't work.

1) Low ticket sales - A lot of the esports games is done on Twitch streams with online matches, the bigger tournaments are done in an arena and ticket sales are done but it is not like anything in sports where ticket sales is every week while the season goes on.

2) No live tv - The closest we had was Turner sports and ESPN, nothing on live national television like traditional sports.

3) No pay-per-view - Highly sought after matches are not monetized in this way.

4) Team Merchandise - Most teams have merchandise but not all and they are also not sold opening only just a few tournament holder sites or the team's site itself.

5) Very low VIP features - there is a few sites/leagues that offer VIP features but they are not and it is not realized yet.

6) No seasons - There is no "season" of the sport and there is a variety of leagues, organizations of rules and not one common entity like the "NFL".

7) No "We" the Team - Team members change rapidly so there is no "Team" favorite much like you'd have your favorite sports team.  It is more normal to say, player X is my favorite player and he might have played on 5 different teams that year.  It's player driven and not organization driven.  The lack of team sales is because of this alone.

8) Player poaching rapid - Teams can and will change rosters monthly, there is no rules on player poaching like all traditional sports.

This is a few things that differ greatly, until they monetize esports with more of what traditional sports offer there is no viewership metrics to go by other than "how many are watching" since everything is free to view and team loyalty is low due to it being player/star driven.

Hashbrick

MadFrenchie said:

Hashbrick said:

MadFrenchie said:

Hashbrick said:

Look I'm a huge esports guy (mostly counter-strike), been following it since the early days of Cal.  It has exploded within the last 2yrs, there is big money being flung around.  The sponsorship's usually pay for the salaries and then some.  I find this data very inaccurate to what esports is fueled on.  It's not fueled on the viewers it's fueled on the sponsors.  The metrics don't make sense.

If it wasn't big money why would we have big sports brands come in and buy teams, why would Mark Cubin even bother.  In fact there is so much money in it, everyone is piling in like the wild west because there is no player regulations and securities in place yet.  Once there is then it will start settling down.  ESForce has their hands in a lot of teams with a lot of questionable ethics that wouldn't be possible in actual sports since it would be considered damn near match fixing.

Our industry is a young boom much like the dotcom boom.  Everyone thought you needed money from the website members ie. subscriptions until they realized ads pay the bills.  It's the same thing.

Kotaku has no business making an article on something they don't understand and Jason Lake is a questionable character, he's been in it for a long time but his motivations are not for the scene.

They quoted multiple folks from the beginnings of the eSports industry, not just one.  EDIT- in fact, the very first named source, Fields, is a manager of Corsair's sponsorship department.  He agrees with the article's premise.

They also aren't ignoring sponsors.  Sponsors want eyeballs on the tournaments.  DuPont didn't sponsor Jeff Gordon because they wanted to make his car look pretty.  And the article, which includes statements clearly consistent with their assertion from a dedicated Nielsen research group, submits that the viewership that's been touted isn't reliable.  That's not good news for sponsors, and not good news for those receiving the sponsorships.

In fact, it seems likely based on the information included that the data we're hearing surrounding eSports is super inaccurate to the point of being a mere educated guess.

If you have an authority greater than Nielsen for the ratings research, or better than the multiple named and unnamed sources cited here, I'm all for hearing it.

I do, his name is Richard Lewis, maybe you heard of him?  He's the journalist that blew open the skins gambling going on and ibuypower match fix scandal.  He has a lot of information in the space, he's been there since the beginning.  His podcasts are huge eye opening experience into what is going on in esports.  The money in esports is wild, the amount of cash these teams have is insane.  There is teams being made up knowing they will lose and still make profit off the sponsors.  The viewer numbers may make sponsors think otherwise, but the article is spreading false doom and gloom.  Until the space grows up and viewership is actually a metric you can use and profit from then that article becomes more truth.

There is going to be varying degree depending what esport as well, the overwatch league is a huge buy in and that buy in is not paying off expect to Blizzard.  But others are alive and healthy by sponsorship alone.  If this article was changed to name the Overwatch league, 100% truth.  As an overall, it's ridiculous.

All that's fine and well, but sponsors won't float a league forever by themselves.

They aren't talking about teams folding individually, that's not the point of the article at all.  The entire industry is working around fudged numbers.  These sponsors chose to buy in for exposure- if that exposure was overblown, the sponsors aren't going to feel great about that.


You've cited one, but provided no actual quote or link to quote from him stating why these folks and Nielsen is wrong and he's right.


Nobody is saying people aren't pouring money into eSports.  They're saying that's the problem: these folks pouring money are not consumers, but investor's, and are doing it based on bad data.

Do you honestly want me to link you to his videos of his 2+hr podcasts? Would you actually listen to them? I doubt it.  I can if you want me to though.

I just want to set the record right, ya they are grabbing numbers, but the numbers don't constitute what is actually going on.

MadFrenchie

Hashbrick said:

MadFrenchie said:

Hashbrick said:

MadFrenchie said:

Hashbrick said:

Look I'm a huge esports guy (mostly counter-strike), been following it since the early days of Cal.  It has exploded within the last 2yrs, there is big money being flung around.  The sponsorship's usually pay for the salaries and then some.  I find this data very inaccurate to what esports is fueled on.  It's not fueled on the viewers it's fueled on the sponsors.  The metrics don't make sense.

If it wasn't big money why would we have big sports brands come in and buy teams, why would Mark Cubin even bother.  In fact there is so much money in it, everyone is piling in like the wild west because there is no player regulations and securities in place yet.  Once there is then it will start settling down.  ESForce has their hands in a lot of teams with a lot of questionable ethics that wouldn't be possible in actual sports since it would be considered damn near match fixing.

Our industry is a young boom much like the dotcom boom.  Everyone thought you needed money from the website members ie. subscriptions until they realized ads pay the bills.  It's the same thing.

Kotaku has no business making an article on something they don't understand and Jason Lake is a questionable character, he's been in it for a long time but his motivations are not for the scene.

They quoted multiple folks from the beginnings of the eSports industry, not just one.  EDIT- in fact, the very first named source, Fields, is a manager of Corsair's sponsorship department.  He agrees with the article's premise.

They also aren't ignoring sponsors.  Sponsors want eyeballs on the tournaments.  DuPont didn't sponsor Jeff Gordon because they wanted to make his car look pretty.  And the article, which includes statements clearly consistent with their assertion from a dedicated Nielsen research group, submits that the viewership that's been touted isn't reliable.  That's not good news for sponsors, and not good news for those receiving the sponsorships.

In fact, it seems likely based on the information included that the data we're hearing surrounding eSports is super inaccurate to the point of being a mere educated guess.

If you have an authority greater than Nielsen for the ratings research, or better than the multiple named and unnamed sources cited here, I'm all for hearing it.

I do, his name is Richard Lewis, maybe you heard of him?  He's the journalist that blew open the skins gambling going on and ibuypower match fix scandal.  He has a lot of information in the space, he's been there since the beginning.  His podcasts are huge eye opening experience into what is going on in esports.  The money in esports is wild, the amount of cash these teams have is insane.  There is teams being made up knowing they will lose and still make profit off the sponsors.  The viewer numbers may make sponsors think otherwise, but the article is spreading false doom and gloom.  Until the space grows up and viewership is actually a metric you can use and profit from then that article becomes more truth.

There is going to be varying degree depending what esport as well, the overwatch league is a huge buy in and that buy in is not paying off expect to Blizzard.  But others are alive and healthy by sponsorship alone.  If this article was changed to name the Overwatch league, 100% truth.  As an overall, it's ridiculous.

All that's fine and well, but sponsors won't float a league forever by themselves.

They aren't talking about teams folding individually, that's not the point of the article at all.  The entire industry is working around fudged numbers.  These sponsors chose to buy in for exposure- if that exposure was overblown, the sponsors aren't going to feel great about that.


You've cited one, but provided no actual quote or link to quote from him stating why these folks and Nielsen is wrong and he's right.


Nobody is saying people aren't pouring money into eSports.  They're saying that's the problem: these folks pouring money are not consumers, but investor's, and are doing it based on bad data.

Do you honestly want me to link you to his videos of his 2+hr podcasts? Would you actually listen to them? I doubt it.  I can if you want me to though.

I just want to set the record right, ya they are grabbing numbers, but the numbers don't constitute what is actually going on.

Your second paragraph is exactly the article's point- just not in the direction you seem to be advocating.  One that the article provided numerous well-placed, named sources to support (with direct quotes), including THE authority on viewership data in the country, honestly.

MadFrenchie

Hashbrick said:

MadFrenchie said:

Kyleran said:

Big money is often spent on total boondoggles, it would be a mistake to assume the presence of people throwing money at eSports is any indicator of its "success."

The most concerning thing (to me) isn't the money being invested- it's the lack of money even the most hardcore fans are willing to spend.


$5 average over a full year for ONLY the most hardcore fans?  You can't maintain a local bowling league with that kinda revenue per head.

There is no monetization in esports so comparing it to an actual sport is why the metrics don't work.

1) Low ticket sales - A lot of the esports games is done on Twitch streams with online matches, the bigger tournaments are done in an arena and ticket sales are done but it is not like anything in sports where ticket sales is every week while the season goes on.

2) No live tv - The closest we had was Turner sports and ESPN, nothing on live national television like traditional sports.

3) No pay-per-view - Highly sought after matches are not monetized in this way.

4) Team Merchandise - Most teams have merchandise but not all and they are also not sold opening only just a few tournament holder sites or the team's site itself.

5) Very low VIP features - there is a few sites/leagues that offer VIP features but they are not and it is not realized yet.

6) No seasons - There is no "season" of the sport and there is a variety of leagues, organizations of rules and not one common entity like the "NFL".

7) No "We" the Team - Team members change rapidly so there is no "Team" favorite much like you'd have your favorite sports team.  It is more normal to say, player X is my favorite player and he might have played on 5 different teams that year.  It's player driven and not organization driven.  The lack of team sales is because of this alone.

8) Player poaching rapid - Teams can and will change rosters monthly, there is no rules on player poaching like all traditional sports.

This is a few things that differ greatly, until they monetize esports with more of what traditional sports offer there is no viewership metrics to go by other than "how many are watching" since everything is free to view and team loyalty is low due to it being player/star driven.

That's...  All sorta the point and the problem.