I would expect that the classification is due to some combination of the gambling mechanics surrounding many popular videogames and the moral panic of today's youth spending time indoors engaging in virtualized violence.

It’s probably because there’s an actual gambling industry related to esports. Just like betting on horses at the track, or gambling on football, or whatever.

Afaik it's also a (the?) major source of funding for esports companies as well so if you're going in to the esports space then there's a very good chance you're going to have to dance with that devil at some point. Football at least - I don't know about horses - seems to be able to support itself off of viewership. Whereas the last dota tournament I watched had "Betway" at the start of its name.

I know some companies running major esports tournaments also have interests in the gambling side. So. There's that.

I didn’t understand either why “gambling, esports” were listed separately in the article. Why would esports in general be vices in the way the other industries are.

I get there are CS:Go tournies where people pretend shoot each other in a video game, but I don’t see how that is more damaging to people than sports like boxing or MMA. Idk, is there still a ‘vice’ sentiment that “video games turn kids into killers”?

because it's kinda like gambling as a good portion of it can be down to chance, also "We try to keep the definition relatively broad..."

Are you thinking of Fantasy Sports ? I mixed the two initially as well. I see why Fantasy Sports (assembling virtual teams of real athletes) would be there, it's purely gambling, but e-sports (competitive gaming)… it's just like any other non-physical game, like chess or scrabble or whatever.

The difference is the chance involved. Chess involves no chance. Scrabble involves the chance of the tiles you get, there's still a lot of skill involved. E-sports is more like scrabble than chess.

This is just not true. What do you base this on?

Top e-sports games such as Dota 2, CS:GO and StarCraft 2 are highly skill based games where strategy and teamwork (in the first two games) is all that matters. There are, in Dota 2, a few chance based characters you can play, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't make "chess to scrabble". In my opinion you seem ill informed and biased.

In my opinion you sound like you're feeling attacked, Mr. Anonymous Made-an-account-to-make-this-comment.

We're arguing about degree here, and it's pointless. You say it's a low degree of chance. I say it's a low degree of chance.

Just like professional body based in-person sports, chance is an integral component to e-sports. Football, soccer, tennis are based partially on chance. That's how multiple houses agree, more or less, on the chance spread.

Maybe because there's a lot of gambling in esports. There was that controversy with CS:GO skin gambling a few months back.

That doesn't make since because football and all other sports have tons of gambling but are not considered a vice.

I'd guess it's because the actual profits come from loot boxes etc, i.e. gambling. The 'esports' side of the games is a sales tool, not the product.

Many countries have already set up addiction centers for gaming. It’s no surprise, anything that releases dopamine can be addictive.

Sloth is the particular vice and playing video games is the embodiment of sloth to many.

Compared to watching TV?

Someone asked how it is considered a vice. Sloth is considered a vice and playing video games fits right in there in the judgement of enough that it gets mainstream play.

As far as TV goes, we heard the same thing about tv warping kids' minds years ago.

I can't tell if you think what you're saying is correct (and you're wrong) or if you think what you're saying is wrong (and you're still wrong.)

Help me out here, what am I wrong about?

Seven vices, sloth is one...citation needed for that?

Or that people think that playing video games is for the lazy?

Someone specifically asked what vice video games would be (esports actually). I said sloth (being lazy) is what some would accuse them of. There is nothing weasel about that unless you set the bar so high that everyone must agree that something is a vice, in which case virtually nothing is.

Which is it? Is sloth not a vice? Or is playing video games not considered being lazy by a significant number of people?

There have been countless stories about video games promoting obesity (sloth, gluttony) or violence (wrath) or objectification (lust). I'm sure greed, envy and pride could all make an appearance if we tried hard enough.

Citations needed...nope. Accusations of today's youth being lazy and playing video games are abundant enough that if you can't find them you've obviously been playing too many video games.

> I can't tell if you think what you're saying is correct (and you're wrong) or if you think what you're saying is wrong (and you're still wrong.)

That's just rude and didn't contribute anything. You haven't made any argument other than I'm wrong. Have a point. I'm not going to play the citations game. Put forth a counterargument that is coherent and contributes to the discussion or move along.

> Citations needed...nope. Accusations of today's youth being lazy and playing video games are abundant enough that if you can't find them you've obviously been playing too many video games.

Countless unfounded stories, and then implication that those "playing too many video games" aren't in the know.

Your viewpoints seem antiquated in this day in age where everyone is always on their phone, playing a video game when traveling or waiting.

Is a crossword app a video game? I didn't realize the NYT crossword app was targeting lazy youth.

> Or that people think that playing video games is for the lazy?

This part. My earlier post meant to say that I can't tell if you think those people are correct (which is wrong) or if you think those people are wrong (but are still citing them?)

I think they’re roughly the same... if you spend four hours a day playing video games or watching TV most people will judge you negatively for it

Ones passive and ones active though, they’re completely different. If you fall asleep playing a video game the game doesn’t finish itself.

This is anecdotal but I’ve definitely heard people who will happily talk about binge watching a box set (easily a 50+ hour investment) also say they can’t understand how people can waste so much time playing videogames.

I am skeptical, given that the in the US the average household watches more than 8hrs per day[1] (kind of an odd measure, but it seems likely that most members of the household are at least making it to your 4hr threshold, unless there's just one doing some real binge-watching).

1: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/when-...

I think they are night and day. The amount of engagement that video games demand on the brain makes them completely different. I enjoy documentaries, but otherwise find television insanely boring and that it tends to make people dull, unlike video games.

It's the equivalent of sports gambling.

Are you also thinking of Fantasy Sports (virtual teams of real players) ?

I don't see how E-Sports is different from Chess.

People bet on chess as well, I have old colleagues who do it actively. That’d fall under this VC’s purview as well.

I have hold no stigma against gambling, I used to gamble professionally. I just think it’s important to acknowledge what is and isn’t gambling and to acknowledge society and legislation generally have a stigma against it.

In what way?

In that there’s actual wagering being done over outcomes, and platforms built to facilitate same.

There's wagering over outcomes of normal sports too.

And I would imagine the sports gambling industry would be covered by this C VC as well if there’s money in it.

I do not know, but have a suspicion, the esports gambling is a bit more intertwined with the esports itself. I'd be surprised if we don't have some scandals come out of that, if anyone ever decides to take a close look.