Does esports spectating influence game consumption?

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbit20 Behaviour & Information Technology ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20 Does esports spectating influence game consumption? Joseph Macey , Ville Tyrväinen , Henri Pirkkalainen & Juho Hamari To cite this article: Joseph Macey , Ville Tyrväinen , Henri Pirkkalainen & Juho Hamari (2020): Does esports spectating influence game consumption?, Behaviour & Information Technology, DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2020.1797876 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1797876 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 31 Jul 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 280 View related articles View Crossmark data Does esports spectating influence game consumption? Joseph Macey, Ville Tyrväinen, Henri Pirkkalainen and Juho Hamari Tampere University Tampere, Finland ABSTRACT Contemporary digital technologies have facilitated practices related to games whereby users often produce and consume content for free. To date, research into consumer interactions has largely focused on in-game factors, however, the intention to both play the game and to make in-game purchases are influenced by outside factors, including game streams and game-centred communities. In particular, the growth of competitive gaming, known as esports, offers a new channel for consumer engagement. This research explores the potential for esports to be a significant factor in understanding both intentions to play and spend money on games. Our study draws from Motivations Scale of Sports Consumption to empirically investigate the relationship between esports spectating motivations and game consumption: Watching Intention, Gaming Intention, and Purchasing Intention. This survey uses structural equation modelling (SEM) to analyse data collected from a sample of video game players (n= 194). This research contributes empirical evidence of the relationship between esports spectating and game consumption, with the relationship between Watching Intention and Gaming Intention found to be particularly strong. Finally, while the MSSC is an adequate measure for esports spectating, additional aspects specific to esports require further investigation, consequently, there may be more optimal measures which can be developed. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 1 July 2019 Accepted 14 July 2020 KEYWORDS Esports; game consumption; purchase intention; watching intention; video games; freeto-play 1. Introduction The video games industry has become one of the largest entertainment businesses and its significance continues to grow; in 2019 revenue was estimated to total $152bn (Anderton 2019), while recent statistics show that up to 60% of Americans play video games daily (ESA 2018). As with other forms of media products, the development of the platform economy and of digital distribution (Kenney and Zysman 2016) has facilitated a shift away from the traditional retail business models towards servicebased business models as a means of both prolonging the life of individual titles and securing sustained monetisation (Stenros and Sotamaa 2009; Hamari and Lehdonvirta 2010; Gopal and Kaushik 2017). No longer are players necessarily required to simply pay a single fee at the point of purchase, instead there is a drive to create an ongoing relationship between the game, game community, and the players that involves multiple customer-facing interfaces that attempt to promote player monetisation and ongoing engagement. Perhaps the most visible business model driving the Games as a Service paradigm is the Free-to-Play (F2P), or freemium (Hamari, Hanner, and Koivisto 2017b), business model and its combination with retail or subscription models (Hamari et al. 2017a). These additional services and game items now generate over 80% of the revenue within the video game industry (Handrahan 2019). Therefore, game companies are constantly seeking new ways to strengthen player loyalty (Tseng, Huang, and Teng 2015; Teng 2018). In the F2P model the game itself is free to download and start playing, with revenue being generated by inapp purchases known as microtransactions (Hamari and Lehdonvirta 2010). In F2P games, players can pay for in-game currency, virtual items, or to remove restrictions on play such as time limits. The success of this approach has been such that many games have now moved to the F2P model (Hern 2016; Masters 2018; Marshall 2019), while those that remain available for up-front purchase have incorporated elements of the F2P approach, typically the use of microtransactions in purchasing loot boxes and cosmetic in-game items such as skins (Macey and Hamari 2019a). One of the primary new channels for player acquisition has been the emergence of video game streams and, consequently, competitive video gaming known as esports (Scholz 2012; Sjöblom and Hamari 2017; Hamari and Sjöblom 2017). Esports is a phenomenon which has © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/ 4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. CONTACT Joseph Macey joseph.macey@tuni.fi BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1797876 grown rapidly in recent years and has now developed a vibrant ecosystem which includes international tournaments, sponsors, teams, coaches, and vibrant communities centred around specific game titles (Sjöblom et al. 2019b). Esports, therefore, is considered a valuable means of marketing individual game titles as it furthers consumer engagement with games, adding value by recasting game consumption in the mould of the experience economy (Borowy and Jin 2013; Seo 2013). Despite the need to understand this fast-growing industry, research on continuous usage of games in relation to esports is highly limited, with prior research mostly considering motivations for consumption. In addition to the motivations behind watching esports, research has discussed the conceptualisation of esports as a sport (Hallmann and Giel 2017; Sjöblom and Hamari 2017), and the relationships between esports and participation in gambling activities (Gainsbury, Abarbanel, and Blaszczynski 2017; Macey and Hamari 2019b). Furthermore, instead of focusing on the environment outside the game, the majority of studies have focused on how to retain the players with the mechanics inside the game. For example, work has examined the implementation of social game mechanics, new business models, virtual items, consumer identities and coercive design (Hamari and Järvinen 2011;LinandSun2011; Zagal, Björk, and Lewis 2013). This is a significant gap because the intention to play the game is also heavily influenced by factors outside the game, for example by a game trailer or social activities of spectators during game nights and get-togethers, which allows people to form new kind of social communities around the games. Similarly, spectating esports may work as an entry point for a specific video game. This is highlighted by the fact that people are nowadays consuming esports just like any traditional sports (Hamari and Sjöblom 2017). To this end, we argue that esports spectating could be an important factor to explain both gaming intentions and purchasing intentions. The objective of this study, therefore, is to examine how esports spectating affects game consumption (watching, playing, and purchasing). Our study draws from Motivations Scale of Sports Consumption to understand esports spectating. Specifically, we examine the effect of the motivational factors on watching intention. Then, we address game the effects of the watching intention on two key aspects of game consumption, that is gaming intention and purchase intention. This survey study was conducted amongst people who both watch esports and play video games (n= 194). The analysis of the study utilises structural equation modelling (SEM). The theoretical contributions of this article are as follows: first, our study extends the theoretical and empirical understanding of how esports spectating leads to game consumption. Specifically, our findings demonstrate the relationship between esports spectating motivations, watching intentions and gaming and purchase intentions. The relationships between intention to spectate esports and intention to play games, and between intention to play games and intention to make gamerelated purchases are particularly strong. Second, using the Motivation Scale for Sports Consumption (MSSC: Trail and James 2001) as a theoretical lens provides a better understanding of the gamer motivations in the esports context, however, the results indicate that the MSSC may not be the optimal measure for assessing motivations to spectate esports. As such, this research proposes that the development of a measure specificto esports could constitute a fruitful avenue for future research. Despite the potential limitations of the MSSC, this research supports the theoretical perspective that experiential motivations are a driver of game play, and that esports as an experiential event in itself is associated with increased game play. The practical contributions emphasise under-utilised out-of-game factors, in particular esports, as being productive channels for increasing consumer engagement with contemporary video games. This is especially pertinent in regard to freemium video games, as their success depends on attracting a large and active player base in order to ensure profitability of such games. In addition, several key motivational factors have been highlighted as fruitful avenues for games developers and publishers can seek to promote consumer engagement with their products. Motivations driving the intention to both spectate esports and to play games include the acquisition of knowledge and the importance of using games to consolidate existing relationships with friends and family. The remainder of this work is structured as follows. Section 2 details the theoretical framework and reviews relevant literature related to the consumption of video games in light of contemporary business models, and the spectating of esports before describing the hypotheses and their development. Section 3 describes the means of data collection and the final data sample. Section 4 communicates the analysis of the data and the results obtained from the analysis, while section 5 includes a discussion of the theoretical and practical contributions of the work, and its limitations. The final section, 6, is the conclusion. 2. Background 2.1. Theoretical framing of the study Traditional attempts to understand consumer behaviour through economic sciences have been couched in terms 2J. MACEY ET AL. of a strictly rationalised decision-making process, characterised by models such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen 1985) and its precursor, the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). The turn of the century, however, saw a shift in perspective, individual consumer judgements within a wider frame of societal and cultural practices. That is, that the act of consuming is not, in itself, a discrete point, but rather a‘moment in almost every practice’(Warde 2005, 137). This work adopts a practice-oriented perspective; that watching esports and playing games are two distinct, but closely connected practices which, together, inform consumer behaviour within the specific context of the contemporary environment. Indeed, the practiceoriented perspective has previously been applied to the consumption of esports, most notably in an examination of the social roles and agency of actors within the esports environment (Seo and Jung 2016). This environment is one which, in addition to the consumable products of esports and video games themselves, both informs and is informed by the practices associated with game streams and the business models employed by game developers and publishers which drive consumer engagement. With that in mind, this research does not attempt to apply or validate a specific rigid extant theory to investigate these inter-relations, instead it is an exploratory study which aims to understand the motivations or gratifications that viewers derive from esports spectating as a potential predictor of their own game consumption (i.e. playing and purchasing games). While longitudinal studies are able to measure actual behaviours as performed, the cross-sectional nature of this study requires behavioural intentions to be employed as proxies, a common approach validated across many fields (Casper 2007; Wright and MacRae 2007; Dodd and Supa 2011; Ashraf, Ismawati Jaafar, and Sulaiman 2019). The Uses and Gratifications perspective offers a broad theoretical lens through which motivations or gratifications related to media consumption can be understood to act as predictors of media use (Katz 1987; Rubin 1994). So too, in the present study, we investigate motivations to watch esports as predictors of spectating esports, but more importantly, how they together predict the use of connected products, i.e. consuming games themselves. Uses and Gratifications has been also previously used to understand engagement with esports (Lee and Schoenstedt 2011; Bányai et al. 2019). In addition, U and G has also been shown to provide a viable means of understanding video game play (Wu, Wang, and Tsai 2010), while Motivation Theory proposes that both purchase decisions and actual purchase behaviour are influenced by both cognitive and affective motivational drivers (McGuire 1976; Dharmesti et al. 2019). Experiential factors, including intrinsic and affective motivations (Koo 2009) and attitude (Hsu and Lu 2017) have also been found to be important drivers of game play. Therefore, this research employs the Motivation Scale for Sports Consumption (MSSC; Trail and James 2001), adapted for esports, in order to understand the gratifications that watching esports affords individual consumers, an approach consistent with previous research in the field (Hamari and Sjöblom 2017; Pizzo et al. 2018; Macey, Abarbanel, and Hamari 2020). 2.2. Game consumption The internet and associated digital technologies have enabled the birth of new business models, where users often produce and consume content on the internet for free (Reime 2011; Hamari et al. 2017a). This situation is particularly meaningful in the context of esports, both in regard to the way in which online video content is consumed, and the games which constitute the most popular esports titles. Esports broadcasts are primarily consumed via online video streaming platforms, such as Twitch.tv, where access to content is free and individual streamers derive revenue from their community, for example via subscriptions and donations, from advertising and sponsorship, or other commercial activities (Törhönen et al. 2019). Of the top ten most popular esports titles, by hours viewed, on Twitch (Ipso.com 2019) seven employ the F2P model, and a further two games offer limited access via F2P. As such, fans of esports can both play and watch esports games without having to make any financial commitment if they so wish, although there are multiple opportunities to make game-related purchases, predominantly in the form of in-game microtransactions. The parallel development of digital platform service providers and the Games as a Service paradigm (Gopal and Kaushik 2017) has created a situation in which the revenue streams of contemporary digital games are increasingly, if not completely, dependent on the purchases of DLC packaged, virtual goods and other value-added services (Hamari et al. 2017a). In order to attract paying players video game companies have created gameplay mechanics which make players more likely to purchase items (Hamari and Lehdonvirta 2010; Hamari and Järvinen 2011; Zagal, Björk, and Lewis 2013). However, these strategies are not without risk, if the company focuses too heavily on monetisation over enjoyment, it is likely that players will not continue to play the game (Robinson 2017), the likelihood of the player’s intention to keep playing the game also increases the potential to spend money on the game (Hamari et al. 2017a; Voigt and Hinz 2016). BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 3 2.3 Understanding esports through sports spectating Electronic sports, commonly referred as esports, has grown rapidly during recent years, between 2016 and 2018 total viewers grew from 281 million to 380 million (Newzoo 2019). The wide viewership also attracts business in many ways, which has resulted in esports generating over $1.1bn revenue during the year 2018, with expected revenues of $1.8bn by the year 2022 (Newzoo 2019). Although esports is a rapidly growing business area, its theoretical understanding is still limited. One possibility to understand the motivations for esports spectating is through traditional sports (Lee and Schoenstedt 2011; Hamari and Sjöblom 2017). Research into sports spectating has focused mostly on explaining motivations and constraints affecting consumption (Trail and Kim 2011). This includes analysing the reasons for attending sports events and which factors are related to the overall sports experience, for example: talking about past events with social contacts, or listening to the results via news or radio (Melnick and Wann 2010). Furthermore, watching sports is tied to a range of social relationships, and an individual’s sports viewing habits also influence behaviour in other aspects of their life (Appelbaum et al. 2012). Trail and James (2001) focused their research on the motivational reasons underlying sports spectating by developing the MSSC. Such an approach differs from demand-based research, which contributes to understanding short-term variable factors, for example, pleasant weather, that influence decisions to attend sports events (Trail and James 2001). In order to be able to distinguish between those who merely enjoy watching sports and those who think of it as an important part of their life, it is necessary to understand the psychological motivations behind using resources for spectating sports. A range of motivational drivers have been identified, e.g. drama, escapism, and social interaction (Appelbaum et al. 2012; Trail and James 2001), see Table 1, below, for the complete list of MSSC constructs. These factors range from empathising with the achievements of the players to socialising with other spectators. Prior research by Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) provides theoretical support that these motivational factors can be used to explain esports spectating behaviour. However, their influence on game consumption has not yet been investigated. 2.4. Hypothesis building Current technologies have enabled video game companies to efficiently analyse in-game data gathered from players. However, assessing out-of-game factors, such as esports, is still an under-utilised area, especially from an academic research perspective. This section presents several hypotheses to explain the relationship between esports spectating and game consumption. Existing literature which addresses the relationship between esports spectating and game consumption is currently lacking, however, a range of experiential motivations have been proposed to drive game play (Choi and Kim 2004; Hsu and Lu 2004; Chou and Ting 2003;Wan and Chiou 2006: Yee 2006;Koo2009; Wu, Wang, and Tsai 2010). As such, it is likely that the affective experiences associated with watching esports are likely to have a positive effect not only on gaming intention. For example, watching an attractive or exciting gaming session can raise the expectation of gameplay as the player might want to advance faster in the game and gain hedonic gratifications from all key mechanisms within the game (Evans 2015). What little research exists in the field has demonstrated significant, positive associations between watching esports and amount of time spent playing games (Törhönen et al. 2020). Therefore, we hypothesise that: Hypothesis 1 (H1): The esports watching intention is positively associated with the gaming intention for video games. Similarly, little research exists which examines the specific relationships between watching esports and purchase intention for games, however, the limited body of existing work has shown a positive association between the two (Fernandes 2018; Törhönen et al. 2020). As with the previous hypothesis, it is likely that increased spectating of esports will make players more likely to make in-game purchases very early on, even before they have actually played the game, as they are exposed to content featuring more advanced players and game play. Likewise, it is possible that resultant continuous Table 1. Motivational factors for sports consumption (Trail and James 2001). Factor Explanation Achievement (Ach) Empathising and co-living with the achievements of the teams and players Acquisition of knowledge (Kno) Degree of consumption enabling an acquisition of knowledge Aesthetics (Aes) Elements of beauty or gracefulness which are inherent in the sport Drama/eustress (Dra) The enjoyment of uncertainty and dramatic turns of events Escape (Esc) Escape from day-to-day routines and distraction from daily activities. Family (FaF) Degree of family being involved in. Physical attractiveness of participants (Phy) How attractive the esports players are seen by the spectators. The quality of the physical skill of the participants (PS) Degree of appreciating the skills of the players. Social interaction (Soc) Socialising with other spectators. 4J. MACEY ET AL. esports playing has a positive effect in making purchases in the video game, either as a means of progressing within the game, or for demonstrating individual achievements and game capital, such as via cosmetic items (Cai, Wohn, and Freeman 2019). Therefore, we hypothesise that: Hypothesis 2 (H2): The esports watching intention is positively associated with the purchase intention for video games. The financial successes of F2P have resulted in the mass adoption of the business model across the video game industry, while particular monetisation techniques such as in-game currencies and items have been incorporated into many retail titles (Macey and Kinnunen 2020). Prior empirical research has indicated a relationship between gaming intention and purchase intention (Hamari 2015) with this finding being reinforced through the significant positive associations between time spent playing games and money spent on gamerelated purchases (Törhönen et al. 2020). Both cognitive and affective motivations contribute to the practices of consumption (McGuire 1976; Rohm and Swaminathan 2004), with gameplay-related factors such as social interaction, unobstructed play, economic rationale (Hamari et al. 2017a), and cosmetic appearance (Cai, Wohn, and Freeman 2019) strongly associated with in-game purchases. As such, we hypothesise that: Hypothesis 3 (H3): The gaming intention is positively associated with the purchase intention for video games. Achievement refers to the degree the spectators associate with people and characters in media content (Trail, Anderson, and Fink 2000). In the esports context this refers to how the spectator feels about the achievements of teams and players (Trail and James 2001). Usually, experiencing achievement along with the team or player is easier if the content being followed is easily approachable and if the spectators are more easily able to identify with a team or player (Funk and James 2006). Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) note that esports athletes can be more easily approachable than their counterparts in traditional sports because they have more interaction with their fan base. For example, many of the most popular esports stars are active streamers and use their social media accounts very actively, indeed there is a wide range of interconnected social practices within esports which transcend traditional roles and interactions (Seo andJung2016). This is aneffective way to interact between fans and the athletes and to create more opportunities for followers to co-live the life of their idols. Therefore: Hypothesis 4 (H4): Achievement is positively associated with the esports watching intention The acquisition of knowledge refers to the way in which media consumption enables acquisition of knowledge about the media being consumed (Trail, Anderson, and Fink 2000). Traditional sport has two cognitive motivations for spectating: learning from teams and players, and gathering information to be shared in conversations (Hamari and Sjöblom 2017). Whereas in an ice-hockey match, one watches how the professional player skates or shoots, in esports one watches how the player executes a skill combo for a character or how the player rotates around the game map to optimise their impact during the game. According to Hamilton, Garretson, and Kerne (2014) knowledge acquisition has been proved to be an important factor within video game streaming. Based on these prior findings, we hypothesise that: Hypothesis 5 (H5): Acquisition of knowledge is positively associated with the esports watching intention Aesthetics refers to the elements of beauty which are inherent in the sport (Kuntz 1974; Trail and James 2001). For traditional sports visual elements have been proven to be important factors for the motivation to spectate (Wann and Wilson 1999), indeed, affective motions have also been shown to have an effect on the consumption of video game streams (Hamilton, Garretson, and Kerne 2014). Despite the impact of aesthetic factors, one could claim that the impact is not at the same level as that of traditional sports. This is because the actual players are not so highly featured in esports as compared to traditional sports. From an alternative perspective, however, the actual game events (such as team fights and chained skill combos) could be aesthetic elements in the same way as an aesthetically pleasing free kick in football. In this way the aesthetic qualities of esports are only available to ‘insiders’(Ferrari 2013). Furthermore, the whole gameplay session might, for some spectators, be an aesthetic event where the spectator is able to live their fantasy in the video game world. Therefore, this study hypothesises that: Hypothesis 6 (H6): Aesthetics is positively associated with the esports watching intention Drama has been shown to be an important factor of sports viewing in general (Peterson and Raney 2008). Drama in this context refers to the uncertainty and dramatic turns in the outcomes of the media content, such as sports. In the esports context, some of the video game companies are intentionally increasing the potential for drama by adding randomness and asymmetry into the game (Cheung and Huang 2011). In practice this means usually increasing RNG (random number generator) situations, where an event has a BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5 fixed chance to occur or not. When the random event occurs, surprises might happen and even the underdog has a chance to win. Furthermore, the role of technology in creating dramatic situations in mediatised sports has long been established (Morris and Nydahl 1985; Gantz et al. 2006). Based on the findings, this study hypothesises that: Hypothesis 7 (H7): Drama is positively associated with the esports watching intention One of the most well-established motivations for watching any media content, including sports, is the possibility to experience a sense of escape (Katz and Foulkes 1962). In this context escape means both the potential to get away from everyday routines and have a positive distraction from them (Kim and Ross 2006; Wann, Schrader, and Wilson 1999). According to Kim and Ross’s(2006) research, escapism was the second most important factor for playing and watching video games. Compared to traditional sports, esports offers even better potential for escape, due to the fact that esports are broadcast live every day and currently, all the broadcasts are free for spectators to watch. Furthermore, the global nature of esports is complemented by the fact that the primary means of consumption is via the internet, meaning that a wealth of content is available at almost any time of the day or night, irrespective of the consumer’s physical circumstances. As such, esports offers a readily available means of gratifying escapist motivations, therefore, we hypothesise that: Hypothesis 8 (H8): Escape is positively associated with the esports watching intention Family refers to those media content factors related to the immediate and close individuals. For example, in traditional sports these factors refer to activities such as going out to watch game with the people close to you, talking about games before and after and so forth. The degree of interaction between friends and family as part of spectating sports may significantly affect the intention to use media content (Trail, Anderson, and Fink 2000; Wann et al. 2003). If one’s parents have been taking them to the local team’s games since they were young, there is a much greater likelihood that one will consume sport compared to a person whose parents did not. Indeed, an individual’s father has been found to be the single most influential social agent when it comes to influencing sports consumption (Melnick and Wann 2010). However, because of the nature of esports, and the relatively novelty of the phenomenon, most parents have not really experienced esports themselves. This is likely a reason why for example Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) have excluded the family factor and include only the social interaction factor, because it better describes how the social factor around the esports context works. However, considering that players often experience gameplay with other individuals they are close with, such as friends (Wann et al. 2003; Melnick and Wann 2010), this study retains this motivational factor and hypothesises that: Hypothesis 9 (H9): Family and friends are positively associated with the esports watching intention Physical attractiveness in the video gaming context means the degree to which the spectators who are viewing the players involved in the game, find them physically attractive (Hamari and Sjöblom 2017). Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) note that one could assume that the players’appearance would not be important, because most of the events show the actual players to a fairly limited degree with attention instead focused on gameplay. However, there are also events where the players are well-presented, such as preand postmatch interviews and social media content, which exposes players to the audience. Additionally, esports organisations nowadays have personal trainers for their players so that they live a heathy life style so that they can perform better. Indeed, the stereotypes on unfit and untidy players are in the past (Hamari and Sjöblom 2017). Finally, attendance at live events in particular has been shown to be significantly associated with appreciation of physical attractiveness (Sjöblom, Macey, and Hamari 2019a). Considering the amount that players are shown on broadcasts in esports compared to traditional sports, this study hypothesises that: Hypothesis 10 (H10): Physical attractiveness is positively associated with the esports watching intention In traditional sports the professional players possess a skill level far beyond the average hobbyist and these skills have been found to be a significant motivator for the consumption of sports (Trail and James 2001; Wann, Schrader, and Wilson 1999; Won and Kitamura 2006). Hence, many sports followers admire their skills and dream about similar skill levels. Esports is no different; in order to be a professional, players must put in countless hours of practice in order to develop skills that enable them to compete at a high level. This has been supported by previous research which has found that the majority of esports spectators appreciate and admire the skills of the professional esports players (Hamari and Sjöblom 2017). Given that many esports consumers also play the same games that they spectate (Seo and Jung 2016), they 6J. MACEY ET AL. are more fully able to appreciate the level of skill demonstrated by professional players. Consequently, based on existing research, we hypothesise that: Hypothesis 11 (H11): Player’s skills are positively associated with the esports watching intention Social interaction incorporates the gratifications related to socialising with other media consumers (Hamari and Sjöblom 2017). Socialising has been shown to have a great impact in both traditional sports and esports (Hamilton, Garretson, and Kerne 2014; Wenner and Gantz 1998; Lee and Schoenstedt 2011). According to Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) esports spectating is usually linked to a stream’s own chat that can be used to comment on the events occurring in the game and cheer for teams and players. The computer mediated structure of the esports means that it is quite logical to form social connections through the same channels. Indeed, the strong sense of community is a notable factor of the development of esports from a niche hobby into a mainstream phenomenon (Taylor, 2012; Seo and Jung 2016). The other point of note is the popularity of Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VOIP) and other similar services among esports followers in particular, and video gamers in general. The majority of major esports organisations and companies have, for example, their own Discord (popular VOIP service) servers, where esports fans can meet, greet and talk about esports events. Hamilton, Garretson, and Kerne (2014) highlight two key reasons to watch streams: unique content of a particular stream and interacting with and participating in a stream’s community. Additionally, a stream’s community is an important factor in spectating (Sjöblom and Hamari 2017)asis the wider use of social media in general (Sjöblom et al. 2018). We posit that: Hypothesis 12 (H12): Social interaction is positively associated with the esports watching intention The research model is presented below in Figure 1. 3. Methods and data 3.1 Data collection The data to test our model was collected using a survey. We distributed it via social media (Facebook, Twitter) and video game forums. The focus of the research was on individuals who both play F2P video games and watch esports. Respondents were asked how frequently they watch and play video games. Initially, we received 220 responses. 26 responses were removed Figure 1. Research model. Legend: Ach = Achievement, Kno = Acquisition of Knowledge, Aes = Aesthetic Appreciation, Dra = Drama, Esc = Escape, FaF = Friends and Family, Phy = Physical Attraction, PS = Players’Skills, Soc = Social Interaction, WI = Watching Intention, GI = Gaming Intention, PI = Purchase Intention.Legend: Ach = Achievement, Kno = Acquisition of Knowledge, Aes = Aesthetic Appreciation, Dra = Drama, Esc = Escape, FaF = Friends and Family, Phy = Physical Attraction, PS = Players’Skills, Soc = Social Interaction, WI = Watching Intention, GI = Gaming Intention, PI = Purchase Intention. BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 7 from data, because the respondents did not meet the predetermined criteria of both watching esports and playing F2P video games. The final data set, therefore, constituted 194 valid responses. Sample demographics are presented in Table 2. This research was conducted wholly within Finland and, as such, it conforms to the guidelines of ‘Ethical Principles of Research in the Humanities and Social and Behavioural Sciences’of The Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK). 3.2 Measurement This study applied previously validated scales. The items measuring the motivation for spectating esports were adapted from the Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption (MSSC; Trail and James 2001) which focuses on spectator’s motivations to watch traditional sports. This consists of 27 individual items, comprising nine motivational factors, each rated on a 7-point Likert scale. We adapted the ‘family’construct to incorporate both ‘family and friends’, as esports are primarily popular with young adults, meaning that the current generation of parents are unlikely to be familiar with esports, compared to the familiarity level with traditional sports. The Watching Intention scale was adapted from previously validated use intention scales by Bhattacherjee (2001) and Venkatesh and Davis (2000). The scales for Gaming Intention and Purchasing Intention were adapted from Hamari et al. (2017a). See appendix A for the full list of model items. 4. Data analysis and results 4.1 Analysis Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) was employed to test the research model (Figure 2) as it is best suited to predictive studies (Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted 2003) utilising psychometric constructs and those featuring latent, formative and reflective constructs (Hair et al. 2016). In addition, PLS-SEM is the form of multiple linear regression which is recommended when employing a self-selected data sample (Chin and Newsted 1999). We detected no Common Method Bias issues as variance inflation factors (VIF) of latent variables were below the threshold of 3.3 (Kock 2015). Validity and reliability were tested by examining Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and the square root of AVE. The accepted threshold values for CR and AVE are .7 and .5, respectively, which all the constructs exceeded. In order to establish Discriminant Validity, the square root of AVE must be greater than any correlation with other constructs in the model, once again all constructs were found to conform to this rule. Finally, construct validity was established as all item loadings were found to be high at > .5 (Hair et al. 2010; Kline 2010; Schumacker and Lomax 2012). Detailed information on construct reliabilities and validities are presented in Tables 3–5. 4.2 Results The aim of the research was to examine the relationship between motivational factors of spectating esports (MSSC), the intention to watch esports (WI), the intention to play video games (GI), and purchasing intention (PI). The results are presented with standardised effects and their statistical significance in Figure 2. Furthermore, a summary of the results is provided in Table 6. The model was found to explain 25% of the overall variance in Gaming Intention and more than 16% of Purchasing Intention, while it explains 40% of Watching Intention.The model shows strong support for game consumption with the effects of Watching intention on Gaming Intention and, furthermore, of Gaming intention on Purchasing Intention. Finally, the model shows that the relationship between watching intention and purchasing intention to be mediated by gaming intention for, while the direct effect is not statistically significant, both the indirect and total effects are: β = .189, p< .001 and β= .281, p= .001, respectively. 5. Discussion The objective of the study was to empirically investigate the relationship between esports spectating motivations Table 2. Sample characteristics. Variable Category Frequency Gender Female 14 (7%) Male 177 (91%) Prefer not to say 2 (1%) Other 1 (1%) Age 15–19 16 (8%) 20–24 69 (36%) 25–29 66 (34%) 30–34 30 (15%) 35–39 11 (6%) 40+ 2 (1%) Employment Full time 80 (41%) Part time 15 (8%) Student 92 (47%) Unemployed 3 (2%) Other 4 (2%) Education No education 3 (2%) Basic education 6 (3%) Secondary education 72 (37%) Higher education 113 (58%) Income < 9 999 €62 (32%) 10 000 €–19 999 €35 (18%) 20 000 €–29 999 €14 (7%) 30 000 €–39 999 €24 (12%) 40 000 €–49 999 €23 (12%) 50 000 €- 36 (19%) 8J. MACEY ET AL. Hamari, J., and V. Lehdonvirta. 2010.“Game Design as Marketing: How Game Mechanics Create Demand for Virtual Goods.”International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management 5 (1): 14–29. Hamari, J., and M. Sjöblom. 2017. What is eSports and why do people watch it? Internet Research (Vol. 27). Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com. Hamilton, W. A., O. Garretson, and A. Kerne. 2014. Streaming on Twitch: Fostering Participatory Communities of Play within Live Mixed Media, 1315–1324. Handrahan, M. January, 16, 2019. Fortnite tops SuperData’s 2018 chart with $2.4 billion digital revenue. Retreived from: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-01-16fortnite-tops-2018-superdata-chart-with-usd2-4b-digitalrevenue. Heere, B., and J. D. James. 2007.“Sports Teams and Their Communities: Examining the Influence of External Group Identities on Team Identity.”Journal of Sport Management 21 (3): 319–337. Hern, A. November, 15, 2016. Eve Online goes free to play. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ 2016/nov/15/eve-online-goes-free-to-play. Hsu, C. L., and H. P. Lu. 2004.“Why do People Play on-Line Games? An Extended TAM with Social Influences and Flow Experience.”Information & Management 41 (7): 853–868. Ipso.com. May 14, 2019.“Top 10: The Most Popular eSports Games on Twitch.”Retrieved from: https://www.ispo.com/ en/trends/top-10-most-popular-esports-games-twitch. Jansz, J., and L. Martens. 2005.“Gaming at a LAN Event: the Social Context of Playing Video Games.”New Media & Society 7 (3): 333–355. Karhulahti, V.-M. 2016. Prank, Troll, Gross and Gore: Performance Issues in Esport Live-Streaming. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/ 45746453/DiGRAFDG_2016_paper_110.pdf?AWSAccessKe yId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1542584171 &Signature=1if%2BTpenvQikp9X7Gj7AFZj0TDA%3D&res ponse-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3DPrank_T roll_Gross_an. Katz, E. 1987.“Communications Research Since Lazarsfeld.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 51: S25–S45. Katz, E., and D. Foulkes. 1962.“On the use of the Mass Media as “Escape”: Clarification of a Concept.”Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (3): 377–388. Kenney, M., and J. Zysman. 2016.“The Rise of the Platform Economy.”Issues in Science and Technology 32 (3): 61. Kim, Y., and S. D. Ross. 2006.“An Exploration of Motives in Sport Video Gaming.”International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 8 (1): 28–40. doi:10.1108/ IJSMS-08-01-2006-B006. Kline, R. B. 2010.Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Publications. Kock, N. 2015.“Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach.”International Journal of e-Collaboration (Ijec) 11 (4): 1–10. Koo, D. M. 2009.“The Moderating Role of Locus of Control on the Links Between Experiential Motives and Intention to Play Online Games.”Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2): 466–474. Kuntz, P. G. 1974.“Aesthetics Applies to Sports as Well as to the Arts.”Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 1 (1): 6–35. Lee, D., and L. J. Schoenstedt. 2011.“Comparison of ESports and Traditional Sports Consumption Motives.”ICHPERSD Journal Of Research 6 (2): 39–44. Lin, H., and C. T. Sun. 2011.“Cash Trade in Free-to-Play Online Games.”Games and Culture 6 (3): 270–287. Macey, J., B. Abarbanel, and J. Hamari. 2020.“What Predicts Esports Betting? A Study on Consumption of Video Games, Esports, Gambling and Demographic Factors.” New Media & Society 1461444820908510. Macey, J., and J. Hamari. 2019a.“The Games We Play: Relationships Between Game Genre, Business Model and Loot box Opening.”In GamiFIN, edited by Jonna Koivisto and Juho Hamari, 193–204. Macey, J., and J. Hamari. 2019b.“eSports, Skins and Loot Boxes: Participants, Practices and Problematic Behaviour Associated with Emergent Forms of Gambling.”New Media & Society 21 (1): 20–41. Macey, J., and J. Kinnunen. 2020.“The Convergence of Play: Interrelations of Social Casino Gaming, Gambling, and Digital Gaming in Finland.”International Gambling Studies, 1–22. Marshall, C. October, 1, 2019. Destiny 2’s free-to-play version comes with a new intro. Retrieved from: https://www. polygon.com/2019/10/1/20893642/destiny-2-new-lightfree-to-play-launch-start-differences. Masters, T. December, 7, 2018. Play CSGO free: F2P version of Counter-Strike released on Steam. Retrieved from: https://luckbox.com/esports-news/article/playcsgo-free. McGuire, W. J. 1976.“Some Internal Psychological Factors Influencing Consumer Choice.”Journal of Consumer Research 2 (4): 302–319. Melnick, M. J., and D. L. Wann. 2010.“An Examination of Sport Fandom in Australia: Socialization, Team Identification, and fan Behavior.”International Review for the Sociology of Sport 46 (4): 456–470. doi:10.1177/ 1012690210380582. Morris, B. S., and J. Nydahl. 1985.“Sports Spectacle as Drama: Image, Language and Technology.”Journal of Popular Culture 18 (4): 101. Newzoo. 2019. Newzoo Global Esports Market Report 2019 | Light Version. Retrieved from: https://newzoo.com/ insights/trend-reports/newzoo-global-esports-marketreport-2019-light-version/. Pannekeet, J. August, 21, 2019. Zooming in on the Biggest Franchises in Esports: 71% of Fans Watch Only One Game. Retrieved from: https://newzoo.com/insights/ articles/zooming-in-on-the-biggest-franchises-in-esports-71of-fans-watch-only-one-game/. Peterson, E. M., and A. A. Raney. 2008.“Reconceptualizing and Reexamining Suspense as a Predictor of Mediated Sports Enjoyment.”Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 52 (4): 544–562. doi:10.1080/08838150802437263. Pizzo, A. D., S. Na, B. J. Baker, M. A. Lee, D. Kim, and D. C. Funk. 2018.“eSport vs. Sport: A Comparison of Spectator Motives.”Sport Marketing Quarterly 27: 2. Reime, V. 2011. Exploring the Freemium Business Model. Retrieved from https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/ 10852/12882/Reime.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y. Robinson, M. 2014.“Why do Players Leave Your Game? Top 5 Reasons Revealed.”Gamasutra. BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 15 Robinson, M. 2017. Using personalization to improve engagement and monetization in F2P games. Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MarkRobinson/2017040 2/294988/Using_personalization_to_improve_engagement _and_monetization_in_F2P_games.php. Rohm, A. J., and V. Swaminathan. 2004.“A Typology of Online Shoppers Based on Shopping Motivations.” Journal of Business Research 57 (7): 748–757. Rubin, A. M. 1994.“Media Uses and Effects: A Uses and Gratifications Perspective.”In Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, edited by I. J. Bryant, and D. Zillmann, 417–436. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Scholz, T. M. 2012, December. New broadcasting ways in IPTV–The case of the Starcraft broadcasting scene. In World media economics & management conference. Schumacker, R. E., and R. G. Lomax. 2012.A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Seo, Y. 2013.“Electronic Sports: A new Marketing Landscape of the Experience Economy.”Journal of Marketing Management 29 (13–14): 1542–1560. Seo, Y., and S. U. Jung. 2016.“Beyond Solitary Play in Computer Games: The Social Practices of ESports.” Journal of Consumer Culture 16 (3): 635–655. Sjöblom, M., and J. Hamari. 2017.“Why do People Watch Others Play Video Games? An Empirical Study on the Motivations of Twitch Users.”Computers in Human Behavior 75: 985–996. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.019. Sjöblom, M., L. Hassan, J. Macey, M. Törhönen, and J. Hamari. 2018, July. Liking the Game: How Can Spectating Motivations Influence Social Media Usage at Live Esports Events? In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Social Media and Society (pp. 160-167). ACM. Sjöblom, M., J. Macey, and J. Hamari. 2019a.“Digital Athletics in Analogue Stadiums: Comparing Gratifications for Engagement Between Live Attendance and Online Esports Spectating.”Internet Research. Online Only,doi:10.1108/ INTR-07-2018-0304. Sjöblom, M., M. Törhönen, J. Hamari, and J. Macey. 2017. “Content Structure is King: An Empirical Study on Gratifications, Game Genres and Content Type on Twitch.”Computers in Human Behavior 73: 161–171. Sjöblom, M., M. Törhönen, J. Hamari, and J. Macey. 2019b. “The Ingredients of Twitch Streaming: Affordances of Game Streams.”Computers in Human Behavior 92: 20–28. Statista. 2017. Distribution of esports viewers in the united states in 2016, by gender. Stenros, J., and O. Sotamaa. 2009, September. Commoditization of Helping Players Play: Rise of the Service Paradigm. In Taylor, T. L. DiGRA Conference (2012). Raising the Stakes: E-sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming. MIT Press. Taylor, T. L. 2012.Raising the Stakes: E-sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Teng, C. I. 2018.“Look to the Future: Enhancing Online Gamer Loyalty from the Perspective of the Theory of Consumption Values.”Decision Support Systems 114: 49–60. Törhönen, M., L. Hassan, M. Sjöblom, and J. Hamari. 2019, January. Play, playbour or labour? The relationships between perception of occupational activity and outcomes among streamers and YouTubers. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Törhönen, M., M. Sjöblom, J. Vahlo, and J. Hamari. 2020, January. View, play and pay?–The relationship between consumption of gaming video content and video game playing and buying. In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Trail, G., D. F. Anderson, and J. S. Fink. 2000.“A Theoretical Model of Sport Spectator Consumption Behavior.” International Journal of Sport Management 1: 154–180. Trail, G. T., and J. D. James. 2001.“The Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption: Assessment of the Scale’s Psychometric Properties.”Journal of Sport Behavior 24 (1): 108–127. Trail, G. T., and Y. K. Kim. 2011.“Factors Influencing Spectator Sports Consumption: NCAA Women’s College Basketball.”International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 13 (1): 55–77. Tseng, F. C., H. C. Huang, and C. I. Teng. 2015.“How do Online Game Communities Retain Gamers? Social Presence and Social Capital Perspectives.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20 (6): 601–614. Venkatesh, V., and F. D. Davis. 2000.“A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies.”Management Science 46 (2): 186–204. Voigt, S., and O. Hinz. 2016.“Making Digital Freemium Business Models a Success: Predicting Customers’Lifetime Value via Initial Purchase Information.”Business and Information Systems Engineering 58 (2): 107–118. doi:10. 1007/s12599-015-0395-z. Wan, C. S., and W. B. Chiou. 2006.“Psychological Motives and Online Games Addiction: A Test of Flow Theory and Humanistic Needs Theory for Taiwanese Adolescents.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 9 (3): 317–324. Wann, D. L., K. Friedman, M. McHale, and A. Jaffe. 2003. “The Norelco Sport Fanatics Survey: Examining Behaviors of Sport Fans.”Psychological Reports 92 (3): 930–936. Wann, D. L., and A. M. Wilson. 1999.“Relationship Between Aesthetic Motivation and Preferences for Aggressive and Nonaggressive Sports.”Perceptual and Motor Skills 89 (3): 931–934. doi:10.2466/pms.1999.89.3.931. Warde, A. 2005.“Consumption and Theories of Practice.” Journal of Consumer Culture 5 (2): 131–153. Wenner, L. A., and W. Gantz. 1998.Watching sports on television: Audience experience, gender, fanship, and marriage. MediaSport. Won, J. U., and K. Kitamura. 2006.“Motivational Factors Affecting Sports Consumption Behavior of K-League and J-League Spectators.”International Journal of Sport and Health Science 4: 233–251. Wright, M., and M. MacRae. 2007.“Bias and Variability in Purchase Intention Scales.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35 (4): 617–624. Wu, J. H., S. C. Wang, and H. H. Tsai. 2010.“Falling in Love with Online Games: The Uses and Gratifications Perspective.”Computers in Human Behavior 26 (6): 1862– 1871. Yee, N. 2006.“Motivations for Play in Online Games.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 9 (6): 772–775. Zagal, J. P., S. Björk, and C. Lewis. 2013. Dark patterns in the design of games. In Foundations of Digital Games. 16 J. MACEY ET AL. Appendix A Survey items. Achievement (ACH) ACH1. I feel like I have won, when the team wins ACH2. I feel personal sense of achievement when the team does well ACH3. I feel proud when the team plays well Knowledge (KNO) KNO1. I regularly check the statistics of specific players or teams KNO2. I usually know the team’s match history KNO3. I read the scores and team statistics regularly Aesthetics (AES) AES1. I appreciate the beauty inherent in the game AES2. There is certain natural beauty to the game AES3. I enjoy the gracefulness associated with the game Drama (DRA) DRA1. I prefer a ‘close’game rather than a ‘one-sided’game DRA2. A game is more enjoyable to me when the outcome is not decided until the very end DRA3. I enjoy the drama of the final round or team fight in the game Escape (ESC) ESC1. Video games represent an escape for me from my day-to-day activities ESC2. Video games are a great change of pace from what I regularly do ESC3. I look forward to upcoming leagues and tournaments because they are something different to do Family and Friends (FaF) FAF1. I like watching games with my friends FAF2. I like watching games with others interested in eSports FAF3. I like watching games with my family Physical attraction (PHY) PHY1. I enjoy watching players who are physically attractive PHY2. The main reason I watch is that the players are attractive PHY3. Individual player’s‘sex appeal’is a big reason I watch Player skills (PS) PS1. The personal skills of the players are something I appreciate PS2. Watching a well-executed play performance is something I enjoy PS3. I enjoy a skillful performance by the team Social interaction (SOC) SOC1. Interacting with other fans is an important part of watching eSports SOC2. I like to talk to other people when watching the games SOC3. eSports broadcasts are great way to socialise with other people Watching intention (WI) WI1. I predict that I will keep watching esports streams in the future at least as much as I have watched lately WI2. I intend to watch esports streams at least as often within the next month as I have previously watched WI3. I plan to watch esports streams during the next month Gaming intention (GI) GI1. I predict that I will keep playing video game(s) in the future at least as much as I have played lately GI2. I intend to play video game(s) at least as often within the next month as I have previously played GI3. I plan to play video game(s) during the next month Purchase intention (PI) PI1. I predict that I will use money on video game(s) in the future at least as much as I have used lately PI2. I intend to use money on video game(s) at least as much within the next month as I have previously used PI3. I plan to use money on video game(s) during the next month BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 17