assignment

Article

Play to the camera: Video ethnography, spectatorship, and e-sports

Nicholas Taylor North Carolina State University, USA

Abstract Electronic sports (e-sports) represents an increasingly popular and profitable array of organi- zations, communities, and sets of practices, all of which place tremendous value on audiences; for example, playing games competitively, in front of a crowd, represents the legitimization of gaming as spectator sport. This article reports on an audiovisual ethnography of a community of competitive gamers for whom the video camera became not so much a research tool but a promotional resource. Examining the transformations the camera enacted, both to the practice of ethnographic fieldwork and to participants’ embodied performances of competitive gaming, this article explores the central role played by recording technologies in the production of e-sports. It concludes by considering some of the intersections of surveillance, gaming, and emergent leisure practices – including the use of digital recording technologies to collect social scientific data, at a time when watching and being watched is increasingly pervasive, pleasurable, and problematic.

Keywords Competitive gaming, digital play, e-sports, ethnography, first-person shooters, surveillance, videography

‘Think of how many people are watching this’

Just before the start of the Halo 3 gold medal match between France and Canada at the World

Cyber Games (WCG) 2008 Grand Finals, a member of the four-person Canadian team leaned

forward in his chair and, looking at each of his teammates in turn, said ‘Let’s get this money guys –

think of how many people there are back home, how many people are watching this’. The match

was played in front of a live audience of roughly 400 electronic sports (‘e-sports’) fans, with

Corresponding author:

Nicholas Taylor, Department of Communcation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 2016, Vol. 22(2) 115–130 ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1354856515580282 con.sagepub.com

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Samsung (which runs the tournament) broadcasting the event to the WCG’s streaming Web server,

along with a number of journalists and videographers (and myself) recording the event. Taking

center stage at the ‘video game Olympics’ (Hutchins, 2008), what marked these players’ emer-

gence into an elite domain of professional competitive gamers was not only the promise of

monetary reward (US$10,000 to each teammate on the winning team) but also the focus of the

WCG’s globalized audience on their match.

E-sports involves the enactment of video games as spectator-driven sport, carried out through

promotional activities; broadcasting infrastructures; the socioeconomic organization of teams,

tournaments, and leagues; and the embodied performances of players themselves (Borowy and Jin,

2013; Harper, 2014; Taylor, 2012; Witkowski, 2012). Video plays a central role in the practices of

e-sports communities and in the formation and promotion of its ‘brands’, whether individual

players, clans, leagues, or tournaments (Taylor, 2012). Most major e-sports organizations such as

WCG, Major League Gaming (or MLG, currently one of the most well-established organizations in

North America), and the Electronic Sports World Cup (ESWC), as well as game companies such as

Valve (makers of Defense of the Ancients 2), Blizzard (Starcraft 2) and Riot (League of Legends)

engage extensively in media production practices that often deliberately invoke mainstream

spectator sports as a way of delivering content to digitally mediated audiences. This content

includes live tournament casts, interviews with players, replays and highlight reels of both online

and tournament-based games, and promotional documentaries 1

– representing an increasing (and

increasingly popular) range of video commodities through which to push e-sports to broader

audiences.

Over the course of an 8-month audiovisual ethnography documenting the practices of a group of

aspiring competitive gamers, I entered into this emergent industry in which video plays such a

constitutive role, both as a researcher and, by virtue of my own use of a video camera, as a pro-

motional resource for the organization and players I studied. For the competitive gamers in

‘Nerdcorps’, 2

the grassroots gaming organization with which I became involved, being watched –

playing to an audience of spectators, either colocated or digitally mediated – legitimated their

status as serious competitive gamers.

This article explores some of the epistemological concerns raised by my fieldwork with this

group of competitive gamers, through acting as the NerdCorps videographer 3

and producing

promotional materials for the organization and its players. I discuss how the conventional

ethnographic concerns around ‘reciprocity’ (Glaser, 1982; Weems, 2006) and ‘reactivity’

(Maxwell, 2013) were transformed through my dual role as ethnographer and promotional

videographer in this community. I also attend to the ways my own shifting role and priorities

within this community – not only my duties as a videographer but my growing appreciation for

participants’ skill and dedication – changed what, and how, I learned about the professiona-

lization of digital gaming. In doing so, I hope to extend the rich ethnographic work of Sünden

(2009), Pearce and Artemesia (2009), and Taylor (2006a, 2012) among others, who attend to

the ways their own positionality shaped their interactions with participants; in doing so, their

work untangles the complex relations between participants, researchers, virtual and physical

contexts, and technologies through which ethnographic knowledge is produced. When applied

to studies of competitive and professional gaming, the articulation of such an ‘accountable

positioning’ (Haraway, 1988) can help build more nuanced understandings of the co-constitutive

interplay enacted between players, spectators, recording technologies, and apparatuses,

across an increasing range of ‘videoactive contexts’ (Shrum et al., 2005) associated with

e-sports.

116 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 22(2)

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Watching the watchers: Studying game spectatorship

While some scholars insist that spectatorship has always been central to digital gaming (Borowy

and Jin, 2013; Swalwell, 2011), accounts of how we watch others play lag far behind our

understandings of play itself. This may be an artifact of a (perceived) need to differentiate gaming,

as an inherently ‘actional’ medium (Galloway, 2006), from other forms of screen-based media

consumption. Eskelinen and Tronstad (2003) typify this view, drawing a line between ‘passive’

forms of media including film and television and the ‘performative’ work of playing games. TL

Taylor (2012) notes the anachronistic notion of audience passivity this view relies upon, a notion

disproved by the ‘the intervention of scholars in the Birmingham school and later analyses of

actual media engagement’ (p. 183). Citing the ‘productive flip’ cultural studies theorists under-

took, she encourages games scholars to ‘ask what role spectatorship and audience have in con-

structing the play experience and gamer action’ (2012: 183).

Such a flip has already been initiated, due to the recent surge in popularity of e-sports, the rise of

streaming video platforms such as Twitch.tv and the recognition that spectators have long been

part of gaming culture, particularly in public spaces (e.g. see Alloway and Gilbert, 1998). Some

scholars, including Gosling and Crawford (2011) and Newman (2008), seek to highlight theoretical

continuities between game players and audiences for other screen-based media, arguing that

gaming creates spectacles that players at once coauthor and watch. Others seek to empirically

account for the agency of onlookers, suturing them into accounts of video game play in different

contexts. Lin and Sun (2011), for instance, employ Goffman’s dramaturgical perspective to

document the different ‘frames’ created through the interaction between games, players of varying

skill levels, and spectators in an arcade setting, while Bowman et al. (2013) offer evidence, derived

from social psychology experiments with Quake 3 players, that highly skilled players improved

their in-game performances when playing for an audience. Smith et al. (2013) offer an analysis of

the live-streaming service Twitch.tv, which offers spectators the chance to directly engage with

players as they stream their play, adding a new twist to conceptions of the ‘active’ audience. 4

While these studies have begun to consider the intimate and often inextricable link between

game players and game audiences, we have only started to undertake explorations of the integral

roles performed by particular technologies and technological apparatuses for broadcasting play.

How does the act of recording, and the presence of recording devices and platforms – whether at

tournaments or in mundane, everyday play – alter players’ understandings of themselves and their

gaming practices? In what ways are players’ subjectivities, communicative interactions, and play

shaped by their own e-sports spectatorship, particularly as the industry traffics increasingly in the

commodification of ‘star’ players’ personas? In other words, to what extent might we see e-sports

spectatorship ‘schooling’ players in how to be (or act like) a professional gamer? This article

engages these questions through a reflexive consideration of my video ethnographic fieldwork

with a community of Halo 3 players conducted between 2008 and 2009, during a time when the

North American e-sports scene (and MLG in particular) was struggling to articulate what pro-

fessional game play entails and how it might best be marketed. 5

Moving targets

My audiovisual ethnography of a competitive Halo 3 community was carried out at the following

three sites: monthly Nerdcorps events, held at a pub in downtown Toronto, Canada; the 2008 MLG

Toronto Open; and the 2008 WCG Grand Finals in Cologne, Germany. The community comprised

Taylor 117

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

of approximately 20 Halo 3 players who regularly attended NerdCorps events in order to train for

the far more lucrative MLG and WCG tournaments, corporate-sponsored events that promised

prize money, sponsorship opportunities, and status as e-sports professionals 6

to winning teams. In

addition to recording participants’ Halo 3 play as well as other, parallel activities at each event

(playing other games, chatting during breaks, and watching one another play), my fieldwork also

entailed detailed field notes, regular informal interviews with the NerdCorps organizers, and as I

discuss below, a series of interviews that started off as conventional social scientific exchanges and

ended up as promotional material.

The competitive games industry is incredibly dynamic and unstable (Taylor, 2012); sponsor-

ships for teams and individual players are difficult to come by, player turnover is high, and even

seemingly well-funded leagues such as the Championship Gaming Series rise and fall within the

space of 2 years. These conditions make the North American e-sports scene a moving target for

academic researchers, as is illustrated with the study outlined here. At the time I started my

fieldwork, MLG had just recently held its inaugural Canadian Open, holding the event at a large

convention center in downtown Toronto. According to the NerdCorps organizers, MLG leaned

heavily on NerdCorps and other local, grassroots gaming organizations to drum up interest in the

Canadian Open. This entailed giving free passes to the organizers to give away to community

members in advance of the event, and in the words of one NerdCorps organizer, ‘poaching’ the

club’s best players to form an MLG-sponsored Canadian Halo 3 team to compete against its stable

of professional teams.

Over the course of my fieldwork, I was able to observe how MLG’s establishment of a Toronto

event on its annual Pro Circuit (which lasted until 2010) effectively hooked the NerdCorps

community into MLG’s larger network of both on- and off-line Halo 3 tournaments. Many

NerdCorps members began attending other events on the Pro Circuit, the club itself quickly

adopted MLG’s rule sets for competitive Halo 3 play, and the organizers ceased setting up other

games during their events (with the exception of Dance Dance Revolution, to be played during

breaks in Halo 3). Once MLG started coming to town, NerdCorps was reoriented away from an

inclusive, leisure-driven gaming community toward a more serious club concerned with priming

Halo 3 players – predominantly young, White males – for the ‘big leagues’.

Shortly after I completed my fieldwork, NerdCorps ceased to exist as an organization, and the

organizers moved on to focus on their families and jobs, and the players, to postsecondary edu-

cation. While MLG ran as a primarily console-based, first-person shooter (FPS) league during this

fieldwork (Taylor, 2011), it no longer includes Halo 3 or the more recent Halo 4 in tournament

play. The league has since shifted almost entirely toward computer-based games such as Starcraft

2 and League of Legends, which carry broader appeal to audiences in Europe and Korea, where

e-sports is significantly more established (Jin, 2010).

Given the instability of the conditions in which I conducted this fieldwork, the ensuing dis-

cussion operates as a snapshot of a scene in flux; it is a partial ‘reassembling’ (Latour, 2005) of the

NerdCorps community as it negotiated and participated in the professionalization of digital play

over the course of a year. The argument I advance here is not only an account of this transfor-

mation, however, but a reflexive consideration and theorization of the recording technologies that

made this reassembly possible; it is, as such, an attempt towards a ‘situated knowledge’ (Haraway,

1988) of professional game play. As I argue below, my own involvement with NerdCorps in my

capacity as club videographer may have not simply just coincided with the club’s attempts to ‘go

pro’; it may have actively propelled these efforts, insofar as my videographic work on behalf of the

club emulated the video genres produced by MLG and other e-sports organizations.

118 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 22(2)

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Reciprocity: Giving back to gamers

Key to this narrative is the ethnographic concern with reciprocity – how, when, and what to ‘give

back’ to study participants. This concern animated my fieldwork, compelling me toward activities

that were far more recognizable as promotional work than as conventional ethnography. While

reciprocity is rarely mentioned in studies of gaming communities, 7

it comes up consistently in

accounts of ethnographic fieldwork in other contexts. Tracing the notion of reciprocity from the

1970s and 1980s on, Lisa Weems (2006) characterizes conventional understandings of reciprocity

(via Glaser, 1982) as ‘the exchange of favors and commitments’ (p. 997). In this classic model,

‘exchanging favors’ between researcher and subjects is a means of generating trust and goodwill,

thereby securing better data from otherwise obstinate ‘informants’ (e.g. see Everhart, 1977; Wax,

1952). Weems follows critiques by earlier critical feminist ethnographers (particularly Harrison

et al., 2001; Lather, 1986; Stacey, 1988; and Visweswaran, 1994), in arguing that this conventional

approach to reciprocity reproduces inequalities between the researcher and the subject, as the

researcher has far more to gain from her interactions with participants than vice versa.

As a means of redressing the exploitative legacies of conventional social science, feminist and

postcolonial ethnographers began, in the 1980s and 1990s, to articulate and put into practice

radically retooled notions of reciprocity in their research with marginalized groups (e.g. see

Bloom, 1997; Haig-Brown, 1992; Roman, 1993). Their work represents reciprocity as an ethical

imperative, driven by the recognition of the legacies of abuse and exploitation that thread through

the history of social scientific research, particularly with oppressed populations. Framing reci-

procity as a primarily ethical concern, however, assumes that the research in question really can or

does serve to benefit those involved – a presumption that is compelling when working with

marginalized groups. Less well developed are understandings of what ‘giving back’ could or

should look like in work carried out with privileged populations – communities whose members

enjoy similar (or greater) degrees of socioeconomic, institutional, or cultural power than that of the

researcher.

In undertaking my research with NerdCorps, a community predominantly made up of straight,

middle- and upper-middle class males with similar kinds of socioeconomic privilege as my own, I

had little to give back in my capacity as a university researcher. In order to work with them, I had to

frame my involvement in ways that aligned with their expectations and needs. Having run the club

for several years, the NerdCorps organizers (two White, college-educated men in their 30s with

regular ‘day jobs’) were accustomed to negotiating mutually productive partnerships with other

groups; at various times, they had entered into collaborations with other competitive gaming

organizations, local video game retailers, charitable organizations, and so on, always with an eye

toward promoting the club.

When I first met the organizers in early 2008 to propose my research, we discussed working

together on a ‘zine about the local competitive gaming scene’, and I suggested contributing aca-

demic research on the educational and social benefits of gaming. The organizers seemed interested

at the time (possibly out of courtesy), but my follow-up e-mails to them in the weeks after met with

no response, and my work as a university-based researcher seemed to hold little relevance to their

aims of building their organization’s profile. Months later, I e-mailed them again to request a

meeting, after noticing that their Web site featured an underdeveloped section for video clips.

When we met a second time, I presented some video production I had done in the past and offered

to contribute to the club any audiovisual data I took, as well as my video editing skills, in exchange for

their support of my research project. The organizers brought me on as the club’s new videographer.

Taylor 119

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Camera as boundary object

In entering into this collaboration, I was able to leverage my access to a video camera and my prior

experience conducting audiovisual research. As the organizers made clear to me, most regular

players were accustomed to video cameras at NerdCorps events, and they suggested my presence

would be neither remarkable nor problematic. At the first few events I attended, they introduced

me to players as the ‘new videographer’ associated with my university; while my institutional

affiliation was made clear, and I fully disclosed my research interests to all the participants I

encountered, the organizers consistently framed my involvement as a recognizable form of service

to the club, rather than as research.

In making possible this collaboration and my attendant self-identification as videographer, my

video camera acted as a ‘boundary object’ (Star and Greisemer, 1989), an artifact and/or technique

that has ‘different meanings in different social worlds’ but that is stable and ‘recognizable’ across

local contexts (p. 393). Boundary objects are key ‘means of translation’ between social worlds,

enabling forms of work valuable both within and across different individuals and communities

(p. 393). In this perspective, my video camera helped bridge the boundary between my own

research interests in documenting the ‘professionalization’ of competitive play and the interests of

a group of gamers and event organizers for whom the camera represented opportunities for the

kinds of audience building normally associated with professional e-sports. The camera thereby

allowed me to traverse the boundary between academia and a relatively privileged community of

competitive gamers.

Shooting games

Approaching the video camera as boundary object – a tool simultaneously for the cultivation of

ethnographic knowledge on competitive gaming (alongside field notes, questionnaires, and sec-

ondary texts) and for the production of promotional materials – allows an articulation of where and

how these two objectives came into conflict. That said, at no point in my fieldwork did I explicitly

choose to be ‘researcher’ instead of ‘videographer’, or vice versa. Rather, fieldwork consisted in

constantly negotiating and prioritizing the expectations and rules of these two communities. In

what follows, I highlight the differences and tensions between my obligations as the organization’s

videographer and the requirements and expectations around normative audiovisual fieldwork.

Working the angles

The most immediate distinction between these two roles and their attendant relations, epis-

temologies, and outcomes is in competing notions around where the camera should be and what it

should be doing at any given time. In the tradition of video ethnographic work, I had drawn from at

the start of my research, the main advantage of video recording is its ability to document ‘naturally

occurring’ activity and to minimize the researcher’s influence on recorded phenomena (Knoblauch

et al., 2006: 11). From this perspective, the camera is regarded as a tool that is at once less intrusive

than other forms of researcher presence and is capable of documenting a more granular and

comprehensive record of ‘what happened’ than other, more conventional written and/or audio-

based data collection (Laurier and Philo, 2006). 8

Following this tradition, my initial approach was to set the camera up on its tripod in a corner of

the long, narrow space where NerdCorps held its monthly events or between two of the four rows

120 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 22(2)

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

of tables that divided the space, and point it at the participants, switching camera positions perhaps

three to four times over the course of the 6-h events. The underlying motivation was to allow the

camera to be as unobtrusive as possible while documenting the rhythm and pace of these events –

long periods of setting up, dealing with technical issues, hanging out, and quiet playing either

individually or in small groups, punctuated by bursts of excited chatter, yelling, and other indi-

cations of high affect during team matches. This set up reflected my interest in the ways players

communicated to each other both during and in between bouts of play.

In retrospect, this was not only reflective of an ethnographic concern with the embodied and

material aspects of digital youth cultures (following the work of Bryce and Rutter, 2005 and

Wakeford, 1999 among others). It was also an artifact of my belief that to understand how

players negotiate the professionalization of competitive gaming, game-based events are of

secondary importance to the ways players interact with each other – as if the social aspects of

competitive play can be so easily separated from the sociotechnical (Behrenshausen, 2013;

Giddings, 2007).

Players themselves prompted a shift in the ‘angle’ I was taking, both technically and theore-

tically. Where my initial expectations about what to focus my camera on were shaped by video

ethnographic traditions, their expectations about the possibilities and affordances of a video

camera at their events were shaped by video genres that promote professional e-sports players and

events, produced and circulated by MLG and other e-sports organizations. During the second and

third events I attended, players approached me several times to ask why I was filming them and not

directing the camera at the action on-screen. These questions were asked in the context of my

relationship to them as club videographer and they speak to a very different conception about what

makes competitive gaming compelling than my own academic interests.

Obligated as I was to produce promotional material for the club’s Web site and YouTube

channel that would showcase its top players and portray it as a suitable venue for other serious Halo

3 players, I soon modified my camera work to be more mobile and game play focused, particularly

during team matches, so as to capture the more spectacular feats of game-based virtuosity and

competitive drama. Doing so required a greater appreciation for those gaming moments that

players themselves regarded as significant – something I had to learn not only by attending more

closely to their game play but also by watching MLG’s highlight videos and tournament replays. In

other words, I had to become a more proficient spectator in order to fulfill my role as a video-

grapher and, ultimately, to better understand the community of competitive gamers with which I

worked. 9

Over time, as my own appreciation and enjoyment of competitive Halo 3 grew, and as my

understanding of the embodied and communicative skills required for elite play deepened, dis-

tinctions between what was ‘good for ethnography’ and ‘good for videography’ diminished.

‘We’ll make you famous’

Alongside my video recordings of participants’ interactions and play, my role as videographer also

transformed how I was able to interview players. The traditions of ethnographic research in which

I had been trained eschew conventional social scientific interview approaches – characterized as

the extraction of data from ‘subjects’ through the use of formalized questioning techniques – in

favor of more open-ended, dialogic exchanges. In this tradition, rooted in the feminist work of

Oakley (1981), Lather (1986), Smith (2005), and Visweswaran (1994), interviews are reciprocal

exchanges of narratives and reflections through which knowledge is co-constructed rather than

obtained.

Taylor 121

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The interviews I was able to conduct with NerdCorps participants were guided by concerns for

reciprocity and giving back, following the feminist modes of interviewing referenced above. They

were carried out as much to benefit interviewees, in their attempts to establish themselves in a

broader network of competitive Halo 3 players, as they were to advance my own understanding of

competitive gaming. The tag line used by NerdCorps on its YouTube channel and Web site, after

all, was We’ll Make you Famous. In order to accomplish this, however, we modeled them after a

genre of promotional ‘pro’ gaming videos, particularly those published by MLG that were most

popular with players at the time, rather than the traditions of qualitative research in which I had

been trained.

From interviews to profiles

The following account illustrates this shift. My first interviews with NerdCorps players, during an

event in March 2008, were carried out in groups of two and three, with participants seated on a

couch on the second floor of the venue during breaks in their play. I sat by them, asking questions

about players’ experiences with Halo 3 and trying to engage them in an open-ended conversation

about competitive gaming, while an organizer stood off to the side. Their short answers and lack of

eye contact (with the camera, the organizer, and myself) suggested either a reluctance to participate

or nervousness around being interviewed on camera, or both. When pulled out of the context of

their LAN play, in which I was introduced as videographer, and into a setting in which I positioned

myself more clearly as researcher and the camera as research instrument, the five participants we

interviewed that day – all of whom had seemed unperturbed by my activity up to that point – were

visibly anxious and uncomfortable.

At the following event (May 2008), the organizers suggested we reconfigure interviews to

loosely emulate ‘MLG Pro Player Features’, 10

a format with which participants were more

familiar. At the organizers’ suggestions, the list of questions I had initially arranged were modified

to include considerations I did not initially recognize as particularly relevant for my research, but

which became central to my own growing understanding of what matters to a community of

gamers who practice Halo 3 upward of 30 h a week. These questions asked about players’ favorite

Halo 3 weapons, the types of grenades they found most useful, maps and game types they preferred

and/or excelled at, and which installment of the Halo franchise they most enjoyed and why. Similar

to the MLG Pro Player Features, we also asked players to recount their most memorable com-

petitive gaming experiences, participation in various tournaments, favorite Halo 3 moment (either

at a NerdCorps event or other tournament, or on Xbox Live), and aspirations for any upcoming

events. Posted with participants’ written consent on YouTube and linked to from the NerdCorps

Facebook page, these interviews became a means for NerdCorps to promote itself as a place where

competitive gamers could ‘skill up’, as well as a way to make public the stories and personalities of

participants to a (digitally mediated) audience of e-sports enthusiasts, including other NerdCorps

attendees. Before being posted online, I showed the videos at NerdCorps events, where inter-

viewees could request edits, reshoots, and omissions, giving them significant control over whether

and how they were represented.

For the gamers involved, the interviews seemed to be a way for them to carry out identity work

by recounting their experience with competitive Halo 3 play – how they got into it, their tour-

nament experience up to that point, and what they were particularly good at. In doing so, they

participated in a discourse around what it takes to be a professional Halo 3 gamer, to the extent that

being ‘profiled’ in videos is itself a form of recognition within a community that places much stock

122 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 22(2)

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

on having an audience. Several participants used the videos as opportunities to address an ima-

gined audience of e-sports enthusiasts, either playfully or seriously; one young male participant

gave a shout out to ‘all his fans’, while a female participant sent a greeting to friends she hadn’t

seen for some time. Adopting this ‘profile’ format for interviews meant that I was able to reci-

procate to the community in a way that participants recognized as useful, albeit in a format that

differed radically from conventional understandings of ‘reciprocal’ research.

At the same time, because the interview questions, format, and interviewees were regulated by

the NerdCorps organizers and by the video genre we emulated, I had to find other means of

inquiring into aspects of participants’ lives that fell outside of the topics covered by promotional

videos. For discussions concerning players’ formal schooling, socioeconomic backgrounds,

aspirations aside from gaming, and so on, I had to be largely opportunistic, offhand, and tangential.

Any conversations I had with players about their lives outside of NerdCorps (and competitive

gaming more generally) usually occurred in the small breaks in between rounds of play or before or

after events; in this respect, then, my researcher activities were relegated to the temporal and

spatial margins of competitive gaming events.

Selling the stars

In addition to helping devise the questions I asked in these profile videos, the organizers also took

on the work of soliciting interviewees for me, based on who they thought would offer the most

compelling or entertaining answers, who had the most dynamic or ‘camera ready’ personalities and

who would best represent NerdCorps as offering fun and challenging experiences for seasoned

Halo 3 players. We can perhaps read in these solicitations a trend that often happens less explicitly

in ethnographic research, the process whereby particular members of a community are made more

visible, held up as more representative of the community and its practices than other, marginal

members (e.g. see Thorne, 1997). More often than not, the players that took part in the profiles

were clean-cut young men (and one woman) with ‘well-rounded’ lives outside of gaming –

meaning, mostly, they participated in athletics and/or had romantic partners. These participants

were most capable of occupying (or at least conveying) the hypermasculine subject position that

MLG had begun to craft around its own star players: the same image of the charismatic, athletically

inclined straight (most often White) young male that Kane (2008) and Taylor (2011) identify as

central to the North American e-sports industry’s efforts to sell competitive gaming to broader

audiences.

Performing professionalism

Exploring how players themselves adapted to my presence as a videographer is key in under-

standing the role my fieldwork played in the professionalization of this community. Embedded in

this account is an attempt to move past conventional notions of reactivity in audiovisual research,

defined (and measured) as discrete instances where subjects react to/acknowledge the camera’s

presence (see, for instance, Knoblauch et al., 2006: 11). Instead, in keeping with recent scholarship

on the ubiquity of digital recording technologies and surveillance practices in our everyday lives

(particularly the lives of young people), I consider how participants appropriated the camera

toward something they recognized, via their consumption of e-sports, as professional gaming.

Operating within e-sports’ broader discursive framework in which spectatorship denotes status,

I argue that the camera helped elicit from participants certain embodied arrangements associated

Taylor 123

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

with pro gaming; for example, intensive, codified communication, dramatization of in-game

events and outcomes, and, from many participants, a kind of hypermasculine posturing.

‘Acting natural?’

Over the duration of my fieldwork, participants seemed unconcerned, even comfortable, toward

my presence with a video camera. There are few instances in the audiovisual data from these events

of participants looking at the camera or verbally acknowledging its presence. It is certainly pos-

sible that participants came into the study already somewhat ‘naturalized’ to the presence of

digitally mediated surveillance in their everyday lives. 11

What is as likely is that ‘acting natural’ –

deliberately avoiding any of the usual cues associated with reactivity (making eye contact with the

camera, speaking to it directly, or reminding others of its presence) – might itself be a reaction to

being watched. Shrum et al. (2005) account for this possible outcome in their explanation of the

‘videoactive context’, a stage on which researchers, participants, and video recording technologies

engage collaboratively in the coproduction of an audiovisual record. Gauging whether and how

participants react to the presence of a camera, and what kinds of new interactions the camera

generates (and documents), is never simply a matter of counting the number of times they look at

the camera or reference it directly in their actions or speech (Laurier and Philo, 2006). The camera

might also elicit performances from participants that emphasize what they construe as their natural

(or ideal) behavior, what they regard as safe to show, and/or, importantly, their understanding of

what the researchers’ objectives are or should be. In such cases, participants’ actions in front of a

camera might be read as a kind of embodied ‘ventriloquation’ (de Castell and Bryson, 1998) of

appropriate behavior.

The concept of videoactive context offers a framework through which to consider how I not

only recorded but altered participants’ performances of competitive play, in a way that directly

contributed to the club’s attempts at ‘professionalizing’ their players. From this perspective, the

lack of explicit reactions to my camera activity might be read as part of their performance of elite

competitive play; indeed, it is rare to see professional gamers visually acknowledge recording

devices and apparatuses during e-sports broadcasts. For these players, pursuing success within a

competitive gaming industry that equates ‘being watched’ with status and skill, acting aloof toward

the recording of their play might be one way in which they align themselves with the professional

Halo 3 players whom many of them watched (either online or at MLG tournaments), referenced,

and otherwise emulated.

It may be productive to see in this behavior a kind of retooled ‘Hawthorne effect’, initially

devised to account for increases in factory worker productivity under conditions of observation

(Landsberger, 1958). While the theory has since been undermined, the possibility that participants

‘play up’ to the camera might have renewed currency in competitive gaming (not to mention other

domains, such as mainstream professional sports), where having an audience is equated with skill

and proficiency. Similar arguments are advanced, albeit from different methodological perspec-

tives, by both Bowman et al (2013) and Lin and Sun (2011); the former demonstrating that highly

competent Quake 3 players perform better when they are aware of an audience and the latter

describing how virtuoso Dance Dance Revolution players in a public arcade seem to excel in front

of onlookers.

Although NerdCorps offered little in the way of monetary rewards for its top players, my

videographic activity afforded opportunities for players to gain audiences and the attended

legitimacy that spectatorship confers. 12

It may be the case that with such opportunities available,

124 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 22(2)

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

players may have acted more in line with the discourse around what it takes to be a pro gamer

(Witkowski, 2012), a discourse many players were familiar with partially, if not primarily, through

the professional gamer videos that the organizers and I emulated in shooting and producing

NerdCorps promotional material.

Conclusion

Returning to the moment at the outset of the gold medal Halo 3 game at WCG, the Canadian

player’s comment ‘think of how many people are watching this’ affirms the significance com-

petitive gamers assign to having an audience. 13

Playing to spectators not only is central to players’

perceptions of what constitutes professional gaming but it is key to the legitimacy and popular-

ization of this emergent industry (Harper, 2014; Taylor, 2012). In this context, being featured in

promotional videos and on tournament broadcasts not only represents but bestows a degree of

status; in carrying out promotional video work for this community of competitive gamers, I was

directly implicated in the association between spectatorship and professional play. To conclude, I

briefly explore some of the implications of this analysis for our understandings of emergent forms

of digitally mediated leisure and communication, and the complexities, challenges, and opportu-

nities associated with their study.

The work of watching

Situating this videographic study of an underground e-sports club within the broader transfor-

mations and ruptures e-sports has undergone in the last 5 years is highly instructive. There is now a

global audience for e-sports, made possible by the surging popularity of specific games as well as

by the emergence of high definition, live-streaming Webcasts. Since the time of this study, MLG –

once regarded as ‘the’ premiere venue for console-based and FPS-focused e-sports – has shifted

almost entirely to PC-based strategy games. The organization boasted six million ‘unique viewers’

for their online broadcasts of tournament play in 2013, far outpacing even its 2010 figures (data for

2008–2009, the period covered by my fieldwork, is unavailable; http://www.majorleaguegaming.

com/news/mlgs-growth-in-2013). As impressive as MLG’s efforts to drive spectatorship have been,

they represent only a fraction of the current audiences for e-sports. The League of Legends 2013

World Championships boasted 32 million viewers (McCormick, 2013), while Twitch (http://

www.twitch.tv/) attracted 45 million viewers per month in the same year (http://www.twitch.tv/year/

2013).

The rise of Twitch.tv and League of Legends, and the recent success of the significantly retooled

MLG, demonstrate the lucrative economic potentials of gaming spectatorship (however imbal-

anced those economic rewards may be; see Taylor, 2012). Contextualizing my work with

NerdCorps within this larger trajectory toward the monetization and massification of gaming

spectatorship, it becomes apparent that our accounts of digital play need to be grounded in more

robust understandings of the broader practices, infrastructures, and industries within which play

unfolds. The co-constitutive relationships between players, games, platforms, recording devices

and spectators – relationships that in some form or another have always been there, but are

intensifying and becoming more pervasive – makes narrowly formalistic and reductionist accounts

of digital play increasingly untenable. As recent game scholarship has noted, digital play involves

complex sociotechnical assemblages (Giddings and Kennedy, 2008; Taylor, 2011); as I have done

here with regard to this account of the videoactive context enacted by my camera work with

Taylor 125

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

NerdCorps, it is time we take seriously not just the role of spectators but of spectatorial tech-

nologies and platforms in and across these assemblages.

Reciprocity, redux

While video recording technologies (cameras, as well as screen recording software) are certainly

well suited to document the ‘circuitry’ of players’ embodied, communicative, and on-screen

activities (Giddings, 2009), there are a range of other emergent digital technologies used by

gaming communities that offer compelling data collection opportunities for researchers. These

include player-created additions to games (typically graphical user interface enhancements but

also new in-game objectives and areas; Martey and Consalvo, 2011), user-generated forums

(Steinkuehler and Duncan, 2008), and publicly available databases of in-game avatars (Harrison

and Roberts, 2011; Yee et al., 2011). These tools grant players forms of ‘lateral surveillance’

(Andrejevic, 2005), where they can monitor each other’s activities, typically toward the copro-

duction of successful play (Taylor, 2006b). Used by researchers, however, these technologies often

enact ‘periscopic’ research practices (Taylor, 2008), where players are unaware of and incapable

of consenting to (or opting out of) social scientific studies in which their recorded behaviors

become data.

Discussions of whether and how these research practices are regulated by ethics review boards,

and how players themselves perceive these issues, have been covered elsewhere (Chee et al.,

2012). Also at issue in this ongoing digitization of player behavior, which I have addressed here,

is whether research on players, using tools that are integral to their practices, actually benefits

players themselves. At a time, when critical communication and cultural studies theorists are

interrogating the uses of digitized data to monitor, monetize, and manipulate our networked

interactions (Andrejevic, 2010; Fuchs, 2010; Galloway, 2006), a renewed attention to the classic

question, ‘who benefits from this research?’ seems appropriate. The study of a small group of

competitive gamers that I report on here, and the practical and epistemological issues involved in

giving back to this community, is intended to both reassert and problematize concerns around

reciprocity, under sociotechnical conditions where the rewards of social scientific research are

often, and increasingly, one sided.

Notes

1. See, for example, Free to Play (http://www.freetoplaythemovie.com/) and Road to Worlds (http://na.lole-

sports.com/the-road-to-worlds#1).

2. Names of players, players’ nicknames, and names of local organizations have been changed.

3. I use the term ‘videographer’ to denote the production of video for promotional, commercial, or journal-

istic (as opposed to personal or research) purposes.

4. The ‘Twitch plays Pokémon’ phenomenon, in which a Twitch stream broadcasting Pokémon Red was con-

figured to allow stream spectators to input game commands directly via the stream’s chat channel, argu-

ably represents an almost total conflation of ‘player’ and ‘spectator’ (see Ramirez et al., 2014).

5. In 2008, MLG marked two ‘firsts’: the first million-dollar sponsorship deal for one of its star players (Tom

‘T2’ Taylor, sponsored by Dr Pepper) and a deal with cable sports network ESPN to broadcast the MLG

‘Top Ten Halo Plays of the Week’ on ESPN.com.

6. The MLG rules for Halo 3 players at the time of this study stipulated that players earning a top-8 finish in

an MLG Pro Circuit tournament achieved professional designation.

126 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 22(2)

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7. Boellstorff et al. (2012) offer a discussion around issues of compensation and reciprocity in regard to vir-

tual ethnography.

8. This is representative of a positivist strain in video-based research; more constructivist approaches

(alluded to below) are offered by Pink (2006) and Shrum et al. (2005).

9. TL Taylor (2012) offers a similar insight regarding how she became a more competent and appreciative

e-sports spectator through her research.

10. As another indication of the shifting terrain of e-sports – and of the ephemerality of online content

published by e-sports organizations (Taylor, 2012) – these videos are no longer available on the MLG

Web site. They are, however, available on YouTube (see, for instance, http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v¼wzx9ARA-pjs). 11. Albrechtslund and Dubbeld (2005) note that for users of Facebook, Myspace, and other forms of volun-

tary, ‘participatory’ surveillance which traffic in users’ digitally mediated self-representations, being

watched can be a source of pleasure and play. While I did not collect data on NerdCorps’ participants’

use of social networking technologies, this might help to account for how comfortable they acted in the

presence of a camera.

12. Twitch.tv, the platform for live-streaming broadcasts of game play, did not yet exist at the time I con-

ducted this fieldwork; it is worth considering how current e-sports athletes regard spectatorship, given

the increasing ubiquity and ‘mainstreaming’ of watching others play.

13. Canada won, becoming the first ever Halo 3 gold medal winning team at the World Cyber Games – and

only, as 2008 was the only time the game was featured in the international competition.

References

Albrechtslund A and Dubbeld L (2005) The plays and arts of surveillance: studying surveillance as entertain-

ment. Surveillance and Society 3(2): 216–221.

Alloway N and Gilbert P (1998) Video game culture: playing with masculinity, violence and pleasure. In

Howard S (ed) Wired Up: Young People and Electronic Media. London: UCL Press, pp. 95–114.

Andrejevic M (2005) The work of watching one another: lateral surveillance, risk, and governance. Surveil-

lance and Society 2(4): 479–497.

Andrejevic M (2010) Surveillance and alienation in the online economy. Surveillance and Society 8(3):

278–287.

Bloom L (1997) Locked in uneasy sisterhood: reflections on feminist methodology and research relations.

Anthropology and Education Quarterly 28(1): 111–122.

Behrenshausen BG (2013) The active audience, again: player-centric game studies and the problem of binar-

ism. New Media and Society 15(6): 872–889.

Boellstorff T, Nardi B, Pearce C, et al. (2012) Ethnography and Virtual Worlds: A Handbook of Method. Prin-

ceton: Princeton University Press.

Borowy M and Jin DY (2013) Pioneering e-sport: the experience economy and the marketing of early 1980s

arcade gaming contests. International Journal of Communication 7: 2254–2274.

Bowman ND, Weber R, Tamborini R, et al. (2013) Facilitating game play: how others affect our performance

at and enjoyment of video games. Media Psychology 16(1): 39–64.

Bryce J and Rutter J (2005) Gendered gaming in gendered space. In: Raessens J and Goldstein J (eds) Hand-

book of Computer Games Studies. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 301–310.

Chee F, Taylor N, and de Castell S (2012) Re-mediating research ethics: End-user license agreements in

online games. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 32(6): 497–506.

de Castell S and Bryson M (1998) Re-tooling play: Dystopia, dysphoria, and difference. In Cassell J and

Jenkins H (eds), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games. Cambridge: The MIT

Press, pp. 232–261.

Taylor 127

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Eskelinen M and Tronstad R (2003) Video games as configurative performances. In Wolf MJP and Perron B

(eds), The Video Game Theory Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 195–220.

Everhart RB (1977) Between stranger and friend: some consequences of ‘long term’ fieldwork in schools.

American Educational Research Journal 14(1): 1–14.

Fuchs C (2010) Labor in informational capitalism and on the Internet. The Information Society: An Interna-

tional Journal 26(3): 179–196.

Galloway AR (2006) Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press.

Giddings S (2007) Playing with non-humans: digital games as technocultural form. In: de Castell S and Jen-

son J (eds) Worlds in Play: International Perspectives on Digital Games Research. New York: Peter Lang,

pp. 115–128.

Giddings S (2009) Events and collusions: a glossary for the microethnography of videogame play. Games and

Culture 4(2): 144–157.

Giddings S and Kennedy H (2008) Little Jesuses and *@#?-off robots: on cybernetics, aesthetics, and not

being very good at Lego Star Wars. In: Swalwell M and Wilson J (eds) The Pleasures of Computer

Gaming: Essays on Cultural History, Theory and Aesthetics. Jefferson: McFarland, pp. 13–32.

Gosling VK and Crawford G (2011) Game scenes: theorizing digital game audiences. Games and Culture

6(2): 135–154.

Glaser B (1982) The threat of stranger: vulnerability, reciprocity and fieldwork. In: Sieber J (ed) Ethics of

Social Research: Fieldwork, Regulation and Publication. New York: Random House, pp. 49–70.

Haig-Brown C (1992) Choosing border work. Canadian Journal of Native Education 19(1): 96–116.

Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspec-

tive. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599.

Harper T (2014) The Culture of Digital Fighting Games: Performance and Practice. New York: Routledge.

Harrison B and Roberts DL (2011) Using sequential observations to model and predict player behavior.

FDG ‘11. Bordeaux, France, June 29–July 1. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id¼ 2159365.2159378&coll¼DL&dl¼GUIDE&CFID¼100460131&CFTOKEN¼74440086 (accessed 15 August 2013).

Harrison J, MacGibbon L, and Morton M (2001) Regimes of trustworthiness in qualitative research: the rigors

of reciprocity. Qualitative Inquiry 7(3): 323–345.

Hutchins B (2008) Signs of meta-change in second modernity: the growth of e-sport and the world cyber

games. New Media & Society 10(6): 851–869.

Jin DY (2010) Korea’s Online Gaming Empire. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Kane M (2008) Game Boys: Professional Videogaming’s Rise from the Basement to the Big Time. New York:

Viking.

Knoblauch H, Schnettler B, and Raab J (2006) Video analysis: methodological perspectives of interpretive

audiovisual analysis in social research. In: Knoblauch H, Schnettler B, Raab J and Soeffner H-G (eds)

Video Analysis: Methodology and Methods. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 9–26.

Landsberger HA (1958) Hawthorne Revisited. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Lather P (1986) Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review 56: 257–277.

Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford Univer-

sity Press.

Laurier E and Philo C (2006) Natural problems of naturalistic video data. In: Knoblauch H, Schnettler B,

Raab J and Soeffner H-G (eds) Video Analysis: Methodology and Methods. Frankfurt am Main: Peter

Lang, pp. 183–192.

Lin H and Sun C-T (2011) The role of onlookers in arcade gaming: Frame analysis of public behaviors. Con-

vergence 17(2): 125–137.

Martey RM and Consalvo M (2011) Performing the looking-glass self: Avatar appearance and group iden-

tity in Second Life. Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media and Culture 9(3):

165–180.

128 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 22(2)

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Maxwell J (2013) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.

McCormick R (2013) ‘League of Legends’ eSports finals watched by 32 million people. The Verge, 19

November.

Newman J (2008) Playing with Videogames. London: Routledge.

Oakley A (1981) Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms. In: Roberts H (ed) Doing Feminist Research.

London: Routledge, pp. 30–61.

Pearce C and Artemesia (2009) Communities of Play: Emergent Cultures in Multiplayer Games and Virtual

Worlds. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Pink S (2006) Doing Visual Ethnography: Images, Media, and Representation in Research. London: Sage

Publishing.

Ramirez D, Saucerman J, and Dietmeier J (2014) Twitch plays pokémon: a case study in big G games. In:

Proceedings of DiGRA 2014, 3–6 August, Snowbird, UT.

Roman L (1993) Double exposure: The politics of feminist material ethnography. Educational Theory 43(3):

279–308.

Shrum W, Duque R, and Brown T (2005) Digital video as research practice: methodology for the millennium.

Journal of Research Practice 1(1): 1–19.

Smith DE (2005) Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Toronto: Altamira Press.

Smith T, Obrist M, and Wright P (2013) Live-streaming changes the (video) game. In: Proceedings of

the 11th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video, Como, Italy, 24–26 June. New York:

ACM.

Stacey J (1988) Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women’s Studies International Forum 11(1):

21–27.

Star SL and Greisemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and

professionals in Berkeley’s Musem of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19(3):

387–420.

Steinkuehler C and Duncan S (2008) Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education

and Technology 17(6): 530–543.

Sünden J (2009) Play as transgression: an ethnographic approach to queer game cultures. In: Proceedings of

DiGRA 2009. 1–4 September, London, UK.

Swalwell M (2011) ‘More than a craze’: photographs of New Zealand’s early digital games scene. In:

Proceedings of DiGRA 2011. 14–17 September 2011, Utrecht, NL.

Taylor N (2008) Periscopic play: re-positioning ‘the field’ in MMO studies. Loading 2(3). Available at: http://

journals.sfu.ca/loading/index.php/loading/article/viewArticle/43 (accessed 15 August 2013).

Taylor N (2011) Play globally, act locally: the standardization of pro Halo 3 gaming. International Journal of

Gender, Science and Technology 3(1): 228–242.

Taylor TL (2006a) Play Between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Taylor TL (2006b) Does WoW change everything? How a PvP server, multinational player base, and surveil-

lance mod scene caused me pause. Games and Culture 1(4): 318–337.

Taylor TL (2012) Raising the Stakes: The Professionalization of Computer Gaming. Cambridge: The MIT

Press.

Thorne B (1997) Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Visweswaran K (1994) Fictions of Feminist Ethnography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Wakeford N (1999) Gender and the landscapes of computing in an Internet café. In: Crang M, Crang P

and May J (eds) Virtual Geographies: Bodies, Space and Relations. New York: Routledge, pp.

178–202.

Wax HR (1952) Field methods and techniques: reciprocity as field technique. Human Organization 11(3):

34–37.

Weems L (2006) Unsettling politics, locating ethics: representations of reciprocity in postpositivist inquiry.

Qualitative Inquiry 12(5): 994–1011.

Taylor 129

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Witkowski E (2012) On the digital playing field: how we ‘do sport’ with networked computer games. Games

and Culture 7(5): 349–374.

Yee N, Ducheneaut N, Nelson L, et al. (2011) Introverted elves and conscientious gnomes: The expression of

personality in World of Warcraft. In: Proceedings of CHI 2011, Vancouver, Canada, 7–11 May. New

York: ACM.

Author biography

Nicholas Taylor is an Assistant Professor of digital media in the Department of Communication at North

Carolina (NC) State University. His work applies critical, feminist, and sociotechnical perspectives to experi-

mental and mixed-methods research with digital gaming communities. In particular, he is interested in the

intersections of subjectivity, communicative practice, technologies and games, as enacted through both game

production and play across a variety of contexts. He is also the codirector of Circuit Studio, a collaborative

research studio and makerspace at NC state.

130 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 22(2)

at CAPILANO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 4, 2016con.sagepub.comDownloaded from