View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Trepo - Institutional Repository of Tampere University

1
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Juho Hamari
Game Research Lab, School of Information Sciences, University of Tampere

Max Sjöblom
Game Research Lab, School of Information Sciences, University of Tampere

Abstract

Purpose: In this study we investigate why do people spectate eSports on the internet. We define eSports

(electronic sports) as a form of sports where the primary aspects of the sport are facilitated by electronic

systems; the input of players and teams as well as the output of the eSports system are mediated by human-

computer interfaces. In more practical terms, eSports refer to competitive video gaming (broadcasted on the

internet).

Methodology: We employed the MSSC (Motivations Scale for Sports Consumption) which is one of the

most widely applied measurement instruments for sports consumption in general. The questionnaire was

designed and pre-tested before distributing to target respondents (N=888). The reliability and validity of the

instrument both met the commonly accepted guidelines. The model was assessed first by examining its

measurement model and then the structural model.

Findings: The results indicate that escapism, acquiring knowledge about the games being played, novelty

and eSports athlete aggressiveness were found to positively predict eSport spectating frequency.

Originality: During recent years, eSports (electronic sports) and video game streaming have become rapidly

growing forms of new media in the internet driven by the growing provenance of (online) games and online

broadcasting technologies. Today, hundreds of millions of people spectate eSports. The present investigation

presents a large study on gratification-related determinants of why people spectate eSports on the internet.

Moreover, the study proposes a definition for eSports and further discusses how eSports can be seen as a

form of sports.

Keywords: media consumption; online video; uses and gratifications; streaming; eSports; games
 2
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

1. Introduction
eSports is as a form of sports where the primary aspects of the sport are facilitated by electronic

systems; the input of players and teams as well as the output of the eSports system are mediated by

human-computer interfaces. In more practical terms, eSports commonly refer to competitive (pro

and amateur) video gaming that is often coordinated by different leagues, ladders and tournaments,

and where players customarily belong to teams or other ‘sporting’ organizations who are sponsored

by various business organizations. During recent years, eSports (electronic sports) have become one

of the most rapidly growing forms of new media driven by the growing provenance of (online)

games and online broadcasting technologies. It has been estimated that more than 70 million people

watched eSports during 2013 (Warr, 2014).

Like other media, media content consumption and information technology adoption research, the

research on sports consumption and spectatorship is commonly interested in the motivations of why

people consume it, how they consume it, as well as what kinds of needs the given form of

media/technology might gratify. Thus far, sports consumption research has been mostly conducted

in the area of sports management. However, with the rise of eSports, sports are increasingly

becoming a computer-mediated form of media and information technology which may entail novel

ways of information technology use. This is especially so because eSports media content is

conveyed through computerized broadcasting (such as internet streaming), and because the sporting

activity itself is computer-mediated. This makes eSports an increasingly interesting subject of study

for the area of information technology in general.

In this paper we seek to progress both the conceptual understanding of eSports by discussing what

eSports is, as well as the understanding of the motivations of eSports consumers by empirically

investigating which sports consumption motivations predict how much time people are likely to
 3
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

spend on watching eSports. We employ data from on an online survey that was conducted amongst

people who have watched eSports online (n=888).

2. Background
2.1. Defining eSports
eSports have only recently enjoyed wide international adoption, and there is still resistance as to

whether eSports can truly be considered as a sport. This conceptual conundrum is a pertinent issue

for not only defining eSports, but also for drawing the boundaries of what we understand as being

sports in general. It appears that many (especially the fans of ‘traditional’ sports) are of the opinion

that eSports can’t be called a sport, simply because the player competence is not measured via

either their physical prowess or finesse as the eSports athletes appear to be simply sitting riveted to

their chairs. In reality, the body and physical activities of the player are still an important part of the

overall sporting activity (e.g. Witkowski, 2012). Although the outcome-defining events of the sport

occur within the confines of an electronic, computer-mediated environment, it does not in any way

imply that eSports cannot be physically taxing for the players (see also Taylor and Witkowski,

2010; Witkowski, 2009; Witkowski, 2012). How taxing eSports is physically depends on the modus

of human-computer interaction that is required to control the game states of the game’s software or

system. In dancing (video)games for example, players are physically drained from interacting with

the computer. eSports are commonly organized around specific genres of games, such as

Multiplayer Online Battle Arenas (e.g. League of Legends, Dota 2), First-Person Shooters (e.g.

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive), Real Time Strategy (e.g. Starcraft 2), Collectible Card Games

(e.g. Hearthstone) or Sports games (e.g. FIFA-series), therefore they form many sub-cultures within

eSports, in the same way that ‘traditional’ sports do. However, eSports are not commonly perceived

as ‘electronic’ versions of ‘traditional’ sports such as soccer, basketball, or track and field sports

even though such simulations of ‘traditional’ sports are also played as eSports (such as the FIFA

and NHL games).

 4
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

While some conceptual and qualitative literature on eSports has emerged, only a few definitions

have been proposed regarding eSports. Perhaps the oldest and most explicit definition by Wagner

(2006) leans heavily on a definition of traditional sports originally provided by Tiedemann (2004),

as: “an area of sport activities in which people develop and train mental or physical abilities …”. In

defining eSports, Wagner (2006) extends this general definition of sports with the addition of “in

the use of information and communication technologies”. However, we believe that this definition

might leave too much room for interpretation and does not therefore solve the looming question of

what sporting activities can be defined to be either an electronic sport or ‘traditional’ sport. This is

mainly because when considering any current sport, many aspects of it are computer-assisted or

computer-mediated (see e.g. Witkowski, 2012). The definition by Wagner (2006) also poses another

problem since it refers to such a large set of activities that even office-based software training could

be included as a sport. We also subscribe to the criticism presented by Witkowski (2012) that the

definition might define electronic systems too narrowly in covering only “information and

communication technologies”, and that the definition might divert attention from the complex

mixture of both physical and electronic aspects in eSports.

We believe that in a quest to define eSports we should focus more deeply on what constitutes the

“e” in eSports (for more cultural descriptions of eSports please see: Taylor, 2012; Taylor &

Witkowski, 2010; Witkowski, 2009; Witkowski, 2012). The crucial question is then what portions

or aspects of the sport has to be electronic and / or computer-mediated for a sporting activity to be

counted as an eSport. We argue that the main difference between a sport and an eSport comes down

to where the player or team activities that determine the outcomes of the sport/play are manifested.

In traditional sports, all outcome-defining activities can be seen to happen in ‘the real world’, even

though the sport’s practitioners may employ electronic and computerized systems to aid the

sporting activities. However we observe and argue that in eSports, the outcome-defining activities

happen in a ‘virtual world’i, or in other words within electronic/digital/computer-mediated

 5
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

environments. The outcome-defining activities are coordinated, orchestrated and operated by human

beings in the ‘real world’, however it is not the physical and practical circumstance that the player

inhabits that ultimately defines the outcome of play, but rather the system states that exist within the

confines of the electronic system (which is controlled by the player and governed by the rules of the

eSport’s software and technology). Given that the playing humans occupy the ‘physical world’, but

the outcome-defining events of eSports happen in the ‘virtual world’, then eSport athletes are

always required to use or otherwise interact with a human-computer interface that connects their

bodies to the electronic system (See Table 1).

Table 1 Conceptualizing the difference between sports and eSports

What space What sporting equipment do the athletes primarily use? ‘Where’ do the
does the outcome-defining
athlete events happen? (field
occupy? of play)
eSports The ‘real Human-computer interface (Human input: e.g. mouse, Within electronic
world’ keyboard, EEG, microphone, motion sensors, weight sensors, systems
acceleration sensors. Computer output: e.g. display devices,
haptic feedback, audio devices.)
Sports The ‘real Human-physical object interface or no sporting equipment In the ‘real world’
world’ required

Based on these notions, we define eSports as a form of sports where the primary aspects of the

sport are facilitated by electronic systems; the input of players and teams as well as the output of

the eSports system are mediated by human-computer interfaces.

Spectating on eSports can be superficially seen as a similar activity to spectating on any sports.

Most commonly, eSports are being consumed by watching live streams on the internet, where in

addition to watching the event, spectators can participate in surrounding social interaction, for

example in the form of chat features. As eSports are computer-mediated, spectating can never be

without computer-mediated aspects as spectators watching an eSport event ‘live’ have to eventually

watch events from a computer-output such as a video screen or a monitor.

 6
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

As previously mentioned, literature on eSports is still rare and dispersed, and most of this body of

literature has focused on the qualitative documentation of visible phenomenon in tournaments (e.g.

Carter and Gibbs, 2013; Cheung and Huang, 2011; Hutchins, 2008; Seo and Jung, 2014; Seo, 2015;

Taylor, 2012a; Taylor, 2012b; Wagner, 2006; Witkowski, 2009; Witkowski, 2012). Published

quantitative research on the questions of why people watch eSports or why players wish to attend

eSports events is, as of yet, non-existent. Thus far, only one study has been published on the reasons

for watching eSports (Weiss and Schiele, 2013), and it finds that competition, challenge and

escapism were positively associated with eSports use. However, the study measured the general

motivational aspects related to playing video games, and thus it makes it extremely difficult to

compare the results to other works on media viewing. Other qualitative literature suggests that the

reasons for eSports consumption should in principle correspond to those of traditional sports. For

example, based on an interview study, Cheung and Huang (2011) remarked that eSports

consumption motivations fairly well correspond to those of traditional sports (using the MSSC scale

of Trail & James, 2001). However, given that their study was qualitative in approach, there was no

way to infer how salient the different motivations were, or how associated they might be with

frequency in eSports consumption. Therefore, in order to continue the research on eSports

consumption motivations, we have specifically employed the MSSC measurement instrument in

measuring the motivations of eSports spectators, and also which of these motivations can be used to

predict eSports watching frequency.

2.2. The motivations for eSports consumption

The research on sports consumption like any other media and media content research is primarily

focused on the motivations of why people consume it, how they consume it, as well as what kinds

of needs the given form of media might gratify. Sports consumption research has mostly been

conducted in the academic area of sports management, however, with the rise of eSports, sports are

increasingly to be seen as a computer-mediated form of media. This is especially the case not only
 7
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

because sports media content is conveyed through computerized broadcasting such as streams on

the internet, but because the entire sporting activity is also computer-mediated. In eSports, the

actions of players and teams are manifested in electronic computer-mediated systems. These aspects

of eSports make sports an increasingly interesting subject of media study, and also for the study of

(computer-mediated) communication.

In the area of communication and media research, the uses and gratification theory (UGT)

framework is perhaps the most commonly adopted perspective which has been used to analyze

media consumption (Katz et al., 1974; Katz et al., 1973; Wang et al., 2008; West and Turner, 2010).

UGT has especially been used within research in online contexts (LaRose and Eastin, 2005;

Papacharissi and Mendelson, 2010; Papacharissi and Rubin, 2000; Whiting & Williams, 2013),

including online games (Wu et al., 2010), Facebook (Joinson, 2008), video streaming (Cha 2014,

Chiang, and Hsiao, 2014; Sjöblom and Hamari, 2016), Twitter (Johnson and Yang, 2009; Chen,

2011), and fantasy sports (Farquhar and Meeds, 2007). Uses and gratifications theory (UGT) is a

theoretical approach to understanding why and how people consume or use different kinds of media

to satisfy different kinds of needs. UGT is specifically focused on understanding media

consumption from the perspective of the individual rather than the media type. To this end, UGT

considers individuals as conscious of their own consumption, and also that media competes for

gratification with other sources (Katz et al., 1974).

Similarly, in research on sports consumption, the two most widely adopted measurement scales are

the Motivation Scale for Sports Consumption (MSSC) and the Sports Fan Motivation Scale (SFMS:

see Wann, 1995; Wann et al., 1999). For this study we chose to use the MSSC over the SFMS, as

the items belonging to the MSSC were general enough to be applicable to the context of eSports.

Additionally, as this study aims to predict media consumption, the MSSC items were seen as a

better fit as they did not include the dependent variable in the item. For example, the SFMS

includes the statement “One of the main reasons that I watch, read, and/or discuss sports is that
 8
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

doing so gives me the opportunity to temporarily escape life’s problems”, whereas a similar item in

the MSSC stated “The game provides an escape from my day-to-day routine”. The MSSC relies on

a similar theoretical understanding as the UGT, in that it focuses on the gratification and

experiences that sports consumption affords for spectators. The MSSC (and other related

instruments) and UGT share many mutual aspects, such as an escapism from everyday life,

acquiring information from the media content, being a fan, social interaction and so forth.

Therefore, both the theoretical understanding and most of the constructs between these areas are

directly compatible with research on media consumption motivations in the media and

communication areas.

In this paper we apply the MSSC for measuring eSports consumption motivations. By doing so we

can be confident that our results are not only comparable with media consumption research as a

whole, but also it enables us to make direct comparisons between eSports consumption motivations

and the motivations to consume traditional sports. Therefore, in this study, we rely on the

motivation scale for sports consumption as both our theoretical approach as well as the basis for our

measurement of the phenomenon.

The MSSC has gone through some revisions, and has resulted in current variations which

commonly consist of 8-10 constructs (Fink et al., 2002; Trail et al., 2000; Trail and James, 2001),

including vicarious achievement, aesthetics of sport, drama of sport, watching sports as a means to

escape everyday life, knowledge acquisition related to the sport, admiring the skills of the athlete's,

social interaction with other spectators, physical attractiveness of the athletes, novelty of new

players and teams, and the enjoyment of aggression and the aggressive behaviors the athletes

exhibit.

Vicarious achievement refers to empathizing and co-living with people and characters in media

content, and in the sports context, with the achievements of teams and players (Cialdini et al., 1976;
 9
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Cialdini and Richardson, 1980; Krohn et al., 1998; Smith, 1988; Trail et al., 2000; Wann, 1995). As

such, vicarious achievement has a strong social component, as it relates closely to feeling a sense of

community and belonging with the players and teams the spectator is rooting for. In eSports,

professional players can be more easily approachable than those in their physical counterparts - for

example in soccer. Due to the fact that many professional players are also active streamers, this

allows for an easy channel of communication between the spectators and professional players. We

argue that this factor may allow for a deeper connection between spectators and the players and

teams they follow, thus leading to a higher sense of vicarious achievement. Many eSport games

actively involve the professional players in the form of fan merchandise and similar products which

may be linked to a large tournament. Therefore, we hypothesize that vicarious achievement is

positively associated with eSports watching frequency (H1).

The aesthetic aspects of the sports refer to the elements of beauty or gracefulness which are inherent

in the sport (Trail & James 2001). Visual elements have been shown to be important motivational

factors in spectator sports (Wann et al., 1999; Wann and Wilson, 1999; Krohn et al., 1998; Smith

1988). Studies have shown that sports that are scored such as gymnastics or figure skating, attract

viewers that rate aesthetic motivations highly (Bryant et al., 1981; Sargent et al., 1998; Zillmann,

1995). Within the realm of eSports, previous research has discussed eSports events as aesthetic

experiences on a more holistic level (Seo, 2013), characterized as “a transcendent character built of

liminoid elements and consumer fantasy” (Kozinets et al., 2004, p. 658).

Within the realm of media research, affective motivations have been shown to impact use in the

contexts of eSports (Cheung and Huang, 2011), video game streaming (Hamilton et al., 2014),

social media (Papacharissi and Mendelson, 2010; Whiting and Williams, 2013) and video sharing

websites (Cha, 2014; Hanson and Haridakis, 2008). Accordingly, we hypothesize that an

appreciation of the aesthetic aspects of eSports is positively associated with eSports watching

frequency (H2)
 10
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Within the realm of eSports, we can separate aesthetic gratification into two distinct categories: the

players and the game. The physical attractiveness construct refers to the appreciation of the

appearance of people and characters in media, and in the sports context, viewing the players

involved in the game, and the degree to which the spectator finds the players physically attractive

(Duncan and Brummett, 1989; Guttmann, 1996). As the main play of eSports happens in the

confines of electronic systems, one could easily and intuitively assume that the physical appearance

of the players would not be an important or visible aspect in eSports. However, most of the

recordings and broadcasts of eSports events record videos of the players before, during and after

matches. While video game players have been anecdotally believed to be physically unfit and

unkempt young men, many top eSports athletes are often in fact physically fitter than the average

person. Many eSports players’ interviews reflect the belief commonly held in the eSports scene that

physical fitness and activity stimulates and maintains cognitive facilities and hand-eye coordination.

Therefore, the fitness of eSports players might not be nearly as far-fetched as the anecdotal beliefs

might suggest. Therefore, we hypothesize that the physical attractiveness of players is positively

associated with eSports watching frequency (H3).

The drama construct refers to the enjoyment of uncertainty and dramatic turns of events in media

content such as sports. Drama has been shown to be an important contributor to sports viewing in

general (Raney and Depalma, 2006; Su-lin et al., 1997; Peterson and Raney, 2008). Within the area

of eSports, drama is also an important element of the viewing experience as the same sense of

uncertainty is present as in traditional sports. Many eSport games have added elements of

randomness and information asymmetry built into them, thus further increasing the notion of

uncertain outcomes (Cheung & Huang, 2011). We hypothesize that drama is positively association

with eSports watching frequency (H4).

Escapism refers to the degree to which media enables an escape from day-to-day routines, and

provides a distraction from everyday activities. Escape has been shown to be of significant impact
 11
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

for viewing sports, and unlike other forms of emotional motivations, the escape motivation is less

dependent on the actual outcome of the game (Gantz, 1981; Gantz and Wenner, 1991; Gantz and

Wenner, 1995; Krohn et al., 1998; Wann, 1997; Wenner and Gantz, 1998; Wann and Rochelle,

1999; Wann et al., 2008). Escape has also been shown to be a strong motive for use within prior

research on uses, motivations and gratification related to media viewing (Lin, 2002; Papacharissi

and Mendelson, 2010; Whiting and Williams, 2013). We believe eSports may be rather similar in

terms of providing a means of escape as other forms of media and sports. eSports might provide a

more accessible form of escape when compared to traditional media and sports. Therefore, we

hypothesize that escapism is positively association with eSports watching frequency (H5).

The acquisition of knowledge construct refers to the degree of which media consumption enables an

acquisition of knowledge. In traditional sports, two important cognitive motivations for spectating

have been learning about the players and teams (Gantz and Wenner, 1995; Wenner and Gantz,

1998), and collecting information to be shared in conversations about the sport (Karp and Yoels,

1990; Lever, 1993; Melnick, 1993). Within research on media use and media consumption,

knowledge acquisition has been shown to be an important factor within video game streaming

(Hamilton et al., 2014), social media (Papacharissi and Mendelson, 2010; Whiting and Williams,

2013), and internet use (Courtoiset al., 2009; Ebersole, 2000; Papacharissi and Rubin, 2000). In

eSports, video games the strategies and tactics are readily copied and reproduced since the sporting

activities do not have as many prerequisite abilities as traditional sports. We hypothesize that

acquiring knowledge is positively association with eSports watching frequency (H6).

Related to the acquisition of knowledge; as the large proportion of eSports spectators play some the

same games themselves, we believe they possess the experience and facilities to appreciate,

understand and admire the skills the professional players exhibit. Therefore, we hypothesize that

appreciation of player skills is positively association with eSports watching frequency (H7). An
 12
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

appreciation of player skill has been shown to be an impactful motivational factor in sports (Milne

& McDonald, 1999).

The social interaction construct refers to the gratifications related to socializing with other media

consumers. Socializing with peers has been shown to be of great importance in traditional sports

(Dietz-Uhler et al., 2000; Eastman and Land, 1997; Gantz, 1981; Gantz and Wenner, 1991;

Melnick, 1993), and also within eSports and playing video games (Hamilton et al., 2014; Sherry et

al., 2006). In the context of media usage research, social interaction has also been shown to be of

great importance (Chen, 2011; Hamilton et al., 2014; Pai and Arnott, 2013; Papacharissi and

Mendelson, 2010; Sjöblom and Hamari, 2016; Whiting and Williams, 2013). eSports spectating is

commonly connected to an online chat that can be used to comment on the events of the game, and

also as a way to cheer for favorite teams and players. As much of the eSport consumption takes

place online, is it natural to assume that bonds are created between people through computer-

mediated means. It is worth noting that due to the technological nature of many services through

which eSports is consumed, many simultaneous social groups and actors can coexist in one space,

each possibly performing separate action (Woerman and Kirschener, 2015). We hypothesize that

social interaction is positively association with eSports watching frequency (H8).

Gratification related to novelty in the sporting media refer to the enjoyment and excitement related

to seeing new players and teams in the sporting scene and is regarded as one of the main factors of

sports consumption (Trail and James, 2001). As eSports has not yet had much time to mature as an

industry, there are relatively few established teams and games that are being played. Thus there is a

constant influx of new talent and the scene is constantly evolving. Therefore, we hypothesize that

novelty is positively association with eSports watching frequency (H9).

Aggressive behavior is a common part of many veins of today's media, and particularly in sports.

The enjoyment of aggression refers to the enjoyment derived from witnessing aggressive behavior,
 13
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

macho attitudes and the hostility exhibited by the players. Previous research has found that a

preference towards aesthetics significantly impacts the enjoyment and consumption of sports which

are classified as aggressive (Wann et al., 1999; Wann et al., 2008; Wann and Wilson, 1999). As the

main play of eSports happens in the confines of electronic systems, one could intuitively assume

that physical aggression would not be as important or visible aspect in eSports. However, most of

the recordings and broadcasts of eSports events video the players before, during and after matches.

In fact, it is a rather common (but a frowned upon phenomenon) for players to exhibit aggressive

behavior, by for example by banging the table at which they are playing. Therefore, we hypothesize

that aggressive behavior is positively association with eSports watching frequency (H10).

Table 2 Sports consumption motivation constructs (adapted from Trail & James, 2001; Trail,
2012)

Construct ID Items Definition

Vicarious VA 3 Empathizing and co-living the achievements of teams and players the
achievement spectator is emotionally attached to
Aesthetics AES 3 The appreciation of the beauty and gracefulness inherent in the sport
Drama DRA 4 The enjoyment of the drama, uncertainty and dramatic turns of events in
the sports
Escape ESC 3 The degree to which watching the sport enables an escape from day-to-
day routines and provides distraction from everyday activities
Acquisition of KNO 3 The degree to which watching the sport enables the acquisition of
knowledge knowledge related to the game, its strategies and other technical aspects
Skills of the SKI 3 The enjoyment of witnessing the high skill that players exhibit and well-
players/athletes executed performances in the sport
Social interaction SOC 3 The enjoyment related to interacting and socializing with other people
watching the game
Physical ATTR 3 The enjoyment related to and the degree to which the spectator finds the
attractiveness players physically attractive
Novelty NOV 3 The enjoyment and excitement related to seeing new players and teams in
the sporting scene
Enjoyment of AGGR 4 The enjoyment derived from witnessing the aggressive behavior, macho
aggression attitudes and hostility exhibited by players
 14
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

3. The empirical study

3.1. Data
The data for this study was gathered via an online survey administered amongst people who watch

eSports on the Internet. Before administering the survey, we piloted (n=20) the survey in order to

acquire both feedback on whether taking the survey presented any problems to the respondents as

well as to explore the validity of measurement. No major problems were observed in the pilot study

concerning the measurement of sports consumption motivations. After the pilot, the link to the

survey was spread over variety of international internet channels related to eSports and internet

game streaming such as related Reddit, Facebook, Twitter and forum subgroups. According to our

estimates the respondents arrived to the survey from the following websites: 70-75% eSports related

subreddits, 10-15% Twitter, 5-10% Facebook and 5-10% other sites and direct traffic (we employed

a couple of different links to gather respondents. All links did not have tracking for the traffic

source, and therefore, we only have an estimate). The survey was available online from February

26th 2015 until the 23rd of March 2015 during which 888 usable answers were received. As a

participatory incentive, we raffled six gift certificates (worth 50 USD or 50 EUR) to the Steam

game store among valid responses. Table 3 outlines the demographic details of the respondents.

Table 3 Demographic distribution of survey

n n
Age 15 or less 35 Education None 1
16-20 333 Primary / elementary 83
21-25 267 Secondary 471
26-30 164 Higher 355
31-35 67 Employment Full-time 197
36-40 18 Part-time 75
41 or more 4 Student 519
Mean 22.75 Unemployed 83
Median 22 Retired 1
Other 13
Gender Female 63 Watching eSports Never (more rarely than yearly) 9
Male 825 Yearly (once a year) 34
Monthly (once a month) 140
Weekly (once a week) 402
Daily 303
 15
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

3.2. Measurement
The measurement consisted of The Motivations Scale for Sports Consumption (MSSC) (Trail &

James, 2001). The scale was measured on a 7-point Likert scale from “Strongly disagree” to

“Strongly agree” as specified by the instrument. Originally the MSSC consisted of nine constructs:

vicarious achievements, aesthetics, drama, escape, knowledge, skills, social interaction, physical

attractiveness, and family. However, the MSSC has been modified slightly since its inception with

the deletion of the family subscale and a rewording of the escape subscale (Fink et al., 2002). The

family subscale was removed from the MSSC because the original developers of the scale believed

that the family dimension might be a byproduct of consuming sports, rather than a specific

motivation (Trail, 2012). Moreover, we added scales for novelty and enjoyment of aggression

constructs as suggested by Trail (2012). The dependent variable of the frequency of watching

eSports had 5 options: “never”, “once a year”, “once a month”, “once a week”, “daily”.

3.3. Validity and reliability

The model-testing was conducted via the component-based PLS-SEM (Partial Least Squares

Structural Equation Modeling) which is considered to be more suitable for prediction-oriented

studies such as the present study, whereas co-variance-based SEM is seen as being better suited to

testing which models best fit the data (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Chin et al., 2003). Moreover,

many previous studies have already assessed the model fit (see e.g. Funk and James, 2006; James

amd Ridinger, 2002; Robinson et al., 2004; Robinson and Trail, 2005; Seo and Green, 2008; Trail

and James, 2011; Won and Kitamura, 2007). Convergent validity was met since the AVE, CR and

Alpha measures exceeded the recommended thresholds (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Nunnally,

1978). Discriminant validity was met since the square root of the AVE of each construct was larger

than its correlation to any other construct (Chin, 1998; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Jöreskog and

Sörbom, 1996), and each measurement item had the highest loading with its corresponding

construct.
 16
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Table 4 Validity and reliability

AVE CR Alpha 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 WATCH 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1 VA 0.932 0.820 0.891 0.206 0.905

2 AES 0.911 0.772 0.863 0.090 0.413 0.879

3 DRA 0.900 0.692 0.851 0.214 0.350 0.454 0.832

4 ESC 0.945 0.852 0.913 0.220 0.418 0.319 0.328 0.923

5 KNO 0.917 0.788 0.865 0.277 0.369 0.471 0.543 0.270 0.887

6 SKI 0.906 0.763 0.844 0.257 0.326 0.456 0.667 0.258 0.717 0.873

7 SOC 0.957 0.882 0.933 0.107 0.400 0.334 0.250 0.285 0.283 0.245 0.939

8 ATTR 0.873 0.696 0.795 -0.033 0.191 0.165 -0.032 0.185 0.025 -0.076 0.228 0.835

9 NOV 0.940 0.840 0.905 0.226 0.451 0.497 0.478 0.324 0.514 0.478 0.394 0.135 0.917

10 AGGR 0.879 0.647 0.819 0.196 0.396 0.331 0.305 0.318 0.240 0.206 0.283 0.243 0.381 0.804

Bolded figures on the diagonal are square rooted AVEs

3.4. Results
We investigated which motivational factors would predict the frequency of watching eSports. The

results (Table 5) indicated that escaping everyday life (H5 0.131**), acquiring knowledge from

eSports (H6 0.165**), novelty (H9 0.076*) and the enjoyment of aggression (H10 0.117**) were

positively and statistically significantly associated with the frequency of watching eSports. The

results pertaining to novelty should, however, be interpreted with caution as indicated by the low

Beta and confidence intervals. Interestingly, the results also show that the enjoyment of aesthetic

aspects of eSports (H2 -0.157*) is negatively associated with the frequency of watching eSports.

There were no statistically significant associations between the rest of the motivations and the

frequency of watching eSports. However, when more closely examining the Betas and confidence

intervals, it can be interpreted that the skills of the players might also have a small positive

association with the frequency of watching eSports.

 17
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Table 5 Results, * = p < 0.01, ** = p < 0.001

Model – dv: eSports watching frequency (R2 = 0.139)
H# IV B CI99 low CI90 low CI90 hi CI99 hi p
1 Vicarious achievement 0.068 -0.047 -0.005 0.132 0.173 0.114
2 Aesthetics -0.157** -0.240 -0.206 -0.084 -0.000 0.000
3 Physical attractiveness -0.076 -0.167 -0.138 0.045 0.094 0.161
4 Drama -0.004 -0.136 -0.087 0.086 0.137 0.938
5 Escape 0.131** 0.034 0.072 0.189 0.217 0.000
6 Acquisition of knowledge 0.165** 0.030 0.080 0.245 0.298 0.001
7 Skills of the players/athletes 0.096 -0.067 -0.007 0.194 0.261 0.125
8 Social interaction -0.021 -0.111 -0.082 0.039 0.074 0.567
9 Novelty 0.076* -0.042 0.001 0.148 0.179 0.079
10 Enjoyment of aggression 0.117** 0.022 0.057 0.171 0.207 0.001

4. Discussion
During recent years, eSports (electronic sports) and video game streaming have become rapidly

growing forms of new media in the internet driven by the growing provenance of (online) games

and online broadcasting technologies. Today, hundreds of millions of people spectate eSports. The

present investigation presented a seminal study on gratification-related determinants of why people

spectate eSports on the internet. Moreover, the study proposed a definition for eSports and further

discussed how eSports can be seen as a form of sports. We defined eSports as a form of sports

where the primary aspects of the sport are facilitated by electronic systems; the input of players and

teams as well as the output of the eSports system are mediated by human-computer interfaces.

The main portion of the study focused on measuring eSports consumption motivations and

analyzing which motivations were associated with the frequency of watching eSports (N=888).

Beyond the supported hypotheses (H5, H6, H9, H10) surprising results afford more elaboration and

discussion.

The results showed that the enjoyment of the aesthetic aspects of eSports was negatively associated

with a frequency in watching eSports. The video games being played in eSports are usually

complex and require a considerable amount of concentration to comprehensively follow the game.

Therefore, we believe that admiring the aesthetic aspects of the game whilst concurrently with

keeping up with the nuances of occurrences during the game may be practically difficult. Therefore,
 18
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

those viewers who focus more on the aesthetic aspects may have a wholly different experience to

those viewers who focus on the technical and rule-based proceedings of the sport. Perhaps this

approach to viewing may turn spectators away from most eSports since their understanding of the

game may remain limited. For example, in the context of gymnastics it has been shown that an

appreciation of the aesthetic aspects of the sport positively impact viewing (Sargent et al., 1998).

However, we argue that gymnastics performances are split into smaller portions than typical eSports

performances. Therefore, it is easier for the viewer to concentrate on the inherent beauty of the

performance, as there are no ancillary activities taking place. Therefore, the dynamics between

aesthetic appreciation and consumption could prove to be a fruitful area for future research. Further

studies could compare eSports that are performed in smaller chunks and those that are longer and

more tactically complex to follow.

In the results. drama does not seem to be significantly associated with spectators’ eSports watching

frequency. This finding seem to be contrary to previous qualitative observations where the

importance of drama and information asymmetry have been highlighted (Cheung and Huang, 2011).

Additionally, within the realm of video game streaming, dramatic turn of events have been argued

to increase viewership (Karhulahti, 2016). Many popular eSports games employ an amount of

information asymmetry to create strategic tension between players, and also dramatic tension for

players. For example Starcraft 2 has an element called fog of war, which obscures parts of the map

for players (Cheung and Huang, 2011). The actions showed to spectators is free of this fog of war,

but the director of the broadcast has the ability to choose what to show and what to hide. This can

be used to create dramatic tension by, for example, hiding a looming ambush, only to focus on that

part of the map at the very last second, creating an exhilarating experience for spectators. Due to

this prevalence of dramatic elements, it is interesting to see the lack of association of drama with

spectating frequency in the present results.

 19
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

The lack of a meaningful association of drama and spectating frequency could perhaps be further

explained by the diminishing return nature of drama. For example, in soccer it is considered a

dramatic turn of events if a team manages to even the score against exceptional odds, or in a virtual

scenario such as Counter-Strike (an online first-person shooter game), for a single player to defeat

an entire opposing team singlehandedly. A first or second extraordinary play might excite the

spectator and provide a motive for spectating, but if almost every game contains an event perceived

to be either a one-off or spectacular, then the excitement might not continue. Therefore, although

players who watch a lot of eSports might appreciate drama and see it as a necessary motivation for

viewing, it does not dictate their viewing habits. As would stand to reason, drama is expected to be

fairly evenly distributed across matches and viewers who watch a lot of eSports during a certain

time period have a higher expectancy to see drama unfold within the games. However, few studies

have quantitatively investigated the relationship of drama gratification and spectating frequency

(Peterson and Raney, 2008; Raney and Depalma, 2006). Therefore, the aspect of diminishing

returns on the impact of dramatic turns of events in media could also provide an interesting further

line of study. One way to study the effects of the diminishing nature of drama in a media content

might be to devise an experiment involving content with varying levels of dramatic events, similar

to research that has been done to study perceived aggression in sports (Bryant et al., 1982; Comisky

et al., 1977; Raney and Depalma, 2006).

The correlation between perceived played skill and watching frequency was small and statistically

insignificant, although slightly positive. Perhaps this small effect could be explained by player skill

being seen as a form of hygiene factor. That is to say, a certain threshold for player skill needs to be

present in order for the match to have a perceived relevance, but beyond this effect, player skill

does not seem to increase the watching frequency. Within the present dataset we were unable to

differentiate between the different levels of skill shown in the eSports that respondents consumed.

Further studies could more meticulously measure what types of eSports respondents consumed, and
 20
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

on which skill levels (e.g. amateurs vs. professionals). This would allow further investigation into

differences in effect between the appreciation of player skill and the enthusiasm to consume

eSports.

Previous qualitative and anecdotal observations are canonical on the importance of social

interaction in watching streams and eSports (Cheung and Huang, 2011; Hamilton et al., 2014;

Scholz, 2012; Seo, 2013; Sherry et al., 2006; Sjöblom and Hamari, 2016; Trepte et al., 2012;

Woerman and Kirschener, 2015). It is easy to subscribe to these conceptions as social interaction

and functionalities are clearly present in services that are used for spectating. However, our

quantitative results (and the quantitative results related to eSports playing in Weiss and Schiele

2013) on whether social gratification affect spectating frequency indicate otherwise, as there was no

significant effect to be found. This would imply that the social dimensions of spectating are less

important than previous research would lead us to believe, at least when it comes to factors

affecting watching frequency. A finding of this nature for eSports is indeed highly interesting, as

traditional sports is so strongly tied to social groups and social interactions.However, another

interpretation is that the possibilities for social interaction provided by the services through which

spectating is taking place are not affording the level of interaction needed to obtain adequate levels

of gratification. So while spectators might be interacting with others through social media, forums

and chat, this form of online social interaction may not afford the same level of social gratifications

as co-located social interaction might. Therefore, investigating eSports spectating gratification in an

on-site spectating circumstance may show different levels of gratification.

As initially hypothesized, enjoying the aggressive behaviors exhibited by the eSports athletes was

positively and significantly associated with watching frequency. These findings are especially

interesting in the context of eSports since the athletes are not directly presented during the actual

eSports games, and the broadcast content therefore shows the physical bodies of athletes less than in

say traditional track and field sports. However, the athletes themselves appear on screen during
 21
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

broadcasts of eSports tournaments during breaks between games, and when pre-filmed footage is

shown in storytelling sequences. We argue that at least partially the enjoyment of aggression stems

from the rivalries existing between eSports teams and players, perhaps a milder form of aggression

that we are used to seeing in traditionally sports. On the other hand, many eSports games are at their

core violent in their imagery, for example Counter-Strike: Global Offensive where shooting your

opponents is part of the core game. This is the other type of aggression that can be seen as a

motivating factor for consumption.

While the body of literature on eSports and game stream consumption motivations specifically has

only started to appear (including the present study), there is an ample body of literature on reasons

why people play games themselves. While watching others play (and in the context of this paper:

spectating electronic sports) is not the exact same activity as playing games oneself, the phenomena

undoubtedly have overlap as both consist of consuming (video) game-related content. Therefore,

comparing the results of this study to those studies that have been conducted on the factors that predict

gaming activities can be considered fruitful and may provide further lines of inquiry also to the study

of consumption motives of eSports. The studies investigating factors that may affect quality and

quantity of playing video games can be roughly divided into three main categories based on the

selection of determinant they investigate. The first category is concerned with player types (Bartle

1996; Hamari and Tuunanen, 2014), mentalities and orientations (Kallio et al., 2011). The second

vein of literature on this area is more directly focused on motivations and gratification as predictors

of playing activities (e.g. Chang et al., 2014; Davis et al., 2013; Hamari et al., 2015b; Hamari and

Koivisto, 2015; Huang and Hsieh, 2011; Lu and Wang 2008; Wei and Lu, 2014; Yee, 2006). Finally,

the third category is focused on the demographic and other background factors of players (Hamari

and Lehdonvirta 2010; Janz et al., 2010; Koivisto and Hamari, 2014; Mäyrä et al., 2016; Williams et

al., 2008; Yee, 2006b). To these bodies of literature on gaming motivations, the present study

introduces the perspective of watching games being played as a form of gaming activity. Furthermore,
 22
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

the present study lays its roots also to the opposite direction; it brings game research pursuits into the

sports research arena by defining and investigating how eSports (competitive video gaming) can

indeed be seen as a sport. Through these conceptual and disciplinary unions, the study also brings the

notion of how watching games being played can be viewed from the perspective of sports

consumption, a previously little explored view in game research area (although previously suggested

by e.g. Cheung and Huang, 2011).

In the player type-related research (See e.g. Bartle, 1996; Hamari and Tuunanen 2014; Yee, 2006a),

players have been customarily divided into achievement, immersion/exploration, social and

competition -oriented players. In future research on eSports consumption these player typologies

could be applied in investigating whether eSports consumption motivations and habits differ in

accordance to the spectators’ gaming orientations. A large portion of the research investigating more

detailed motivations have seemingly focused on technology acceptance (See e.g. Davis, 1989; van

der Heijden, 2004) of games and specifically on both utilitarian and hedonic motivations of playing

(Chang et al., 2014; Davis et al., 2013; Hamari et al., 2015b; Hamari and Koivisto 2015). In the

present study many of the investigated factors represent more hedonically oriented dimensions of

spectating sports. The present study did not measure many, what can be seen as, utilitarian or

instrumental motivations to watch eSports other than the motivation to acquire information from

spectating eSports. Our results, as the results in the body of literature on games, highlight that

consuming game content is not necessarily a purely hedonic pursuit even though games are often

regarded as purely hedonic media. On the contrary, watching eSports may also provide information

which can be useful for, for example, deciding which games to purchase or for eSports-related

gambling. Beyond spectating eSports, being a professional eSports player or a professional video

games streamer (See e.g. Hamilton et al., 2014; Jonasson and Thiborg, 2010; Seo, 2013; Sjöblom and

Hamari, 2016) is a job which connects the phenomenon to an interesting view of playing games:

playing video games can also take the form of work. Therefore, eSports affords a highly interesting
 23
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

phenomenon from the perspective of labor, work psychology and business ecology. In prior literature,

playing games have been framed in the work context for example in the research veins on

gamification (Hamari, 2013; Hamari et al., 2015a; Jung et al., 2010; Nelson, 2012; Morschheuser et

al., 2016), gold farming/real-money-trade (e.g. Heeks, 2008; Lehdonvirta, 2005; Lehdonvirta and

Castronova, 2014; Nakamura, 2009) and obviously poker and other forms of gambling (with varying

skill-luck degrees) which represent forms of ‘playing’ connected to the intentional pursuit of income.

While the present study did not seek to investigate demographic factors in eSports per se, a clear

majority of respondents in our data were males below 25 years of age. This may be an indication of

the gender and age distribution in the general eSports fan community. However, in order to

rigorously investigate the demographic distribution in the eSports community, further studies with

wider samples should be conducted. Popular discussion does connect game consumption to

adolescent males, however, recent literature (e.g. Mäyrä et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2006; Yee,

2006a) challenges this view. Today’s surveys paint a broader, more inclusive picture; research

shows that gaming is more equally distributed across genders and age groups. However, differences

remain as to what types and genres of games different demographic groups gravitate towards

(Mäyrä et al., 2016). As most current eSports games appear to represent entries on the more hard-

core competition driven end of the spectrum, it could explain the young male majority in the fan

base of eSports.

4.1. Practical implications

This study focused on investigating which motivations may predict the frequency of watching

eSports (Table 5). For practitioners the results of this inquiry provide insights for further

development of eSports-related services such as broadcast content, eSports community tools,

eSports gambling –related service and so forth. The results of the study highlight gratifications that

are more likely to increase eSports-related consumption, and therefore, show to practitioners some
 24
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

of the different aspects of eSports that may be worth emphasizing in further development of

eSports-related services. For instance, knowledge acquisition was found to be one of the positive

determinants of eSports spectating. Therefore, actors working in the eSports ecology might direct

resources to developing better ways for the spectators to acquire knowledge from the eSports

broadcasts. In practice, this could for example take the form of developing more effective ways of

displaying the game states by, for instance, clearer depiction of player positions on the play area and

ways for the commentators to more easily demonstrate team strategies on an overlay or alternatively

by affording more information about player career statistics.

Surprisingly, our results showed a negative association between aesthetic appreciation of eSports

content and spectating frequency. This might imply that game developers of existing eSports titles

should not necessarily feel a pressure to emphasize graphical fidelity of games if the appreciation of

that fidelity does not increase spectatorship. Indeed, if we observe today’s popular eSports games,

we can notice that they do not necessarily adhere to or employ the latest graphics technologies but

rather focus on simplicity and clarity of presentation and graphics (also in order for the games to

run properly on multiple tiers of hardware). Conversely, however, the negative association that was

found in this study could be an indication of unoccupied space for new kinds of eSports to appear

where the aesthetic aspects would be in a more emphasized role. For instance, if we consider the

breadth of existing traditional sports, we can immediately recall several sports that emphasize

aesthetic aspects and beauty, such as figure skating, synchronized swimming or gymnastics. In

other words, the essence of these sports stems from how the performance visually looks, which is

impacted by the athlete’s skill. In these sports, sports consumption research has found a positive

impact of aesthetics on spectating (e.g. Bryant et al., 1981; Sargent et al., 1998; Zillmann, 1995).

Analogous eSports seem to currently be missing from the variety of popular eSports available today

which may indicate both that the negative association is attributable to the types of games being

played in eSports today and that there may be room for a larger variety of eSports in the future.
 25
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Gratifications related to seeing aggressive behaviors (such as hostility, intimidation and macho

atmosphere) exhibited by the players was positively associated with spectating frequency.

Interestingly, however, players themselves commonly have less screen time than their traditional

sports counterparts, and therefore, possibly witnessing these aggressive behaviors is scarce. By

showcasing rivalries between players and teams, as well as giving more screen time to players and

not just the game taking place, more emphasis could be placed on these aspects of eSports. If we

regard these findings more broadly, giving players more screen time may also facilitate the

increased fulfilment of other gratifications such as fandom.

The results also revealed that novelty of new teams and players appearing on the scene may be

important aspect of following eSports. This may indicate that stagnation of eSports ladders and

tournaments may have negative effect on the overall experience. These findings may then imply

that eSports ladder and tournament organizers may find it beneficial to guarantee a high level of

liquidity in team and player transitions between league and/or tournament levels. Therefore, when

organizing tournaments, finding a balance between fixed/invited teams and those who can climb up

the ladder based on pure performance may prove to be a fruitful mix for the viewing experience.

4.2. Limitations and future research directions

As is commonplace with studies conducted via online surveys, the data is self-reported and the

respondents are self-selected. Using self-reported data may affect the findings as the users responding

are potentially more actively engaged with the service and therefore willing to participate in activities

related to it. Thus, the results possibly disregard the perceptions and intentions of less active and

unengaged users of the service. These issues could be addressed in future studies, as well as the

reasons for not being/becoming involved in the service. Future research could combine survey data

with actual usage data and proper experiments, in order to increase the robustness of research on the

topic.
 26
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

In the present study we employed one of the most widely applied sports consumption measurement

scale. However, it is possible that there is something in the nature of eSports that may make it

significantly different from traditional sports with respect to consumption motivations. Therefore, it

is possible that the measures used here do not completely capture the entire spectrum of motivations

that might be relevant to the spectatorship of eSports. One indication of this in our results is the low

effect size implying that there indeed may remain other factors that explain what motivates people to

spectate eSports. Therefore, future studies could expand on the set of motivations beyond the

traditional motivations commonly linked to sports consumption of traditional sports. Furthermore, it

is also commonplace with quantitative studies that the results are reductionist and geared towards

generalizable overall indications of the phenomenon. As the activity of spectating eSports and

participating in the related community is a multifaceted phenomenon, it is expected and likely that

participant motivation can be more complex if we were to investigate the phenomenon on a more

granular and deeper level by using e.g. qualitative methods.

eSports spectating motivations and behaviors might differ based on which platform they are viewed

on. Streaming services such as Twitch, Hitbox, Azubu and YouTube can have different service design

even though the underlying content can however be similar, if not identical. As the user behavior of

a certain service are shaped by other users, creating a culture distinct to that service, this may then in

turn affect the behavior of users more greatly than the actual feature differences between similar

services providing eSports content. Naturally services that offer eSports content in a pre-recorded

format, such as YouTube, may have significant differences when it comes to user behavior and

motivations. Therefore, one future research avenue is in investigating motivational and behavioral

differences that may stem from the platforms streaming eSports.

As previously mentioned, there was no association found between social interaction and spectating

frequency. This could prove to be different if investigated in the live context, that is to say when both
 27
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

the spectator and the eSport players are physically present in the same space. This might also increase

the general aesthetic experience, as noted before in the context of eSports events (Seo, 2013).

References
Bartle, R. (1996), “Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs”, Journal of MUD
research, Vol. 1 No. 1, 19.
Bryant, J., Brown, D., Comisky, P. W., & Zillmann, D. (1982), “Sports and spectators:
Commentary and appreciation”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 32 No. 1, 109-119.

Bryant, J., Comisky, P., & Zillmann, D. (1981), “The appeal of rough‐and‐tumble play in televised
professional football”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, 256-262.
Carter, M., & Gibbs, M. R. (2013), “eSports in EVE Online: Skullduggery, fair play and
acceptability in an unbounded competition”, in Proceedings of 8th FDG Conference, Crete,
Greece, 14-17 May, 2013, pp. 47-54.
Cha, J. (2014), “Usage of video sharing websites: Drivers and barriers”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 31 No. 1, 16-26.
Chang, I-C., Liu, C-C., & Chen, K. (2014), “The effects of hedonic/utilitarian expectations and
social influence on continuance intention to play online games”, Internet Research, Vol. 24
No. 1, 21-45.
Chen, G. M. (2011), “Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use
gratifies a need to connect with others”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 2, 755-
762.
Cheung, G. and Huang, J. 2011, “Starcraft from the stands: Understanding the game spectator”, in
Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in computing systems
(CHI’11), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 763-772.
Chiang, H. S., & Hsiao, K. L. (2015), “YouTube stickiness: the needs, personal, and environmental
perspective”, Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, 85-106.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003), “A partial least squares latent variable
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation
study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study”, Information systems research, Vol. 14
No. 2, 189-217.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976),
“Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies”, Journal of personality and social
psychology, Vol. 34 No. 3, 366.
Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980), “Two indirect tactics of image management: Basking
and blasting”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 3, 406.
Comisky, P., Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1977), “Commentary as a substitute for action”, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 27 No. 3, 150-153.
 28
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Courtois, C., Mechant, P., De Marez, L., & Verleye, G. (2009), “Gratifications and seeding
behavior of online adolescents”, Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, Vol. 15 No.
1, 109-137.
Davis, F. D. Bagozzi, R. P. and Warshaw, P. R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology:
a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, 982-1003.
Davis, R., Lang B., & Gautam, N. (2013), “Modeling utilitarian-hedonic dual mediation (UHDM)
in the purchase and use of games”, Internet Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, 229-256.
Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E. A., End, C., & Jacquemotte, L. (2000), “Sex differences in sport fan
behavior and reasons for being a sport fan”, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, 219.
Duncan, M. C., & Brummett, B. (1989), “Types and sources of spectating pleasure in televised
sports”, Sociology of Sport Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, 195-211.
Eastman, S. T., & Land, A. M. (1997), “The best of both worlds: Sports fans find good seats at the
bar”, Journal of Sport & Social Issues, Vol. 21 No. 2, 156-178.

Ebersole, S. (2000), “Uses and gratifications of the web among students”, Journal of Computer‐
Mediated Communication, Vol. 6 No. 1.
Farquhar, L. K., & Meeds, R. (2007), “Types of fantasy sports users and their motivations”, Journal
of Computer‐Mediated Communication, Vol. 12 No. 4, 1208-1228.
Fink, J. S., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. F. (2002), “Environmental factors associated with spectator
attendance and sport consumption behavior: gender and team differences”, Sport Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, 8-19.
Funk, D. C., & James, J. D. (2006), “Consumer loyalty: The meaning of attachment in the
development of sport team allegiance”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, 189.
Gantz, W. (1981), “An exploration of viewing motives and behaviors associated with television
sports”, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 25 No. 3, 263-275.
Gantz, W., & Wenner, L. A. (1991), “Men, women, and sports: Audience experiences and effects”,
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 35 No. 2, 233-243.
Gantz, W., & Wenner, L. A. (1995), “Fanship and the television sports viewing experience”,
Sociology of Sport Journal, Vol. 12, 56-56.
Guttmann, A. (1996), The erotic in sports, Columbia University Press.
Hamari, J. (2013), “Transforming Homo Economicus into Homo Ludens: A field experiment on
gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service”, Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, Vol. 12 No. 4, 236-245.
Hamari, J., Huotari, K., & Tolvanen, J. (2015), “Gamification and economics”, in S. P. Walz & S.
Deterding (Eds.), The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 139-161.
Hamari, J., Keronen, L., & Alha, K. (2015b), “Why do people play games? A review of studies on
adoption and use”, in proceedings of the 48th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii, USA, January 5-8, 2015.
 29
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Hamari, J. and Koivisto, J. (2015), “Why do people use gamification services?”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, 419-431.
Hamari, J. and Lehdonvirta, V. (2010), “Game Design as Marketing: How Game Mechanics Create
Demand for Virtual Goods”, International Journal of Business Science & Applied
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, 14-29.
Hamari, J., & Tuunanen, J. (2014), “Player types: A meta-analysis”, Transactions of the Digital
Games Research Association, Vol. 1 No. 2, 29–53.
Hamilton, W. A., Garretson, O., & Kerne, A. (2014), “Streaming on twitch: fostering participatory
communities of play within live mixed media”, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, pp. 1315-1324.
Hanson, G., & Haridakis, P. (2008), “YouTube users watching and sharing the news: A uses and
gratifications approach”, Journal of Electronic Publishing, Vol. 11 No. 3.
Heeks, R. (2009), “Understanding ‘gold farming’ and real-money trading as the intersection of real
and virtual economies”, Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, Vol. 2 No. 4.
Huang, L.-Y. and Hsieh, Y.-J. (2011), “Predicting online game loyalty based on need gratification
and experiential motives”, Internet Research, Vol. 21 No. 5, 581-598.
Hutchins, B. 2008, “Signs of meta-change in second modernity: the growth of e-sport and the world
cyber games”, New Media and Society, Vol. 10 No. 6, 851-869.
James, J. D., & Ridinger, L. L. (2002), “Female and male sport fans: A comparison of sport
consumption motives”, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, 260.
Jansz, J., Avis, C. and Vosmeer, M. (2010), “Playing The Sims2: An exploration of gender
differences in players’ motivations and patterns of play”, New Media & Society, Vol. 12 No.
2, 235-251.
Johnson, P. R., & Yang, S. (2009), “Uses and gratifications of Twitter: An examination of user
motives and satisfaction of Twitter use”, in Communication Technology Division of the
annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
Boston, MA.
Joinson, A. N. (2008), “Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?: motives and use of
facebook”, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, ACM, pp. 1027-1036.
Jonasson, K., & Thiborg, J. (2010), “Electronic sport and its impact on future sport”, Sport in
Society, Vol. 13 No. 2, 287–299.
Jung, J. H., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. (2010), “Enhancing the motivational affordance of
information systems: The effects of real-time performance feedback and goal setting in group
collaboration environments”, Management Science, Vol. 56 No. 4, 724-742.
Kallio, K. P., Mäyrä, F., & Kaipainen, K. (2011), “At least nine ways to play: Approaching gamer
mentalities”, Games and Culture, Vol. 6 No. 4, 327–353.
Karp, D. A., & Yoels, W. C. (1990), “Sport and urban life”, Journal of Sport & Social Issues, Vol.
14 No. 2, 77-102.
 30
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Koivisto, J. and Hamari, J. (2014), “Demographic differences in perceived benefits from

gamification”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 35, 179-188.
Kozinets, R. V., Sherry, J. F., Storm, D., Duhachek, A., Nuttavuthisit, K., & DeBerry-Spence, B.
(2004), “Ludic agency and retail spectacle”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 3,
658-672.
Karhulahti, V. M. (2016), “Prank, Troll, Gross and Gore: Performance Issues in Esport Live-
Streaming”, in Proceedings of DiGRA FDG Conference, Dundee, Scotland, 1-6 August,
2016.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973), “Uses and gratifications research”, Public opinion
quarterly, 509-523.
Katz, E., Haas, H., & Gurevitch, M. (1973), “On the use of the mass media for important things”,
American sociological review, 164-181.
Krohn, F. B., Clarke, M., Preston, E., McDonald, M., & Preston, B. (1998), “Psychological and
sociological influences on attendance at small college sporting events”, College Student
Journal, Vol. 32, 277-288.
LaRose, R., & Eastin, M. S. (2004), “A social cognitive theory of Internet uses and gratifications:
Toward a new model of media attendance”, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
Vol. 48 No. 3, 358-377.
Lehdonvirta, V. (2005), “Real-Money Trade of Virtual Assets: New Strategies for Virtual World
Operators”, in Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Future Play (Future Play 2005),
Lansing, MI, USA, October 13-15.
Lehdonvirta, V. (2010), “Virtual worlds don't exist: Questioning the dichotomous approach in
MMO studies”, Game Studies, Vol. 10 No. 1.
Lehdonvirta, V., & Castronova, E. (2014), Virtual economies: Design and analysis, MIT Press.
Lever, J. (1983), Soccer madness, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lin, C. A. (2002), “Perceived gratifications of online media service use among potential users”,
Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 19 No. 1, 3-19.
Lu, H.-P. and Wang, S.-M. (2008), “The role of Internet addiction in online game loyalty: An
exploratory study”, Internet Research, Vol. 18 No. 5, 499-519.
Melnick, M. J. (1993), “Searching for sociability in the stands: A theory of sports spectating”,
Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, 44-60.
Milne, G. R., & McDonald, M. A. (1999), Sport marketing: Managing the exchange process, Jones
& Bartlett Learning.
Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2016), “Gamification in crowdsourcing: A review”, in
Proceedings of the 49th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS), Hawaii, USA, January 5-8, 2016. DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2016.543.
Mäyrä, F., Karvinen, J., & Ermi, L. (2016), “Pelaajabarometri 2015 Lajityyppien suosio”, TRIM
Research Reports, Vol. 21.
 31
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Nakamura, L. (2009), “Don't hate the player, hate the game: The racialization of labor in World of
Warcraft”, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Vol. 26 No. 2, 128-144.
Nelson, M. J. (2012), “Soviet and American precursors to the gamification of work”, in Proceeding
of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference, ACM, pp. 23-26.
Papacharissi, Z., & Mendelson, A. (2010), “12 Toward a new(er) sociability: uses, gratifications
and social capital on Facebook”, Media perspectives for the 21st century, 212.
Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000), “Predictors of Internet use”, Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, Vol. 44 No. 2, 175-196.
Peterson, E. M., & Raney, A. A. (2008), “Reconceptualizing and reexamining suspense as a
predictor of mediated sports enjoyment”, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol.
52 No. 4, 544-562.
Raney, A. A., Depalma, A. J. (2006), “The effect of viewing varying levels and contexts of violent
sports programming on enjoyment, mood, and perceived violence”, Mass Communication &
Society, Vol. 9 No. 3, 321-338.
Robinson, M. J., & Trail, G. T. (2005), “Relationships among spectator gender, motives, points of
attachment, and sport preference”, Journal of Sport management, Vol. 19 No. 1, 58-80.
Robinson, M. J., Trail, G. T., & Kwon, H. (2004), “Motives and points of attachment of
professional golf spectators,” Sport Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, 167-192.
Sargent, S. L., Zillmann, D., & Weaver, J. B. (1998), “The gender gap in the enjoyment of televised
sports”, Journal of Sport & Social Issues, Vol. 22 No. 1, 46-64.
Scholz, T. M. (2012), “New Broadcasting Ways In IPTV – The Case of the Starcraft Broadcasting
Scene”, World Media Economics & Management Conference.
Seo, Y. (2013), “Electronic sports: A new marketing landscape of the experience economy”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 13-14, 1542-1560.
Seo, Y. (2015), “Professionalized consumption and identity transformations in the field of eSports”,
Journal of Business Research.
Seo, Y., & Jung, S. U. (2014), “Beyond solitary play in computer games: The social practices of
eSports”, Journal of Consumer Culture, 1-21.
Seo, W. J., & Green, B. C. (2008), “Development of the motivation scale for sport online
consumption”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, 82.
Sherry, J. L., Lucas, K., Greenberg, B. S., & Lachlan, K. (2006), Video game uses and gratifications
as predictors of use and game preference. Playing video games: Motives, responses, and
consequences, 213-224.
Sjöblom, M. & Hamari, J. (2016), “Why Do People Watch Others Play Video Games? An
Empirical Study on the Motivations of Twitch Users”, SSRN.
Smith, G. J. (1988), “The noble sports fan”, Journal of Sport & Social Issues, Vol. 12 No. 1, 54-65.
 32
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Su-lin, G., Tuggle, C. A., Mitrook, M. A., Coussement, S. H., & Zillmann, D. (1997), “The thrill of
a close game who enjoys it and who doesn't?”, Journal of Sport & Social Issues, Vol. 21 No.
1, 53-64.
Taylor, T. L. (2002), Living digitally: Embodiment in virtual worlds. In The social life of avatars,
Springer, London, pp. 40-62.
Taylor, T.L. (2012), “T.L. Taylor on Live Streaming”, Computer Games and the Future of
Spectatorship, Berkman Luncheon Series, Berkman Centre, June 5.
Taylor, T.L. (2012), Raising the Stakes: E-sports and the professionalization of computer gaming.
MIT Press, MA.
Taylor, T. L., and Witkowski, E. (2010), “This is how we play it: what a mega-LAN can teach us
about games”, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Foundations of
Digital Games, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 195-202.
Tiedemann, C. (2004), “Sport (and culture of physical motion) for historians, an approach to precise
the central term(s)”, IX international CESH-congress, Crotone, Italy.
Trail, G. T., Anderson, D. F., & Fink, J. S. (2000), “A theoretical model of sport spectator
consumption behavior”, International Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, 154-180.
Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2001), “The Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption: A Comparison
of Psychometric Properties with other Sport Motivation Scales”, Journal of Sport Behavior,
Vol. 24 No. 1, 108-127.
Trail, G. T. (2012), “Manual for the MSSC”, available at
http://sportconsumerresearchconsultants.yolasite.com/resources/MSSC%20Manual%20-
%202012.pdf (retrieved 2 February 2015).
Trepte, S., Reinecke, L., & Juechems, K. (2012), “The social side of gaming: How playing online
computer games creates online and offline social support”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 28, 832-839.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004), “User acceptance of hedonic information systems”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 28 No. 4, 695-704.
Wagner, M. (2006), “On the scientific relevance of eSport”, in Proceedings of the 2006
International Conference on Internet Computing and Conference on Computer Game
Development, CSREA Press, Las Vegas, Nevada, 437-440.
Wang, Q., Fink, E. L., & Cai, D. A. (2008), “Loneliness, gender, and parasocial interaction: A uses
and gratifications approach”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 56 No. 1, 87-109.
Wann, D. L. (1995), “Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation scale”, Journal of Sport &
Social Issues, Vol. 19 No. 4, 377-396.
Wann, D. L. (1997), Sport psychology, Pearson College Division.
Wann, D. L., Allen, B., & Rochelle, A. R. (2004), “Using sport fandom as an escape: Searching for
relief from under-stimulation and over-stimulation”, International Sports Journal, Vol. 8 No.
1, 104.
 33
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Wann, D. L., Grieve, F. G., Zapalac, R. K., & Pease, D. G. (2008), “Motivational profiles of sport
fans of different sports”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, 6.
Wann, D. L., Schrader, M. P., & Wilson, A. M. (1999), “Sport fan motivation: Questionnarie
validation, comparisons by sport, and relationship to athletic motivation”, Journal of Sport
Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 1, 114.
Wann, D. L., & Wilson, A. M. (1999), “Relationship between aesthetic motivation and preferences
for aggressive and nonaggressive sports”, Perceptual and motor skills, Vol. 89 No. 3, 931-
934.
Warr, P. (9 April 2014), "eSports in numbers: Five mind-blowing stats", Red Bull, available at;
http://www.redbull.com/en/esports/stories/1331644628389/esports-in-numbers-five-mind-
blowing-stats (accessed 9 November 2015).
Wei, P.-S. and Lu, H.-P. (2014) Why do people play mobile social games? An examination of
network externalities and of uses and gratifications. Internet Research, 24(3), 313-331.
Weiss, T., & Schiele, S. (2013), “Virtual worlds in competitive contexts: Analyzing eSports
consumer needs”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 23 No. 4, 307-316.
Wenner, L. A., & Gantz, W. (1998), “Watching sports on television: Audience experience, gender,
fanship, and marriage”, MediaSport, 233-251.
West, R. L., & Turner, L. H. (2010), Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and
Application. McGrawHill, Boston, MA.
Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013), “Why people use social media: a uses and gratifications
approach”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, 362-369.
Williams, D., Yee, N. and Caplan, S. E. (2008) Who Plays, How Much, and Why? Debunking the
Stereotypical Gamer Profile. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(4), 993-
1018.
Witkowski, E. 2009, “Probing the Sportiness of eSports”, in Christophers, J. and Scholz, T. (eds.)
eSports Yearbook 2009, Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany, 53-56.
Witkowski, E. 2012, “On the Digital playing Field: How we “Do Sport” With Networked Computer
Games”, Games and Culture, Vol. 7 No. 5, 349-374.
Woerman, N., & Kirschener, H. (2015), “Online Livestreams, Community Practices, and
Assemblages. Towards a Site Ontology of Consumer Community”, Advances in Consumer
Research, 43.
Won, J. U., & Kitamura, K. (2007), ”Comparative analysis of sport consumer motivations between
South Korea and Japan”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, 93.
Wu, J. H., Wang, S. C., & Tsai, H. H. (2010), “Falling in love with online games: The uses and
gratifications perspective”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 6, 1862-1871.
Yee, N. (2006a), “Motivations for play in online games”, Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Vol. 9
No. 6, 772–775.
 34
What is eSports and why do people watch it?

Yee, N. (2006b), “The demographics, motivations and derived experiences of users of massively-
multiuser online graphical environments”, PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, 15, 309-329.
Zillmann, D. (1995), “Sports and the media”, in J. Mester (Ed.), Images of sport in the world,
German Sports University, Cologne, pp. 423-444.

i
We realize that terms ‘virtual world’ and ‘real world’ are not very accurate terms, however, in the lack of better
wording and the fact that the terms are rather comprehensible by a variety of scholars with different backgrounds we
adopted to use them. For a more elaborate discussion on the paradox of what is real and virtual please see Lehdonvirta
(2010) and Taylor (2002).