Copyright Undertaking

This thesis is protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

By reading and using the thesis, the reader understands and agrees to the following terms:

1. The reader will abide by the rules and legal ordinances governing copyright regarding the use of the thesis.

2. The reader will use the thesis for the purpose of research or private study only and not for distribution or further reproduction or any other purpose.

3. The reader agrees to indemnify and hold the University harmless from and against any loss, damage, cost, liability or expenses arising from copyright infringement or unauthorized usage.

IMPORTANT If you have reasons to believe that any materials in this thesis are deemed not suitable to be distributed in this form, or a copyright owner having difficulty with the material being included in our database, please contact [email protected] providing details. The Library will look into your claim and consider taking remedial action upon receipt of the written requests.

Pao Yue-kong Library, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

http://www.lib.polyu.edu.hk

REGULATING E-ENTERTAINMENT?

AN ETHNO-CORPORATIVE APPROACH TO THE GOVERNANCE FRAMES FOR VIDEOGAME AND ESPORTS INDUSTRIES

ALBERT GARRICH ALABARCE

PhD

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

2019

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Department for Applied Social Sciences Regulating e-Entertainment? An Ethno-corporative Approach to the Governance Frames for Videogame and eSports Industries

Albert Garrich Alabarce

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2018

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it reproduces no material previously published or written, nor material that has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.

______(Signature)

____GARRICH ALABARCE, Albert____ (Name of student)

Abstract

The general approach to studying the governance of the Internet has been shaped by the way it was invented and its initial development. Today, this approach still dominates debates surrounding who ought to manage the Internet (and how), despite being incompatible with traditional paradigms of international power relations, industry self-regulation, and their practices. The actors and structures that have emerged over time are usually not included in

Internet Governance (IG) discourses, although they are the driving forces creating, designing, and implementing the regulations and standards that underpin what has come to be known as

Internet Governance.

This project wishes to question the relevance of existing global Internet Governance discourses through an analysis of how certain regulatory aspects of the Internet are adapted to local socio- political settings by the global videogames and eSport industries, which are at the center of evolving cross-national Internet practices.

In order to detail the socio-political settings of these two industries in greater depth, I adopt an approach based on Practice and Qualitative Network Theory to study the daily decision-making and actions of professionals engaged in the field of online gaming / eSports. Thus, the research adopts a qualitative methodological framework. The first methodological layer consists of the analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with professionals in these industries with extensive experience in regional markets. The second comprises the detailing and explanation of the ethnographic and autoethnographic fieldwork undertaken to make sense of the participants’ various practices.

Taking the current discourse surrounding Internet Governance (IG) as my starting point, I point to its deficiencies in acknowledging actual practices. The research data sheds much-needed light on—and thus confirms—the deficiency of existing IG approaches and the need to investigate individual practices more closely. The responses provided by my participants suggest that a coherent model of IG practices that largely ignores international policies and treaties exists—one that instead draws heavily on locally applicable laws and regulations.

Based on these findings, IG on the international level should be reconsidered, and the links between national/local regulations and international IG should be re-examined.

Besides the outcomes stated above, this project makes two notable conclusions. First, it highlights how the governing principles portrayed by my participants reflect an amalgam of norms and regulations that depend on the situated practices of actors, including market regulations, corporate and cultural standards, and ongoing negotiation between individuals.

The second is the foregrounding of the need to take the individual professional actor (whether in a corporation or a professional eSports league) as the unit of analysis in making sense of the regulatory frameworks that pertain to agents’ practices.

Keywords: eSport industry, videogame industry, autoethnography, ethnography, Internet

Governance.

Acknowledgments

First off, my most humble gratitude goes to everyone that helped me, in one way, or another, during these last four years of my career. This includes an endless list of friends, past and present teachers, and Ph.D. colleagues. Thanks for your time, your patience, and above everything, your support coming from every corner of the world in the form of Skype calls, chats, emails, etc. That support was essential to keep my strength and motivation, and to accomplish what has been one of the biggest projects of my entire career.

To all my participants, who voluntarily agreed on sharing their time and expertise altruistically with me, I offer thanks. Without them, this work would not be the reality that it is today.

To my family. Because, no matter where I was, your support and learned lessons were always there, in one form, or another. I dedicate this dissertation especially to my grandparents; may this work make you feel proud of your grandson wherever you are.

My special gratitude goes to two persons that were very close to me during these 4 years. To my supervisor, David Kurt Herold, whose invaluable advice, and guidance have been essential not only to complete this work, but also to make my interest grow naturally to pursue the novel art of research, find complexity in simplicity, challenge my own assumptions and certainties, and make this journey as straightforward as possible. And finally, to Monique, because you— and only you—had to deal every day with my thoughts, crisis, and listen to approximately nth times about my Ph.D. It is only with you that I shared the best and the worst of me because of this project. May I, someday, find the words to thank you for that.

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION...... 1

1.1. AND SO, IT BEGINS – VISIBLE BORDERS FOR THE BORDERLESS WORLD ...... 1 1.2. THE ORIGIN OF THE TERM INTERNET GOVERNANCE ...... 5 1.2.1. ICANN, the Internet Society, and their relevance for Internet Governance ...... 6 1.2.2. The WSIS, the IGF, and their relevance for Internet Governance ...... 9 1.3. THE SALIENCE OF VIDEOGAME AND ESPORTS INDUSTRY PRACTICES ...... 12 1.4. RESEARCH PURPOSE ...... 13 1.5. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ...... 16 1.6. THE SETTINGS OF THE STUDY ...... 17 1.7. THE POSITIONALITY OF THE AUTHOR ...... 19 1.8. CHAPTER OVERVIEW ...... 20 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 25

2.1. THE STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE VIDEOGAME AND ESPORTS INDUSTRIES ...... 26 2.1.1. The videogame industry ...... 26 2.1.2. The eSports industry ...... 29 2.2. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS...... 32 2.2.1. Economics, institutions, and policy development ...... 32 2.2.2. Defining culture, social, and cultural capital against the backdrop of a networked society ...... 35 2.2.3. Examples of normative frames and institutionalization of the videogame industry ...... 38 2.3. ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH GAP CRITICALLY ...... 42 2.3.1. Multiple approaches to the governance of the Internet ...... 42 2.3.2. Practices in the videogame and the eSports industries: a starting point to determine the governance of the Internet ...... 46 2.3.3. Development of policies and the legal framework for videogame and eSports industries ...... 52 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 55

3.1. QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY AND INTERNET RESEARCH ...... 55 3.2. STUDYING INTERNET GOVERNANCE THROUGH PRACTICES ...... 57 3.2.1. Theories of Practice and Dialogism ...... 59 3.2.2. Theories of practice and Internet Governance of videogames and eSports ...... 64 3.2.3. Dialogism and the Internet Governance of e-gaming ...... 65 3.3. QUALITATIVE NETWORK ANALYSIS ...... 66 3.3.1. Conceptual framework ...... 69 3.3.1.1. Network ...... 69 3.3.1.2. Actors ...... 70 3.3.1.3. Relations ...... 71 3.3.2. Research method ...... 72 3.3.3. Research strategy ...... 73 3.4. QUALITATIVE TOOLS ...... 74 3.4.1. Semi-structured interviews ...... 74 3.4.2. Document analysis ...... 75 3.4.3. Ethnography and autoethnography ...... 76 3.5. VALIDITY ...... 78 3.6. OUTCOMES OF THE FIELDWORK ...... 79 3.6.1. Sampling and network boundaries ...... 80 3.6.2. The companies ...... 81 3.6.3. Participant access and outcomes ...... 83 3.7. DATA ANALYSIS ...... 92 4. AUTOETHNOGRAPHIC ACCOUNTS OF THE FIELD ...... 94

4.1. THE UNDERLYING PARADIGM: FLUIDITY IN CONTEXT ...... 95 4.2. THE COMPANY AS THE PRIMARY UNIT OF CONTACT ...... 97 4.3. APPROACHING THE PROFESSIONAL ...... 109

4.4. SURVEYING THE FIELD FROM WITHIN: ESPORTS PROFESSIONALS ...... 114 4.5. STRATEGIES IN PERSPECTIVE: THE BASICS OF THE INDUSTRY ...... 122 4.6. SUMMARY ...... 126 5. HOW THE GLOBAL VIDEOGAME INDUSTRY WORKS: NARRATIVE ACCOUNTS OF PRACTICES AND NORMATIVE FRAMES ...... 130

5.1. PRACTICES IN THE VIDEOGAMES INDUSTRY. WHAT PARTICULARITIES DOES IT HAVE?...... 132 5.1.1. Creation of the game ...... 134 5.1.2. Prior to releasing a game ...... 150 5.2. PRACTICES IN THE VIDEOGAMES INDUSTRY: A MOSAIC OF NORMS BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE PLAYERS 155 5.3. GLOBAL PRACTICES ...... 176 5.4. SUMMARY ...... 186 6. HOW THE ESPORTS INDUSTRY WORKS: NARRATIVES AND ETHNOGRAPHIC ACCOUNTS ABOUT NORMATIVE FRAMES ...... 194

6.1. PRACTICES AND INTERACTIONS SITUATED IN THE ESPORTS INDUSTRY ...... 196 6.2. THE ESPORTS COMPANIES...... 198 6.2.1. Content broadcasting ...... 198 6.2.2. Tournament organization ...... 202 6.3. THE PUBLISHER ...... 213 6.4. THE PROFESSIONAL GAMERS AND THEIR TEAMS ...... 218 6.4.1. Content broadcasting ...... 219 6.4.2. Tournament participation ...... 223 6.4.3. Game play ...... 226 6.5. OTHER PRACTICES IN THE ESPORTS ECOSYSTEM: THE PLACE OF ONLINE BETTING ...... 227 6.6. SUMMARY ...... 230 7. CONCLUSIONS ...... 236

7.1. IMPLICATIONS ...... 243 7.2. LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH ...... 249 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 252

List of Figures

Figure 1: Sample of a questionnaire ...... 87 Figure 2: Table of participants ...... 91 Figure 3: The first email sent to Riot ...... 100 Figure 4: Answer from Blizzard’s University Relations department ...... 101 Figure 5: Official Twitter account for Blizzard Europe ...... 102 Figure 6: Unofficial Facebook group for World of Warcraft for the Spanish servers ...... 102 Figure 7: Questions for Riot’s proposal ...... 104 Figure 8: Sample of the Excel table for participant listing ...... 105 Figure 9: Different stages of contacting companies ...... 109 Figure 10: Listing function for LinkedIn by company and region ...... 111 Figure 11: Initial message sent on LinkedIn, and answer from one participant ...... 111 Figure 12: Stage for the League of Legends matches, at the ‘Gamergy’. July 2017, Madrid, Spain...... 120

List of abbreviations

ADHD – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

API – Application Programming Interface

ARPA – Advanced Research Projects Agency

ARPANET – Advanced Research Projects Agency Network

CERO – Computer Entertainment Rating Organization

DARPA – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DMCA – Digital Millennium Copyright Act

DNS – Domain Name System

EA – Electronic Arts

ESIC – eSports Integrity Coalition

ESL – Electronic Sports League

ESRB – Entertainment Software Rating Board

EU LCS – European League of Legends Championship Series

EULAs – End User and License Agreements

FIFA – Fedération Internationale de Football Association [International Federation of

Football Association]

FEVeS – Federación Española de Videojuegos y eSports [Spanish Federation of

Videogames and eSports]

GDPR – General Data and Protection Regulation

IANA – Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

ICANN – International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

IETF – Internet Engineering Task Force

IG – Internet Governance

IGF – Internet Governance Forum

INTA – International Trade Mark Association

IP – Intellectual Property / Internet Protocol

IPR – Intellectual Property Rights

ISFE – Interactive Software Federation of Europe

ISOC – Internet Society

ITU – International Telecommunications Union

IPv4 – Internet Protocol Version 4

IPv6 – Internet Protocol Version 6

JPEG – Joint Photographic Experts Group

KPI – Key Performance Indicators

LoL – League of Legends

LVP – Liga de Videojuegos Profesional [Spanish Professional Videogame League]

MAG – Multistakeholder Advisory Group

MMORPG – Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game

MOBA – Multiplayer Online Battle Arena

MPAA – Motion Picture Association of America

NBA – National Basketball Association

NGO – Non-Governmental Organization

NSI – Network Solution Inc.

NSF – Network Science Foundation

NTIA – National Telecommunication and Information Administration

P2P – Peer-to-Peer

PEGI – Pan European Game Information

RPG – Role-Playing Games

TLD – Top Level Domain

TNC – Transnational Corporations

ToU – Terms of Use

UGC – User Generated Content

UN – United Nations

URL – Uniform Resource Locator

VPN – Virtual Private Network

WEF – World Economic Forum

W3C – World Wide Web Consortium

WGIG – Working Group on Internet Governance

WIPO – World Intellectual Property Organization

WoW – World of Warcraft

WSIS – World Summit on the Information Society

XML – Extensible Mark-up Language

1. Introduction

1.1. And so, it begins – Visible borders for the borderless world

“Virtual borders have tended to look more like visible borders […] to speculate, you can imagine [that] […] you are really great with an online business and you want to take now this business to China, you’d literally have to apply for a Chinese visa to do that with the Chinese Internet […] yes, that could happen”.1

The ‘Internet’ was created in the United States in the 1960s for military purposes and expanded for use by academics during the 1970s. Then, in the 1990s, the World Wide

Web application opened the Internet to consumers and business interests.2 This process has been referred to as ‘flattening the world’3 and started to challenge pre-established regulatory dynamics—most prominently those governed by the geographically defined boundary of the nation-state. Since the 1990s, virtual borders have been progressively laid onto a medium that was initially created to transcend them by effortlessly connecting the world —a progressive ‘taming’4 of cyberspace which will likely continue into the future.5 So far, studies on this process have largely adopted a macro perspective, whereas individual practices—which are determined according to people’s daily interaction with the medium—remain under-researched and poorly understood.

1 Statement given by Jared Cohen, the current director of ‘Google Ideas’, during the presentation of his latest book “The New Digital Age”, at the University of Leipzig, Germany, along with Eric Schmidt, former president of the same company from 2001 to 2011. 2 (Mueller, 1999) 3 (Friedman, 2005) 4 (Mueller, 2002) 5 (Goldsmith & Wu, 2006, pp. 49-85) 1

Despite early skepticism of the Internet’s ability to reach and affect certain parts of the world, 6 the Internet has become a medium that is widely spread across national boundaries.7 Due to its rapid expansion, actors such as governments and multinational companies became progressively aware of its potential and actively sought to exert and maintain control over it according to their own interests. As a result, conflicts have emerged reflecting the wide variety of divergent opinions on how to best govern it.

Simultaneously, and from that decade onwards, the notion of ‘governance’ for the

Internet became a part not only on the international agenda but also as a matter of intense interest among scholars and analysts alike.8

Just as in the offline world, the question of governance in the online one concerns allocation and control over the available means of making and enforcing rules. 9

Nevertheless, due to its inherent characteristics and architecture, the Internet presented itself as a multiverse of media, where regulations over aspects such as infrastructure and the commercialization of content interfered with one another.10 Because of this, any attempt to define a uniform model of governance for the medium became equally complex. A common understanding of standard norms was nonexistent: where some read ‘management’, others understood ‘control’; where many saw ‘opportunity’, others still detected ‘threat’. Within this scope of possibilities, a medium conceived to be technically global and accessible to ‘everyone’ clashed with industry self-regulation, state sovereignty, and revolutionary business practices. 11 Moreover, this scenario rested on a shifting environment that encompassed a continuous, symbiotic,

6 (Keohane & Nye, 1998) 7 (Mueller, 1999, p. 498) 8 (Balleste, 2015; Brousseau, Marzouki, & Méadel, 2012) 9 (Crawford & Palfrey, 2004, p. 6) 10 (D. K. Herold & de Seta, 2015, p. 68) 11 (Brousseau et al., 2012) 2

interactionist, and culturally influenced relationship between technology and individuals.12 This ultimately created an infrastructure around which “all kinds of conflicts of norms—of legitimacy, of power, of culture—develop[ed].”13

To capture and discuss the issues that emerge from this complexity, in 2006 the United

Nations established the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)14 as a platform to debate issues surrounding the governance of the Internet. As a space to “share information and develop solutions on key Internet issues”,15 it is supposed to give voice to anyone who might want to contribute to debates and discussion on related issues, according to the organizational premises of the forum. Nevertheless, the body in charge of organizing the forum and its earliest participants have retained complete dominance over it even as the Internet itself has exploded in scale and scope.16 Often categorized as ‘state-centric’ and ‘top-down’, the IGF, which had its first edition in 2006,17 is also frequently criticized for turning a blind eye to certain actors—either by failing to encourage their active participation or by consciously looking past them and excluding them from the discussion.18 This process ultimately created a biased discourse about

Internet Governance, which is constructed and strongly influenced by the earliest institutions and the countries that oversaw its creation and initial international expansion. 19 In essence, this has created an abstract discourse on Internet

Governance.20

12 (Howard, 2011, p. 65) 13 (Brousseau et al., 2012, p. 6) 14 The IGF is a global multi-stakeholder platform that facilitates the discussion of public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. (ISOC, 2016a) 15 (ISOC, 2016c) 16 (Nocetti, 2015) 17 (IGF, 2019) 18 (Verhulst, Noveck, Raines, & Declerq, 2014) 19 For more detailed overview on the creation and growth of the IGF, see chapter 1, subsection ‘The origin of the term Internet Governance’. 20 (van Eeten & Mueller, 2012) 3

This has created an abstract discourse of Internet Governance that differs markedly from the way in which the medium is actually governed as a matter of fact. This thesis, therefore, scrutinizes the practices of individuals who are not included in the IGF discourses to assess how the Internet is regulated or regulates itself. Although actors such as private corporations do not engage with the premises of the IGF, they are highly relevant to how the Internet is governed in practice.21 The line of thinking advanced in this thesis therefore not only criticizes the premises of the IGF but also offers a redefinition of how Internet Governance should be understood and studied by emphasizing the aforementioned practices.22

The debate surrounding Internet Governance includes a variety of approaches that propose different models of governance that differ—sometimes markedly—from the premises established by the IGF.23 The cases that I will present delve into the practices of two industries that have been either revolutionized or created and expanded globally because of the Internet—the videogame and the eSports industries. This project, therefore, seeks to contribute to the second line of thought, by emphasizing not only how practices are relevant to study the governance of the Internet, but also its epistemological side, namely, how to approach the actors and the individuals responsible to shape it.

21 (Aaronson, 2018; Brousseau et al., 2012; Conway, 2015; Néron, 2010, 2013; Whelan, 2012) 22 (Mager, 2018) 23 (Aaronson, 2018, p. 10) 4

1.2. The origin of the term Internet Governance

“The creators of the Internet […] did not think of the Internet as being governed, or even as requiring governance; rather, they saw it as being coordinated in a collaborative and voluntary fashion. The study of Internet Governance thus reveals a historical process of claims that demonstrates the lack of a universally accepted system of governance.”24

This section offers a brief history of the salient aspects of the evolution of the Internet as a medium and of the concept of ‘Internet Governance’ as well. The aim is to clarify the origins of the term IG itself, the most relevant institutions related to it, and the geographical scope of the debate.25 In so doing, the research gap I aim to address within this work will become clear.

With the expansion of the Internet worldwide, stakeholders other than members of the technical community—e.g., computer scientists—launched a debate on the governance of this medium. Political actors—mostly governments and academics— took the lead in the process of framing IG and consequently integrated it into international political discourses. That course of events influenced the creation of an abstract theoretical concept of Internet Governance that was at something of a remove from practical frameworks. 26

24 (Balleste, 2015, p. 20) 25 This section will detail the regions in which my participants situate their practices—namely, Spain, and Mainland China. 26 (Mueller, 1999) 5

In terms of institutional landmarks, there are two key events that stand out as seminal in the development of international contention over Internet Governance.27 The first is the creation of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in

1998 and the second is the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society

(WSIS), held in 2003. The next sections will detail each, in turn.

1.2.1. ICANN, the Internet Society, and their relevance for Internet Governance

Before the establishment of ICANN, the field of IG elicited few controversies, 28 save for the process of international expansion of the Internet from the US to other countries.29 This contrasts with the markedly contentious situation we observe today, where the clash of national and commercial interests produces all manner of conflict.30

The first records of the term Internet Governance are from the early 1990s. During those years, the first big controversy appeared over managerial issues in the administration of Domain Name Systems, or DNS.31 After 1994, these activities were handled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).32 The allocation of IP addresses33 was delegated internationally to four Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) during the early nineties, followed by a fifth in 2004. 34 In order to move the

27 (Mueller, 2010, p. 514) 28 (Balleste, 2015, p. 28) 29 (Zorn, 1988) 30 (Balleste, 2015, p. 26) 31 (Balleste, 2015, p. 28; Mathiason, 2008, p. 48) 32 (Balleste, 2015, p. 24) 33 An IP address is a binary number that uniquely identifies computers and other devices on a network. 34 (IANA, 2016) 6

administration of Internet domain names and IP addresses out of the US government, the IANA then became part of the ICANN. Nevertheless, the ICANN wasn’t ‘truly’ international, since it was registered in the USA and subject to the laws of that country.35

Despite the attempts to maintain neutrality and competitive principles over this new asset, the DNS clearly favored trademark and intellectual property holders, ensuring economic control over domain name registries and registrars. This mechanism persists to this day36 and facilitates a “vehicle through which national governments can assert sovereignty claims over the name space.”37 Thus, the regulation of Internet names and numbers created an entire “new institutional and property rights framework […] [with] powerful incentives to seize control of the process or to win a struggle for power.”38

This essentially resulted in a top-down process whereby the only stakeholders empowered were those “present at the creation” and early stages of the internationalization of the Internet. Equally criticized was the way the Internet opened to the private sphere. Under a mechanism of ‘self-regulation’39 over the registry of domain names, it served as a mechanism that favored only economically powerful stakeholders.40

35 ICANN coordinates the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, which are key technical services critical to the continued operations of the Internet's underlying address book, the Domain Name System (DNS). The events surrounding the DNS registration procedures and commercialization, from 1992 to 1998–was the historical process that culminated with the creation of the ICANN. (ICANN, 2016) 36 (Mueller, 2013) 37 (Mueller, 1999, p. 520) 38 (Mueller, 1999, p. 499) 39 (Ibid) 40 (Mueller, 1999, p. 498) 7

During 1992, the Internet Society (ISOC) was founded. With the first headquarters in the United States, its members included individuals, as well as corporations, organizations, governments, universities, and several technical bodies.41 Similar to the

ICANN, the self-regulation principle that monopolized the competence over the domain names, prompted the ISOC to pursue its own agenda and to preserve its own control. At the same time, it invited the private sector to form an organization based on a broad consensus among industry stakeholders whose interests were like those of

ISOC. Mueller aptly describes it as a process where the governance mechanisms

“could be exploited or abused to attain regulatory powers over Internet users and suppliers.”42

The ISOC gradually expanded as it discovered that other parties were needed to carry out its agenda. Their interests intersected eventually with other regulators outside the

United States,43 which feared and resented American dominance over the Internet and sought further ways to participate in its governance.44 This process went through a set of attempts lead by the ISOC to privatize, this time, Top Level Domains (TLDs) such as the ‘.com’ domain.45 Nevertheless, instead of establishing a fair environment for anyone interested in buying and registering new domain names, the private, for-profit model already in motion was allowed to continued. This allowed the economically dominant agents to increase their market shares and to operate “with little regard for the norms of the ISOC-based technical community.”46

41 (ISOC, 2016c) 42 (Mueller, 1999, p. 499) 43These included, for example, members of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). 44 (Balleste, 2015, p. 26) 45 (Mewes, 1998; Mueller, 1999) 46 (Mueller, 1999, p. 500) 8

Two important facts can be drawn from the outline of these early stages of the governance of the Internet. The first is the central role of the US-led initiative to steward the process of management and internationalization of the medium. The second fact concerns the maintenance of control by US-based companies and corporations during this process. In short, this meant American actors had the first and probably the strongest bias and control over the discourse of Internet Governance.

1.2.2. The WSIS, the IGF, and their relevance for Internet Governance

“The Internet has come to be understood primarily as a source of financial gain and government power. While businesses look for profit, and governments direct their resources toward security and surveillance, the everyday use has been left at the mercy of both forces.”47

As introduced earlier, the potential challenges, and opportunities opened by the

Internet led several kinds of international actor—in particular, governments —to become more interested in it. Against this backdrop, the International

Telecommunications Union (ITU) proposed a WSIS, which was launched in Geneva in 2003. The proposal was later endorsed by the UN. During the second part of this event, held two years later in Tunis, a formal definition of the concept of Internet

Governance was made public.48 After the US government refused to cede control over

47 (Balleste, 2015, p. 44) 48 The outcome of the IGF established that Internet Governance was "the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." (ISOC, 2016a) 9

TLDs, WSIS participants agreed to establish the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to provide “equal footing”49 for any actor with an interest in engaging any issue arising from the governance of the Internet. Since 2006, the IGF has been convened yearly in a different location around the world.

During successive IGF meetings, participants have proffered differing views on the topic of Internet Governance. Various models of governance have been presented, such as consensually based international models 50 or models based on the “multi stakeholder forum” 51 approach. It was commonly acknowledged that TLD’s were a source of political and financial power. A common call was made for ICANN (with a request for the USA’s active support) to open its procedures for review. Both ICANN and the US reaffirmed their stance that they should steward the internationalization process of the IG.52

Two lines of critique have been leveled at problems with the way that the discourse created under the aegis of the IGF has evolved. First, there is the international expansion of the forum, which was strongly marked by a US-led footprint and definition of the prevailing model of IG. Take, for example, the several meeting points of the IGF or the ISOC. The reach of these initiatives follows the countries’ alignment with the mindset of an IG model suggested by the ISOC based on multi-stakeholder participation. Examples of that include the Spanish IGF, held annually since 2009,53 or events under the umbrella of the ISOC, with a smaller regional scope.54 Other

49 (Balleste, 2015) 50 (Balleste, 2015) 51 (Ibid, p. 66) 52 (Ibid, p. 68) 53 (IGF, 2016) 54 (ISOC, 2016b) 10

participants, on the other side of this spectrum,55 have been participating within the frame of the global IGF since its inception, albeit supporting a model of governance that emphasizes the state as the main regulator over any other stakeholder.56 Besides organizing other forums related to IG topics tangentially,57 it has hosted and organized the ‘World Internet Conference’ since 2014. This initiative is commonly regarded as challenging the IGF-led multi-stakeholder approach.58

The second line of criticism draws attention to the process of early institutional internationalization of the IG, which is widely seen as “a unilateral construction of a global regime by the United States […] based on a new, non-governmental model.”59

The successive IGF meetings also reveal a general unawareness among ordinary users of the forums’ consequences or the widespread online surveillance conducted by the

US, which has aggravated the level of distrust among participants’ representatives.60

Notwithstanding the “emphatically multilateral”61 character of the forum, reports have categorized the conversations in it as insufficiently fluid with “organizers walk[ing] on egg-shells to avoid offending participants or businesses, fearing that governments and companies would pull-out of participating in the forum.” 62 In a similar way, the forum has been often criticized for simply restating generalities and for failing to directly address issues of power, sovereignty, freedom of expression, and human

55 When referring to ‘China’ or ‘Mainland China’, I refer here to its geographical denomination, excluding the territories of Taiwan, Macau and Hong Kong SAR. 56 Keynote speakers during the IGF, such as Lu Wie, supported this model of governance, claiming that “Freedom is our goal, and order is the means to achieve that goal.” (Tews, 2016). 57 Examples of this include the Experts in Technology and Policy (ETAP) Forum, which deals with issues of Internet Governance, Cybersecurity and Privacy. Many of these events are led by individuals who have worked both for ICANN and other institutions directly involved in the early internationalization of the Internet (IEEE/CIC, 2016). 58 (Creemers, 2016) 59 (Ibid, p. 10) 60 (Ibid, p. 124) 61 (Ibid) 62 (Balleste, 2015, p. 109, quoting "IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF)") 11

rights.63 In sum, a discourse created and tailored according to already empowered stakeholders has arisen and consolidated, presenting a clear disparity “between the activities of the powerful and the realities faced by the majority of the world’s population” 64 who use the Internet daily. This is of special importance since it reinforces the criticism on which this study is grounded—namely, the disconnect between the high institutional discourse of Internet Governance and the everyday practices exhibited in the two industries presented in this work.

1.3. The salience of videogame and eSports industry practices Following the disconnection between discourse and practices presented, the two case studies that I analyze in the current research isolate the contextualized practices of industries that have been either created or radically transformed through access to the

Internet. 65 The videogames and eSports industries, analyzed from a regulatory perspective, have historically drawn biased attention from scholars. such as a tendency in the analysis of videogame policy and regulation to focus almost exclusively on the purported social effects of its content, especially violence. 66 Few authors 67 have provided evidence of the relationship between the videogame and eSports industries and their role in creating and enforcing rules and regulations for the Internet. The gap in the literature thus invites a study of the contours of the relationship between the industries, and the way both have developed their own practices and protocols for governance of the Internet.68

63 (Ibid, pp. 111-115) 64 (Balleste, 2015) 65 (Borowy, 2013) 66 (C. J. Ferguson, 2007; Rai, 2015) 67 (Conway, 2015) 68 Discussion on the fields studying the relationship between videogame industry and policy making will are further discussed in chapter 2, subsection ‘Economics, institution and policy development’. 12

It is, therefore, the purpose of this research project to address the significance of the videogame and eSports industries by considering the practices of key stakeholders within their respective normative and regulative environments.69 By doing so, the work enlarges the current perspectives not only on several disciplines directly related to Internet Governance but also more tangential ones—such as law and Economics— that nevertheless reflect and influence the practices of my research participants in the videogames and eSport industries.70 Furthermore, the present research uncovers much about the evolution and development of the videogame and eSport industries that goes beyond economic measures of their importance by focusing on how—as they have expanded globally—they have produced dynamic cultural effects as well.71 In that regard, this work highlights the importance of tackling the practices of companies and individuals in these industries to shed much-needed light on how Internet Governance works in practice.

1.4. Research purpose The main line of inquiry in the present research is to analyze the practices of the videogame and eSports industries in their respective normative ecosystems. It is not, however, intended as a technical review of “best practices” within these industries, nor a review of the work of institutions such as the IGF. Instead, the study explores the agency and competences of a select group of stakeholders in each industry to analyze

69 (Brousseau et al., 2012) 70 (van Eeten & Mueller, 2012) 71 Detailed discussion on the relevance and relationship of the videogame and the eSports industries for Internet Governance is further discussed in chapter 2, subsection ‘Practices in the videogame and development of policies and the eSports industries; a starting point to determine the governance of the Internet’. 13

their practices and the amalgam of norms and regulations they navigate in undertaking them. More specifically, the project addresses two main research questions:

RQ1: To what extent do the practices of stakeholders in the global videogame and eSport industries adapt to the regions they operate in, regarding culture, social norms, socio-political settings, etc.? In this process, what regulations do they account–and why–in their daily practices?

RQ2: How does that explain how Internet Governance unfolds in practice?

Drawing on the videogame and eSports industries as case studies, the project will thus offer an assessment of the extent to which the embeddedness of local socio-political settings fit into emerging global Internet Governance discourses. In so doing, the present research seeks to provide an alternative perspective, thus contributing to the literature foregrounding the disconnect between the top-down and state-centric institutional premises of the mainstream debate on global Internet Governance and the actual practices of Internet users.

The study will thus detail how my participants navigate their normative and regulatory environments, uncovering the reasons underpinning the contextualized practices that arise during their daily work activities. These include the rules and regulations they follow to release and maintain a game that is playable online, to the rules that eSports professionals abide by when participating in tournaments. I will attempt to unveil the relations underpinning the network of multilayered normative frames based on the links that they establish, to later extrapolate the regulatory framework that they take account of.

14

Throughout the study, the research questions are addressed considering the specific circumstances obtaining for my research participants. Among the more fine-grained themes and issues that are covered are:

- The extent of adaptability of industry stakeholders in specific regions/markets.

- The specific practices and regulations that arise out of practical adaptation in

the different markets in which these stakeholders operate.

- The specific stakeholders who take the lead in creating, applying, and

ultimately executing localized norms and practices.

- The various issues that overlap with current Internet Governance discourses.

The two objectives of this work thus follow a strict correlation with the questions proposed. I will first delve into the transposability of my participants’ practices to understand how the governance of the Internet is managed globally. The second part concerns the epistemological relevance of my participants’ practices as a departure point to study this topic. They address the differences in terms of regulations, culture, social norms, etc. that my participants’ practices describe. In proposing such an approach to the study of Internet Governance, this work draws on several disciplines— including Business Studies, law, and anthropology—as well as fields where the topic is already studied, such as international relations.72

72 (van Eeten & Mueller, 2012) 15

1.5. Research objectives This study is connected theoretically to the field of Internet Governance. Nevertheless, the interdisciplinarity of this work provides, first, a different angle on the historical discourse on Internet Governance, encased nowadays on the multi-stakeholder vs sovereign/governmental models of governance.73 Linked to this, the present research also moves away from the discourses established in and around the IGF,74 providing a direct view of the voices of those individuals not normally represented under that umbrella. In my opinion, the two prevailing models of governance clash with the possibilities that the analysis of the practices of the videogame and eSports industries entails considering its relentless growth. The importance of the practices of these industries rests on understanding the regulations that derive from their interactions with the Internet and the idiosyncrasies of their associated decision-making.

It is, therefore, the primary focus of this study to argue for a more inclusive vision of debates and processes around Internet Governance. This work argues that those excluded actors who currently engage with a multinational regulatory landscape of

Internet activities as a part of their daily practices be brought into the process.

Following this line of thought, the present work unveils the potentials that inhere within the rich set of practices and dialogic approaches in order to offer possible ontological and epistemological grounds for future research and create a more complete picture on how the governance of the Internet is mapped, discussed, and studied.

73 (CFR, 2014) 74 (Coban, 2016) 16

This work therefore adds to the existing scholarship offering robust critiques of the prevailing monopolization of Internet regulation and governance by corporate and state actors against the backdrop of the prevailing neo-liberal economic globalization.

Such critical scholarship includes the early work of Mueller (1999),75 followed by studies from Just and Puppis (2012),76 deNardis et al. (2013),77 and Hoffman (2016)78 to name but a few. Radu’s (2019)79 very recent work continues this thrust of robust critical engagement. In making by own contribution, I seek to enlarge the scope of the study of the governance of the Internet by highlighting crucial ontological and epistemological principles associated with it, against a backdrop characterized by the

“stronger position of a limited number of companies and states, clashing more frequently over the fundamentals of governing the field.”80

1.6. The settings of the study At the outset, it is necessary to clarify two contextual points that will recur throughout the chapters and that mark a clear shift away from the classical ground of the Internet

Governance discourse. The first is the context in which this work is set—namely, the analysis of industries with a global presence. The practices that my participants describe adapt to the idiosyncrasies of the localities in which their companies conduct their daily activities. This fact sets the ontological ground of the study, which influences how my participants in both the videogames and the eSports industries introduce and narrate their respective working practices. My participants’ narrations reflect the practices of industries that rely on a multiplicity of normative, societal, and

75 (Mueller, 1999) 76 (Just & Puppis, 2012) 77 (DeNardis, 2014; DeNardis & Raymond, 2013) 78 (Hofmann, Katzenbach, & Gollatz, 2016) 79 (Radu, 2019; Radu & Chenu, 2014) 80 (Radu, 2019, p. 192) 17

cultural frames to function. To give one example, all my participants describe their

“market” as the defined jurisdictions in which they are (or were) working, thus drawing on the logic of corporate operational criteria. This by no means implies that they disregard other geopolitical categories (i.e., country and region) but it represents a certain paradigmatic distinction. As will be detailed further, my participants’ practices seldom reflect a view of the “market” as a single “country”.

The second recurring point concerns the demarcation of a “forum” for discourse.

Unlike classic Internet Governance which can point to a structuring forum like the IGF, for my participants no such clear forum exists.81 Rather, as my participants repeatedly observe, there are clear-cut premises on what jurisdictions they are working with, and responsibility, accountability, and eventual enforceability of these work in practice. A recurrent theme in my participants’ narratives is that these normative frameworks have evolved organically as the industries have expanded, which distinguishes the more

“engineered” institutional arena of Internet Governance led by the IGF.

That being said, it is not the purpose of this work to present the practices of the individuals under study here as the only valid option vis-à-vis other models of governance.82 As I will develop further, this work intends to provide a direct view on the practices of two industries that depend on the Internet to survive and expand but that also confront ongoing challenges due to its internationalization. Following this argument, this project aims to check the version of the Internet proposed under the umbrella of the IGF and, in so doing, its approach to governance as well. The

81 (ISOC, 2016a) 82 (Balleste, 2015, p. 137; Malcolm, 2008, pp. 23-24) 18

individual practices that I uncover and are currently ignored by the prevailing discourses on IG differ in nature, shape, and form, yet they are far more influential in practice in the actual governance of the Internet as it occurs in practice. It is through the interactions of individuals with this medium—characterized by a continuous socio/cultural localization of practices—that the industries create their own models of

Internet Governance.

1.7. The positionality of the author It is important to offer a brief survey of my own positionality in relation to the present research. Several personal, professional, and intellectual interests have led me to pursue research in the area of Internet Governance. First, there is my own position concerning the institutional debate over Internet Governance. I started inquiring into the field of Internet Governance during my master’s degree in 2011, and have been a member of ISOC since November 2015.83 During a session organized by the ISOC that I attended, I inquired about issues related to censorship in countries such as the

United Kingdom and the lack of engagement with the society of large private players, such as Facebook. In my view, the answers that the panelists offered in response suggested two key points. First, that international platforms like the IGF are highly circumscribed, with boundaries that limit their impact and inclusiveness. And, second, that the state- and corporate-led institutional environment is unable to effectively reflect the practices of actors that are excluded from it. These findings are confirmed by existing literature that challenges the premises of the prevailing debate on IG and that critiques the way the practices of actors other than the ones included in the

83 Email sent to me by the Internet Society on November the 17th, 2015, with the subject ‘Welcome to the Internet Society (ISOC)!’ 19

framework of the IGF have been overlooked.84 and the consideration of the practices of actors other than the ones included in the framework of the IGF.85 As a conclusion, a reconceptualization of Internet Governance was sorely needed.86

Similarly, my professional expertise has helped me to identify the knowledge gap I seek to address with this project. Starting as a marketing assistant, I progressively defined myself as a professional in charge of building a stable, operational and cultural bridge between the countries I was working in, including the United Kingdom,

Denmark, India, Germany, and Spain. My main tasks entailed familiarizing myself with the localized practices, languages, cultures, and societal, and formal norms and regulations of culturally differentiated markets. These practices defined aspects such as my interactions with the users in these countries on behalf of the company. My own experiences gave me a deeper understanding of the importance of individual actors whose job it is to negotiate national boundaries, and who are often forced to develop their own strategies and practices between national markets and international businesses. As I will develop further, my professional background has guided both the topic selection and the participant recruitment and access in this work.

1.8. Chapter overview Following this introduction, chapter 2 provides an extensive review of the literature bearing on the current research. The literature review consists of three parts, the first of which the first covers in detail those aspects associated with the evolution of the videogame and eSports industries. This discussion provides an overview of how these

84 (DeNardis & Raymond, 2013) 85 (Altintas, 2014) 86 (van Eeten & Mueller, 2012, p. 9) 20

industries have developed and, just as importantly, how that development has been studied and analyzed by scholars. The second section of the review covers the existing literature on the concepts employed through the study and presents a theoretical framework for examining the interrelatedness of the institutional and economic spheres and examples of institutional and normative development in the regions in which my participants’ practices have unfolded. The third part surveys the literature on IG per se, including the literature on the relationship between individual contextualized practices and the regulatory functioning of the Internet. This part also surveys the literature on the role of corporations in this process. Each part of the review clearly signposts the existing gaps in the salient literature and the way in which the present study proposes to address them.

Chapter 3 details the methodological framework for the research, including the salient social theories and methodological approaches employed. This will be followed by a discussion and argumentation about their epistemological suitability according to the qualitative nature of this work. This will lead to an introduction to the different methods deployed in my fieldwork, its theoretical background, and introduction to the outcomes and analysis of my fieldwork.

Chapter 4, 5, and 6 are the core data chapters of the thesis. In chapter 4, I present in detail the epistemological and ontological stances adopted throughout the project, in the form of auto ethnographical accounts from the field. This includes an introduction to the underlying theory behind the strategies adopted. Chapter 4 concludes with a thorough investigation of the underpinnings of the strategies detailed in chapter 3, putting in perspective, and analyzing the quality of the data gathered in each of them.

21

Chapter 5 outlines the normative practices of the global videogame industry. The main method is qualitative analysis of data from semi-structured interviews conducted with my participants. That analysis reflects a set of categories developed to reflect the practices my participants describe. Therefore, the chapter presents an overview of the salient activities of the respective companies, which are localized according to the socio-political setting of the markets in which they operate. This chapter details the way in which some practices are similar across markets and/or companies, such as their respective corporative cultures.

Chapter 6 details the normative dynamics of the global eSports industry. For this case study, a triad of analytical methods was deployed to undertake the analysis—namely, semi-structured interviews, ethnography, and document analysis. The participant pool includes professionals from the videogame and eSports industries, as well as professional eSport practitioners and their staff. The structure of the chapter reflects the existing circular relationship between the agents in the industry. Similar to chapter

5, this chapter outlines practices from the normative perspective of the relevant agents, such as eSport companies, publishers, and professional eSport players and their staff.

This chapter concludes with a survey of practices deriving from the industry, such as online betting for eSport matches and the novelty of the regulatory practices associated with these tournaments.

The concluding chapter of the thesis, chapter 7, reviews the main findings of the research in light of the questions posed, drawing together the principal themes

22

explored and highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the study. It ends with a brief survey of future avenues for research.

23

24

2. Literature review

“Because nations, organizations, corporations, and individuals may participate in the development of Internet Governance policy, each participant becomes a part of the final policy, reaffirming its legitimacy.”87

This second chapter presents the literature review for the project. The first part outlines the evolution of the videogame and eSports industries and surveys the literature on how they have been studied and analyzed, along with historical insights into the norms and regulations in the precise regions in which my participants describe their practices.

The second part surveys the salient literature on the concepts pertaining directly to the present study. The review of the literature also underscores the significance of the videogame and eSports industries beyond macroeconomic and consumption patterns.

In so doing, it offers a clear signpost of the limitations of the existing literatures that the present research seeks to address.

The chapter concludes with an overview of the most recent scientific literature on the study of Internet Governance. These works all present a view of the discourse that moves decidedly away from the discourse of the IGF. This concluding section thus presents a schematic overview of the different schools of thought that have adopted this more critical approach. In laying out the field in this way, the chapter offers a clear argument in favor of expanding the scope of inclusion of actors and their practices into

IG debates. Only in this way is it possible to properly understand the prevailing patterns in the way the Internet is actually governed in practice.

87 (Balleste, 2015, p. 25) 25

2.1. The study and development of the videogame and eSports industries The first part of this chapter lays out the most salient literature on the videogame and eSports industries, covering how they have evolved and developed, their significance as global Internet industries and how they have been studied and analyzed to date. The section also offers a brief introduction to how they function.

2.1.1. The videogame industry The present section offers an overview of the videogames industry that extends beyond the usual treatment—i.e., of sales, and consumption patterns and economic analysis of the industry—88 to incorporate questions of sectoral regulation and corporate practices in the industry.

As mentioned in chapter 1, I chose the gaming industry as an object of study for the present research partly out of personal interest. As will be further elaborated, my own interest facilitated not only efficient access to participants and effective communication with them —before, during, and after my interaction with them— but also allowed me to ‘check’ the quality of the information obtained. Despite this consideration, the state of the art on the study of videogames moves nowadays away from what Johns once asserted was a superficial perception of the industry as a small niche.89

88 (Johns, 2006) 89 (Ibid, p. 158) 26

The financial success of these games—not to mention their cultural and social impact—speak to their popularity and their relevance. 90 Examples of these include single-player games, such as Irrational Games’ 91 Bioshock, online games such as

Blizzard’s Diablo trilogy, and Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA) games, such as Riots Games’ League of Legends.

In its short lifespan, the complexity of videogaming as a cultural medium has caught the attention of many scholars. Directly or indirectly, videogames tackle social issues, such as race, ethnicity, language, and identity relations, as well as ‘embedded learning’ processes that are worthy of scholarly investigation.92 Other lenses through which videogames are studied address the interrelatedness between playing habits and how this influence technological transformation. As Flanagan notes, “[g]ames and play activities themselves, with their emphasis on order and conventions, act as technologies that produce sets of relationships, governed by time and rules, played out in behavioral patterns.”93 In light of these approaches and the new fields of inquiry that have targeted video games for analysis, the present work contributes by foregrounding a set of issues that arise from the practices of online gaming. More specifically, it looks closely at how these activities have been regulated (or not, as the case may be), something that has largely been overlooked in the literature to date but that has become central to practices within the industry.

Against this backdrop, multinational companies associated with the production and consumption of videogames and that operate globally have increasingly been subject

90 (Flanagan, 2009, p. 224) 91 Irrational Games was an American videogame developer founded in 1997. 92 (Ibid, p. 125) 93 (Flanagan, 2009, p. 8) 27

to progressive ‘glocalization’. 94 This involves global companies delivering customized content that meets the multicultural particularities of each of their markets.

These adaptations respond to demand from “small groups of consumers’ [with] particular content on particular media platforms.”95

To reach their customers, videogame companies are guided by pragmatic criteria— they seek the best way to access and function in those markets targeted for product release. For that to be possible, they must localize their practices to a certain extent.

This set of adaptations reflects several causes—the desire of the company to do so voluntarily (i.e., to access new demographics);96 market demands, or; because of legal requirements. 97 For example, a company might decide to enhance certain design features of a game because it is visually more appealing for an audience. Another example could be the market demand that a game does not show corpses because it is prohibited by law.98 It is equally important to consider the rules and regulations that govern the release of a game into a market, which are constantly being updated. These practices, as Lessig describes them, are set in a competing environment between companies and what the players value when changing from one game to another. In this context, users can—at least to some extent—select the set of rules they are subject to.99

94 (Howard, 2011, p. 84) 95 (Ibid, p. 62) 96 (Cassell & Jenkins, 2000; Juul, 2010) 97 (Cucuel, 2011) 98 For examples on this matter, see chapter 5, subsection ‘Creation of the game’. 99 (Lessig, 2009) 28

The study of the videogame industry will be therefore set in this context, analyzing the practices that derive from these adaptation processes, which are ultimately strongly marked and limited by different normative and regulative frameworks.

2.1.2. The eSports industry

The development of the eSports phenomenon and its close relationship to the videogame industry100 has recently gained attention not only from the media but also from several fields in academia—including psychology, 101 sociology, 102 sports,103 technology, 104 and international law. 105 Broadly speaking, the development of eSports-related literature is on the rise, 106 and it is being explored from multidisciplinary angles. This is a direct result of its economic and social impact.107 In a similar way, the importance of the industry is correlated with greater normative developments of its institutionalization. In countries such as South Korea, eSports are categorized as a professional activity with institutions that exclusively regulate the industry. 108 This example offers vivid proof of how eSports can be differently portrayed—i.e. being regarded as an “activity of leisure”, 109 which responds to a pattern of culturally defined environments in which the eSports industry matures. In a few words, the development of the eSports industry reverberates into the creation of a

100 (Edge, 2013) 101 (Bányai, Griffiths, Király, & Demetrovics, 2018) 102 (Seo & Jung, 2016) 103 (Hallmann & Giel, 2018) 104 (Freeman & Wohn, 2017) 105 (Holden, Rodenberg, & Kaburakis, 2017) 106 (Wagner, 2006) 107 (Newzoo, 2016) 108 (Seo, 2013, p. 1543) 109 (Lee & Schoenstedt, 2011, p. 43) 29

formal institutionalized and economic environment, symbiotically affecting this practice—i.e., the professionalization of eSports.110

Marked by its correlation with the global expansion of the videogame industry, eSports nevertheless have different dynamics in terms of the activities and actors engaging with them. In general terms, the ecosystem of eSports is nowadays being developed through a series of circular relationships between the different groups of actors and the activities that comprise it.111 The first group is publishers, or the owners of the games used in their competitive environment (e.g., Blizzard Entertainment’s title StarCraft).

The second important factor is tournaments. This activity can be handled by the same publisher or by third-party organizers such as eSports companies (e.g., the Electronic

Sports League’s (ESL) National Championships). The third group includes eSport clubs and professional players—i.e., team managers, analysts, psychologists, and gaming, and physical coaches. The fourth group comprises sponsors—e.g., hardware and software brands. Finally, there is the fan-base, which creates a community of viewers essential to support the eSports community surrounding a game.112 Today, there is a significant gender imbalance in the field, with both viewership, and competition dominated by young men. Nevertheless, there is a budding trend of female participation, which may signal the gender gap could close in the future.113

110 (Taylor, 2012, p. 35) 111 (Ibid, p. 135-181) 112 (Karakus, 2015) 113 (aDeSe, 2011; J. Johnson, 2015) 30

Every videogame that eventually becomes an eSport—due to, for example, existing competitions, or commercial efforts, or institutional recognition— has its competitive ecosystem.114 Regulations that affect their practices are also dissimilar.115

The eSports industry is marked by a high level of competitiveness. Apart from the groups comprising fans, the rest of the stakeholders aim to diversify their activities within the ecosystem. For example, publishers expand their presence by creating leagues using their own games. The companies that are specialized in organizing tournaments intend to become the most relevant actors doing so. One last example is sponsors, who invest in creating their own teams (e.g., ‘Fútbol Club Deportivo,

FCD’ 116 Valencia) or leagues (e.g. ‘Liga de Videojuegos Profesional, LVP’ 117

Orange).

The regionality that the industry is subject to comes, similarly to the videogame counterpart, from these actors involved in the production and consumption. For example, the competitive environment where the industry is set influences a series of actors that organize and broadcast the tournaments and leagues, as well as the overall institutionalization of the industry that comes, in some cases, from pre-existing competitive structures (such as the above-mentioned football clubs). This further establishes the regional dynamics that characterize the industry, sharing similar regulatory national contexts where the competition and the games used to compete are set.118

114 (Taylor, 2012) 115 (Rosell Llorens, 2017) 116 In English: football sports club. 117 In English: professional videogames league. 118 (Rosell Llorens, 2017; Taylor, 2012, p. 245) 31

This introduction therefore highlights the relevance of the eSports industry, its expansion, and its relatedness to the development of a normative framework as the industry has matured. Like in the previous section, I will be analyzing the eSports industries from a practices perspective to determine how my participants act and react to the regulations that affect them.

2.2. Definitions and conceptual frameworks This section aims to narrow down the conceptual and theoretical approaches for this work. As has been highlighted, the development of the videogames and eSports industries has gone hand in hand with the progression framework that regulates them.

This first part highlights this relation from a theoretical perspective. This will be followed by a section devoted to delimitating the conceptual framework for this study.

One last part will offer examples of how regulations have influenced and shaped the markets in which my participants describe their practices.

2.2.1. Economics, institutions, and policy development Following the works of Johns, I highlight the interconnectedness between cultural production and its expansion on a global scale. Regional governments, in particular, have been keen to harness the combination of high-tech industry and entertainment to drive local economic development.119 This fact highlights, even more, the relationship of these two main spheres—the institutional and the economic.

119 (Johns, 2006; Just & Puppis, 2012) 32

Scholars have already drawn attention to the interrelatedness between economics and institutional frameworks. Here, I take arguably the most formative author and the subsequent criticism to his work, as the departure point. North’s ‘New Institutional

Economics’ approach offers a set of analytical foundations that can be usefully employed in the present analysis. Briefly put, the author proposes that individuals base their choices on “subjectively derived models”,120 which moves away from economic equilibrium or profit maximization to determine the optimal choice for individuals.121

Closely related to his theoretical reconsideration of the underlying economic drivers of individual behavior —referring to economic equilibrium and profit maximization— he redefines the concept of transaction costs for audio-visual goods and services, which not only have economic but also cultural value.122 In complex societies, social, political, and economic institutions also consider the cultural dimension in the transaction costs of their cooperation. Together with other informal constraints—such as dialogue of cultural diversity, formal rules, and enforcement mechanisms—the complexity of these costs increases significantly. Therefore, he emphasizes the importance of including all these institutions in making sense of societal changes.123

This new approach to institutional economics is understood here as “closer to reality and more open to empirical testing [...] [where] empirical evidence was not limited to quantitative and statistical methods”124, which, at the same time, is critical of the

“frictionless”125 neo-classical notion of institutional economics.126

120 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 36) 121 (Hobart, 2001; Just & Puppis, 2012) 122 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 36; Peter & Timothy, 2012) 123 (Ibid, p. 37, paraphrasing North, 1990, pp. 3-7) 124 (Rutherford, 2001, pp. 175-176) 125 (Furubotn & Richter, 2008, p. 16) 126 (Alston, 2008) 33

Similarly, North’s approach is taken into consideration thus highlights the importance of “institution […] ideas and ideologies.”127 These aspects are included in what North describes as ‘mental models’, which are key elements to offer a theoretical framework:

“[Mental models] are partly acquired through experience, and partly non-culturally

and non-locally learned. Culture consists of the intergenerational transfer of knowledge, values, and norms; and it varies radically among different ethnic groups

and societies.” Experience is “local” to the particular environment and therefore

varies widely with different environments.”128

Although critics of North’s approach append a structuralist approach to the concepts he describes, 129 his approach, together with other contributors, 130 highlights the relationship between economy, social, and political actors to measure the prospective change in their respective regulatory landscapes. Secondly, the need to account for cultural variables when analyzing these changes.

These two considerations will be reflected in this project in two points. First, by analyzing the presented industries in different local settings. Second, by analyzing the way that the adaptation processes of my participants’ practices are reflected in their management of rules and regulations in their markets. As my participants recount, the normative systems that they have to navigate most of the time require a keen awareness of the peculiarities of the specific market they are operating in. Moreover, these local traits become progressively important as times goes by. This modifies their awareness

127 (North, 2016, p. 73) 128 (Ibid) 129 (Just & Puppis, 2012, pp. 41-45) 130 (Ibid, p. 237-260) 34

and knowledge about the markets and the industries where they describe their practices.

Together with this, the regulations, and the tradeoffs that they have to consider are in constant motion as well.

2.2.2. Defining culture, social, and cultural capital against the backdrop of a networked society This section aims to narrow down the conceptual literature I draw on in the present research. The distinct setting in which the fieldwork and case studies were conducted make Castells’ work particularly salient. Thus, the present research proceeds against the backdrop of a “networked society” or, in other words, a “social structure characteristic of the Information Age”. 131 More concretely, the networked society comprises “organizational arrangements of humans in relationships of production/consumption, experience, and power, as expressed in meaningful interaction framed by culture.”132

Within media studies and from a network perspective as it pertains to technology,

Howard defines culture as the “relations of production, consumption, power, and experience, along with the information infrastructure that supports these relations.”133

It follows from this that “material culture has a role in social change and exemplifies social change.”134

This aspect shares a direct relation with the digital media and the industries surrounding it, as the production, and consumption in both the videogame and eSports

131 (Castells, 2000, p. 5) 132 (Ibid) 133 (Howard, 2011, p. 58) 134 (Ibid, p. 59) 35

industries is characterized by a social and institutional development. This development affects the regulative frames for their practices. The industries taken as case studies in the present research have been reshaped since the advent of the Internet. Their global expansion has involved a process of cultural adaptation in many of their facets, such as providing particular kinds of content, as well as aspects that range from marketing to production networks.135 The opening to global markets is seen not only as a chance to increase the marketability of a business but equally challenging due to the disruptive forces that arise in each new region companies seek to join. Cultural barriers are a key driver of such challenges.136

The early stages of the development of the Internet reflected a “technocratic belief in the progress of humans through technology, enacted by communities of hackers thriving free and open technological creativity.”137 The different cultures that derive from information societies are also depicted in this work, such as the meritocracy- driven community, 138 the ‘hacker’ culture, virtual communities, and the culture of the digital entrepreneur.139

Cultural industries and their products are consumed through their multiple formats, or what scholars refer to as ‘hypertexts’. 140 These processes determine a pattern of community building surrounding cultural products, as well as a redefinition and shaping of identity. Examples of this would be today’s celebrities on YouTube.

135 (Howard, 2011, p. 59; Johns, 2006; Readman & Grantham, 2006, p. 256) 136 (Readman & Grantham, 2006, p. 257, quoting Richard & Aveni, 1994) 137 (Howard, 2011, p. 63, quoting Castells, 2001, p. 61) 138 For an example of this see chapter 5, subsection ‘Global practices’, Phil and Theme’s interview. 139 (Howard, 2011, p. 67) 140 (Ibid, p. 69) 36

Celebrities are often approached by firms to become ‘ambassadors’ of certain brands,141 or even take roles in co-production of their products.142

I draw heavily on the concepts of social and cultural capital, as laid out first by

Bourdieu, in explicating this research against the backdrop of the networked society.

Cultural capital refers to “habits, experiences, comportment, and education that parents pass to children and schools pass to students.”143 For Castells, cultural, and social capital are reflected in a distinct way in digital networks. Digital media, he contends, allow us to both maintain and spend our existing stock of social capital and to acquire new forms of cultural capital.144 Similarly, he relates culture as strongly tied to the concept of identity formation. Castells’ words shed a light on identity formation within the context of the networked society. He exemplifies the use of digital media in plain words by pointing out that the use of digital media has “become more cosmopolitan and partake in the global space of economic, political, and cultural flows […] [and] codifying our preferences in software [we] may calcify our identity.”145

The last key concept that is applicable to the current work is Castells’ differentiation on the modern concept of power through media. Refining Baudrillard’s concept of power, Castells differentiates between broadcast media (which distributes generalized messages) versus network media narrowcast (where the content is customized according to consumer preferences). Differently from the former, network media narrowcast adds additional credibility by pre-established ties of trust. 146 Castells,

141 For an example of this see chapter 6, subsection ‘Content broadcasting’, Myra´s interview. 142 (Howard, 2011, p. 70; Readman & Grantham, 2006) 143 (Howard, 2011, p. 75) 144 (Ibid, p. 75-76) 145 (Ibid, p. 86) 146 (Howard, 2011) 37

therefore, concludes that “social networks can protect us from contrarian information because we inherently trust our own strong and weak ties.”147 In terms of media and politics, Castells also makes use of Habermas’ concept of the ‘public sphere’, which acquires a mobile structure and empowers individuals to the extent that they have a certain degree of managerial power over the information that they receive.148 As it is stated within the context of media studies, Castells proves that technology not only creates infrastructure but also social structure.149

Finally, several criticisms must be acknowledged when addressing Castells’ school of thought. The most relevant is that his conceptual framework is “suited [only] for understanding social life in the wealthy urban centers of the West.”150 Therefore, the concepts presented, as well as others—such as consumption, production, power, experience, and culture—have their meaning in the context of this study, and have to account for this in terms of their generalizability.

2.2.3. Examples of normative frames and institutionalization of the videogame industry This section seeks to introduce the regulative context of the videogame industry in two of the regions described by my participants—namely, Spain, and Mainland China.

Here I provide a retrospective survey of the regulative dynamics that have affected the industry in these regions. The last example, Japan, is included just to foreground the

147 (Howard, 2011) 148 For an example of this see chapter 6, subsection ‘Content broadcasting’, Myra’s interview. 149 (Howard, 2011, p. 90) 150 (Ibid, p. 97) 38

relation between the development of the videogame and eSports industries and the institutional environment surrounding them, presented already in section 2.2.1.151

Commercialization of the first consoles began in Spain in the first half of the 1980s, when the first enterprises dedicated to the distribution of entertainment software were established.152 Nowadays, the Spanish games market is the 10th largest worldwide and

5th within Europe. Of Spain’s 19.5 million regular players, 6.0 play on every possible platform,153 the PC being the most popular.154 Norms and regulation were shaped with the maturing of this industry, including the censorship of several titles following the criticism across the media.155 Examples include Midways Games’ Mortal Kombat in

1992 or Stainless Games and Square Enix’s Carmageddon in 1997. In this regard, the introduction of the Pan European Game Information code in 2003 156 has helped provide a framework for socially sensitive issues to be addressed, shifting the weight of moral responsibility to the consumer.157 Nowadays, the market is flourishing with multiple regional events across the territory and it is consolidated as the first audio- visual industry in the territory.158 This second renaissance of the videogames industry has been accompanied by the emerging of the eSports phenomenon. Due to its late development and social recognition, the eSports industry is still in its early stages,

151 For more examples on the correlation between institutional development around the videogame and eSports industry, please see chapter 5, subsection ‘Practices for videogames industry. Mosaic of norms between company and players’, Evan’s interview. 152 (Pérez, 2016) 153 These include; Computer, Personal, Floating and Entertainment platforms. 154 (Newzoo, 2014) 155 (Santo, 2011) 156 “PEGI System is based on a Code of Conduct—a set of rules to which every publisher using the PEGI system is contractually committed. The Code deals with the age labelling, promotion and advertising of interactive products and reflects the interactive software industry’s commitment to provide information to the public in a responsible manner.” (PEGI, 2016) 157 The term ‘consumer’ as used here refers to the buyer, which might not be the final user who plays the game. 158 (AEVI, 2015) 39

however official projections concur that there is significant scope for it to reach its potential. 159 Despite heavy investment coming from traditional sports and entertainment sectors, eSports has not yet reached a critical mass of acceptance with a wider viewing audience.

The industry also took off in China when the first console was introduced there in the

1980s.160 Nowadays, it is the largest videogames market in the world.161 A major regulatory intervention came—the with significant impact on the videogame industry—when consoles were banned in China between 2000 and 2015. 162 .This boosted the popularity of arcades and PC games as well as other platforms, such as mobile phones, and Internet cafes, which are still notable today. 163 Another key characteristic of the Chinese market is that like all media in the country, videogames are subject to censorship. In 2004, China’s Ministry of Culture formed a committee to review imported online videogames, banning content that could potentially affect

“basic principles of the Constitution, threatening national unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity and that might divulge state secrets”. 164 Online games “with content threatening state security, damaging the nation's glory, disturbing social order and infringing on other's legitimate rights” were also restricted.165

159 (Arena Media, AM, 2016) 160 (Jou, 2014) 161 (Newzoo, 2016) 162 (CNN, 2016; Conway, 2015) 163 (Custer, 2013) 164 (ChinaBiz, 2004) 165 (Ibid) 40

Examples of historical bans include the 2005 prohibition of anyone under the age of

18 playing online games in which one player can kill another player’s character,166 which authorities asserted was “harmful to young people.”167 Blizzard’s World of

Warcraft was also targeted and the company removed skeletons from the game as a preventive measure to avoid antagonizing the Ministry of Culture.168 This approach of

‘preventative’ action is actually a normal practice among international multinationals, which are reported to voluntarily censor their content. Firms adopt such practices on account of it being ‘common knowledge’ they are required to operate in the country169 or simply to ensure products and services reach the market in an expedited fashion.170

Japan ranks third behind China and the United States in videogames industry revenues worldwide. 171 Its well-known reputation reflects a long tradition of videogame production stretching back to the early 1970s. Then, firms like Nintendo, Taito, and

Sega, which had been producing electro-mechanical games, turned their attention to the growing market for arcade machines. Certain titles, such as Taito’s Space Invaders and Atari’s Pong, became internationally renowned, and Japan’s reputation as the leading exporter of such games blossomed. 172 The so-called ‘Golden Age’ of videogames came to an end with the spread of the Nintendo Entertainment System

(NES) in the late 1970s which thrived by offering consumers much lower prices and through the originality of its games.173 From then on, Nintendo and Sony’s dominance of the global videogames industry remained unchallenged until the arrival of

166 (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Smith, & Tosca, 2008, p. 140) 167 (IGN, 2005) 168 (Custer, 2014) 169 (BBC, 2008) 170 (Custer, 2014) 171 (Newzoo, 2015) 172 (Picard, 2013) 173 (Izushi & Aoyama, 2006, p. 1847) 41

Microsoft’s Xbox in the early 2000s.174 Japan is the leading example of effective local development of institutions for the regulation of the videogames and eSports industries.

For example, the country has its own regulatory code for content in videogames—the

Computer Entertainment Rating Organization (CERO)175—and officially recognizes eSports as a field and eSports professional players as athletes.176

This set of cases underscores yet another important consideration for the overall design of this research——namely, the need to highlight the particular dynamics within the videogame industry, especially the industry’s leadership in the development of a distinct normative framework. The following section delves further into this line of thought by addressing individual practices as a starting point to determine how the

Internet this regulated.

2.3. Addressing the research gap critically

2.3.1. Multiple approaches to the governance of the Internet Until very recently, the literature related to the study of Internet Governance has been predominantly focusing on the institutional growth of the discourse associated with it.177 Nowadays, even though the IGF serves as a meeting point to “identify key issues”178 related to the governance of the medium, this discourse has been critically seen from several angles. Examples of this range from issues of guaranteeing the presence of non-governmental actors to the IGF meetings, 179 to their

174 (Aoyama & Izushi, 2003, p. 442) 175 CERO, based in Tokyo, is a non-profit rating organization established 2002 (Boyd, Pyne, & Kane, 2018, p. 223) 176 (Linscott, 2016) 177 (Balleste, 2015; Malcolm, 2008) 178 (ISOC, 2016a) 179 (Balleste, 2015, p. 47) 42

representativeness 180 and the analysis of its very discourse. 181 Furthermore, the incompatibility of the political control that the US still exerts and the incompatibility with other jurisdictions around the world is still today an issue.182

Therefore, the literature that tackles the governing of the Internet using other lenses, shares a certain level of novelty. Alternative approaches to the study of Internet

Governance distinguish themselves by including actors that do not engage with events under the umbrella of the IGF or ISOC, as well as inquiring about new techniques to gain access to participants.183 The investigation of Internet Governance considering its

“Internet architecture, sociotechnical practices, and private modes of ordering”184 is indeed one example that broadens the horizons of inclusiveness, and the fundamentals on which this project is built.

In a similar way, this project observes the way that how culturally localized practices influence my participants’ activities against the backdrop of the power relations obtaining where their respective industries are set,185 as well as tackling the networks and the relationship between their actors.186 In other words, participants’ accounts–or as Knox refers as “insiders”187 have to be considered within a context that leaves behind “traditional forms of governance linked to public institutions and political territories.”188 Far from depicting the Internet as a unique place where everything is debatable, de facto realities such as international businesses’ distance themselves from

180 (Globalvoices, 2014; Weber, 2010, p. 65) 181 (Epstein, Roth, & Baumer, 2013, p. 166) 182 (Prakash, 2016) 183 (Mager, 2018, p. 4; Radu & Chenu, 2014) 184 (Mager, 2018, p. 3) 185 (Conway, 2015) 186 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 203, quoting Saunders, 2007, p. 233) 187 (Knox, Savage, & Harvey, 2006, emphasis in the original) 188 (Mager, 2018, p. 10) 43

this frame. With it, actors that engage with the issues discussed in the institutional premises of the debate, are worth investigating to reconceive how the governance of the Internet is studied. 189

Accordingly, the first overarching argument of this work challenges the way the

Internet has been historically portrayed under the frame of the IGF by international bodies such as the ISOC. In other words, it challenges the conventional view of the

Internet as a unique global space characterized by multi-stakeholder participation.

Although this discourse is strenuously presented and widely disseminated by its supporters, it completely overlooks the vital role of individual practices in shaping the way the Internet is used and the way the media is governed. To flag an aspect of the discussion ahead of time, the examples of precautionary, and reactionary maneuvering under clearly defined regulative and normative boundaries are salient. These will be highlighted further in the research as a way to better understand the dynamics of both the videogame and eSports industries, together with their singular model of Internet

Governance.

Against this backdrop, the present research contributes to our understanding by unpacking the idiosyncratic practices and activities within one particular stakeholder group—the corporate or business sector. 190 Typically treated as a unity for the purposes of analysis to distinguish it from other non-state actors, the corporate sector is in fact highly diverse and needs to be analyzed with that variety in mind.191 My work proves that corporate practices are highly variable and that this diversity translates

189 (Epstein, Katzenbach, & Musiani, 2016) 190 (Kurbalija, 2014, p. 17) 191 (Mathiason, 2008, p. 32) 44

directly into the normative standards that are developed by individual corporations in marketing their products and services. At the same time, these standards are influenced by the cultural traits of the particular corporate environment, such as the company’s country of origin.

The second important contribution the present work makes is in explicating a clear description of participant contact and access. The difficulties navigating around what

Flick refers to as the “gatekeeper”192 in certain environments are well-known, such as gaining access to representatives of public institutions.193 Nevertheless, the actual process of gaining access, the role of the researcher in doing so, and the information extracted through the contact procedures are somehow overlooked in the literature.

This work thus explores different strategies for gaining access to participants and the role of the researcher in executing these strategies through a narration of the particular mutual exchange experienced between my participants and myself in the research field.

As I will outline in greater detail further on, each step of the process of accessing and engaging with participants had real and vital implications for the quality of the data gathered. The present work thus offers a template for other researchers to use in laying out the opportunities for participant access and quality data gathering that draw on various means, including “new technology, social media, websites, blogs, graphic novels, and multimedia.”194

Finally, I draw on Vann Eeten and Mueller’s highly useful taxonomy to schematically detail the core fields to which the present research contributes. With that in mind, the

192 (Flick, 2013, p. 517) 193 (Just & Puppis, 2012) 194 (Flick, 2013) 45

present work covers the following topics and themes, among others: The Internet

Governance Forum—as a discourse to compare with videogames and eSports governance practices—privacy and security, jurisdiction in cyberspace, and regulation and self-regulation in cyberspace. These topics reflect the multidisciplinary character of the research that as mentioned draws on Economics, Law and Economics, and Law, and Technology. Consequently, this work contributes not only to the field of Internet

Governance but also to that of telecommunications policy and cyber law.195

Because of the issues connected to my participants’ practices, this work brings together topics covering areas of jurisdiction in cyberspace, self-regulation, censorship, and copyright, among others. Drawing on Business Studies, Anthropology, International

Relations, and Practice Studies, it is the purpose of this work to expand the current views to suggest a new way of approaching IG. This work, therefore, contributes to the disciplines where it is labeled, such as international relations,196 as well as science and technology.197

The next section surveys the existing literature on individual practices in the videogame and eSports industries as these pertain to the study of Internet Governance.

2.3.2. Practices in the videogame and the eSports industries: a starting point to determine the governance of the Internet The literature surveyed in this section covers the nexus between individual actors’ practices and Internet Governance. Individual actors typically demonstrate some

195 (van Eeten & Mueller, 2012, p. 4) 196 (Van Dijk, 1995) 197 (Mager, 2018, p. 3) 46

understanding of existing transnational business and competition regulations in their daily interaction with the Internet. While these forms of understanding and navigation in everyday activity online are seldom explicitly understood in terms of Internet

Governance, they nevertheless form a crucial part of it. For this reason, understanding how the Internet is governed at a global scale requires analysis of regulatory functioning—understood here as the creation, implementation, negotiation, and compliance with norms, and regulations by individuals. In the field of the videogame and eSports industries, this requires that we hone in and analyze individual practices of the salient actors in these industries.

The common focus of this corpus of literature is the role played by individual activity—routines, practices, and protocols—in underpinning actual regulatory structures. Such frameworks consolidate, according to this literature, when new practices form, and other agents react. These literatures do not pool in one single discipline or field but in fact cover a range, including gambling, transnational litigation, and data regulation. This reflects the interdisciplinary approach to the study of Internet

Governance suggested by Mueller and others.198

Castronova summarized as early as 2004 the central theme here, noting that: “As people have come together in synthetic worlds, they have begun to behave like people who come together on Earth. […]. The synthetic world [when referring to online gaming] is a real-existing humanity, merely transported to a fantastical domain.”199

Across his work, he foregrounds the way online games (and from a broader perspective,

198 (van Eeten & Mueller, 2012) 199 (Castronova, 2004) 47

the Internet) can disrupt several fields including economics, business, and politics.200

It could be said that regulatory frameworks appear to map onto this pattern of expansion and disruption, although the precise outcomes differ markedly across the various social, political, and economic domains. Thus, threats are social, rather than technological.201

When addressing the videogame industry, actors’ practices matter for regulatory dynamics. Several examples attest to this in the functioning of the industry. For example, companies are often referred to as primary decision-makers in how the videogames themselves will be regulated or rated. 202 This reflects the widespread practice of self-evaluation mechanisms through rating systems, such as the European

Commission-funded Pan European Game Information (PEGI) videogame descriptor code.203 More broadly, authors assert that social regulations included in technical standards are normally set by markets, representing a challenge for governmental legislators, especially when accounting for end-user practices of entertainment technologies.204 Companies are treated as alternatives to government regulators since they can apply their own expertise to understand societal practices and expectations and react flexibly to these.205 Through the establishment of corporate ‘best practices’, companies “[not only] internalize the norms that reflect societal values, [but also] set examples that other firms are likely to follow.”206

200 (Castronova, 2008) 201 (Castronova, 2008, p. 279) 202 (Campbell, 1998; Mac Síthigh, 2010) 203 (Ibid) 204 (Winn & Jondet, 2009) 205 (Samuelson & Schultz, 2007) 206 (Ibid, p. 68) 48

Evidence of a connection between practices and the creation of regulatory frameworks in the videogame industry also arise in debates about consumption patterns.

Oftentimes, awareness grows to the point that consumers become actively involved in pressuring lawmakers and other regulators on violent videogame content 207 or advertising.208 Similarly, input from end-user domains is typically considered highly relevant when the regulations applicable to them are being negotiated or developed.209

In sum, it is fair to claim that regulation remains highly fluid in what Castronova labels

‘synthetic worlds’—namely, the web of norms, and regulations among users, firms, and institutional regulators.210

Another example is the way games are often designed for specific target groups or purposes. Taylor portrays the competitive environment in global eSport industries as one in which the actors “are often negotiating complex waters with regards to contracts, national policies, and local laws.”211 The development of these products—and the regulatory framework that grow up alongside—must be understood from a multidisciplinary approach, including aspects such as market analysis and policy intervention. 212 More importantly, Stewart and Misuraca point out that “research should take place in practice, to scale, and over time periods that are long enough to develop and embed new practices and explore radical new approaches.”213 From a similar perspective, marketing practices on videogames are seen to be distinctive enough “to justify specific regulation” for them.214

207 (Timothy Coombs & Holladay, 2011) 208 (Steiner, 2008) 209 (Nakatsu, Rauterberg, & Ciancarini, 2017) 210 (Castronova, 2008) 211 (Taylor, 2012, p. 179) 212 (Stewart & Misuraca, 2013) 213 (Ibid, p. 77, italics in the original) 214 (Petty & Andrews, 2008) 49

Examples that illustrate the connection between individuals’ practices and regulatory landscapes can also come from innovative practices in the context of the videogame industry. From well-known precedents such as the ones depicted by Dibbell (2006) when describing the practice of selling virtual items,215 to more recent examples in the context of ‘indie’—independent games—development, where Phillips emphasizes the need of an active “relationship between the indie development community, regulators, and policy-makers.”216 Other cases include micro-transactions when purchasing ‘loot boxes’,217 referred to as a “convergence of gambling and gaming [which involves] a new frontier in regulation, no matter the authority involved, be it government, industry, or individuals.”218 Because of the involvement of gambling or trading with items that have a pecuniary value through in-game interactions, these practices as a way to determine proper legislative frameworks to be ultimately applicable.219

Similarly, literature that analyses the eSports industry depicts the connection between individual practices and regulatory mechanisms. This can be exemplified generally by the many authors who identify a lack of formal and durable governing structures, which share a direct correlation with the role that stakeholders assume to regulate the practices contained in the industry.220 These issues affect the industry’s regulatory landscape on several levels. Chao, for example, suggests a model of governing the industry that would consider the practices of the different stakeholders that populate

215 (Dibbell, 2006) 216 (Phillips, 2015, p. 151) 217 A loot box is a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed for a random selection of other virtual items. These items might have real currency value and can be used to trade virtually or for other purposes, such as betting. 218 (Abarbanel, 2018; Allen, 2018) 219 (McCaffrey, 2019; Schwiddessen & Karius, 2018) 220 (Curley, Nausha, Slocum, & Lombardi, 2017; Freeman & Wohn, 2017) 50

the eSports ecosystem. According to this author, current governing structures—mostly taken from traditional sports—cannot offer a fair and just treatment for all the participants in the competitive landscape of eSports.221 This is due to several reasons, among which are the many organizational bodies involved in managing competitions, the recruitment practices of eSports professionals by local teams or practices related to the consumption of eSport content, which is broadcast mainly through Internet- based platforms. 222 The author concludes that “[t]he composition of professional esports […] comes from a diverse mix of actions, policies, and practices from a range of stakeholders like other game developers, tournament organizers, and broadcasters.”223 An independent body is therefore suggested to govern the ecosystem accordingly.224 Other authors suggest that the peculiar nature of the practices within the eSports industry cause several bodies to be in charge of its regulations. Aspects such as the performance of players or the role of the publishers225—i.e., the legal owner of the game used to compete—share a direct relation with developing the core regulation for professional practice and rationalization of its competitive environment.226

The literature also highlights the specific aspects of gambling in the eSports industry.

In particular, these practices are novel, there is a blurred line between eSports and gaming,227 and there are no traditional legal precedents to govern the space.228 The literature also focuses on harmful issues affecting the industry, such as corruption, and

221 (Chao, 2017) 222 (Chao, 2017, p. 754) 223 (Ibid, p. 761) 224 (Ibid) 225 To see an example of the relevance of a publisher in the eSports ecosystem, see chapter 6, subsection ‘Tournament organization’, Daisy’s interview. 226 (Bayliss, 2016; Rosell Llorens, 2017, p. 470) 227 (Macey & Hamari, 2019) 228 (McLeod, 2017) 51

the practical problems in applying or enforcing the law to practices taking place in skin229 casinos and skin and real currency in eSports.230 Similarly, there is yet no official organization for arbitration on doping or bribing cases involving eSports companies, such as eSports broadcasters, monopolizing dispute resolution procedures, or overturning tournament rules.231

Therefore, the literature presented in this section indicates that stakeholders, be they entire companies in either industry or the individuals that work in them, are in touch with rules and regulations according to their localized practices. Based on these situated activities, they have developed their own practices and legal frameworks, which co-evolve together with those laid out by national governments. These practices should be taken seriously and discussed since they are highly relevant and effectively constitute the prevailing way the Internet is governed. For this very reason, they should be included fully into Internet Governance.232

2.3.3. Development of policies and the legal framework for videogame and eSports industries The issue of creation and the study of policies for videogames shares a close relationship with their practices. The literature related to policy development for the videogame industry is mostly focused on issues derived from the common fields in which videogames are discussed. These include domains such as studying videogames

229 For an example of skin betting, see chapter 6, subsection ‘Other practices surrounding eSports, the case of online betting’. 230 (Holden et al., 2017, p. 256) 231 (Abarbanel & Johnson, 2018; Stivers, 2017) 232 To see the array of methodologies that this approach guides, check chapter 3, subsection ‘The study of Internet Governance through practices’. 52

as cultural and ideological objects,233 videogames and education,234 children and youth exposure to violent games, 235 and the interrelatedness between videogames, gambling, 236 and addiction. 237 Similarly, eSports literature follows similar steps related to the topics normally covered, such as the rise of the industry238 or the legal implications from traditional law enforcement derived from this.239

The literature related to the regulatory aspects of the videogame industry tends to follow the institutionalization in countries where the industry is mature, such as the

USA, 240 the UK, 241 and South Korea. 242 The literature also discusses the implementation effects of certain policies that take place in politically delimited regions, such as the EU.243 Finally, technical manuals reflect particular aspects such as legal analysis of the industry 244 or delving into the increasing complexity of the videogame industry to consider issues such as technical communication.245

Few works, therefore, address the issues related to regulatory practices in either the global videogame or eSports industries. Conway and deWinter are one exception, having introduced a set of case studies doing so. 246 These authors and their contributors support that socio-economics localized power relationships that influence

233 (Bogost, 2006) 234 (Clements & Sarama, 2003; Ke, 2011) 235 (Dowd, Singer, & Wilson, 2006, p. 225; Drotner & Livingstone, 2008, p. 475; Zillmann, Bryant, & Huston, 2013, p. 3) 236 (Derevensky, Gupta, & Magoon, 2004) 237 (Van Rooij, Meerkerk, Schoenmakers, Griffiths, & Van de Mheen, 2010) 238(Parshakov & Zavertiaeva, 2015) 239 (Holden et al., 2017) 240 (Bogost, 2015) 241 (Oakley, 2006) 242 (Jenny, Manning, Keiper, & Olrich, 2017; Seo, 2016) 243 (Erickson & Dewey, 2011) 244 (Boyd et al., 2018) 245 (Moeller, 2016) 246 (Conway, 2015) 53

production, distribution, and consumption have to be accounted for when analyzing the videogame industry. 247 This work is built on the premise of the progressive involvement of corporations in other social aspects rather than those strictly related to their supply of goods or services. By doing so on a global scale, they challenge the

(usually national) institutional apparatuses of governance. 248 This, emphasizes the usability of analyzing business practices and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) from a political perspective, thus seeing corporations as political actors.249 Companies then create mechanisms of governance not only by traditional means, such as lobbying

250 but also by filling “regulatory gaps created by weak political standards in global governance, thus taking over a wide range of roles and services that traditionally have been associated with the nation-state.”251 CSR practices follow different purposes, such as countering public sentiment against a company, building a positive reputation, or increasing the legitimacy of the company to ultimately attain long-term prosperity. 252 Accordingly, it is here where the importance of this study lies in explaining how the governance of the Internet works—namely, in the analysis of individual practices and individuals’ understating of the regulatory frameworks they interact with.253

247 (Conway, 2015; Kerr, 2017) 248 (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007) 249 (Néron, 2010, 2013; Whelan, 2012) 250 (Kerr, 2017, p. 145) 251 (Conway, 2015, p. 176, quoting Knill and Lehmkuhl, 2002) 252 (Yousafzai, Hussain, & Griffiths, 2014) 253 For examples of disparity between companies’ practices and application of laws bounded to countries, please see chapter 5, subsection ‘Practices for videogames industry. Mosaic of norms between company and players’. 54

3. Methodology

“… [Internet] domains –which cannot be understood as embedded in domains-, can be identified only through the “stories” which are associated with them, with discourse, identifying the “insiders” as those who belong to networks, their roles and identities, and by implication outsiders.”254

This chapter details the methodological stance that guides this project. It begins with a justification of my general positioning toward qualitative methodology. A presentation of the sociological theories that are articulated in the study follows. These theories will be presented and related epistemologically and ontologically with the research gap. The third section offers an in-depth overview of the methodologies selected to gather the necessary data during the fieldwork, as well as the conceptualization and theoretical framework associated with those. The last section offers both an introduction to the companies and the outcomes of the fieldwork.

3.1. Qualitative methodology and Internet research Markham and Baym foreground four central issues concerning qualitative research and the Internet—namely, media convergence, mediated identities, the redefinition of social boundaries, and the transcendence of geographical boundaries.255 Each of these issues must be considered when identifying research objects, engaging with research fields, and designing, and conducting a qualitative inquiry ino contemporary social life. 256 From a methodological perspective, this has also to be identified when

254 (Knox et al., 2006, p. 128) 255 (Markham & Baym, 2008, p. xi) 256 (Ibid) 55

conducting research on the Internet—namely, the lack of temporal and physical boundaries and a clear effect on “shifting the subjects of inquiry”.257 It is thus crucial to frame the practice in space and time in any research involving the Internet and everyday practices where subjects are depicted.258, an aspect otherwise overlooked in purely quantitative methodological contexts. 259 Researchers must therefore be attentive to the particularities of Internet research prior to conducting fieldwork. Even still, these priors will only ever serve as a basic reference ‘to know the ground’ of the field in which the research will develop.

Two additional points arise. First, as the reader will identify in this chapter, I draw heavily through the chapter on the work of Flick concerning the salience of methodological plurality in qualitative research on the Internet. Thus, “rather than relying upon interviews, which is by far the most common qualitative method, researchers should consider other methods including group discussions, written and video diaries, ethnography […], etc.”260

Second, as a work of qualitative research, the present study is structured by certain epistemological and methodological priors. Certain implications follow, since

“qualitative research is not based on a singular theoretical program, but draws on several theoretical backgrounds.”261 All qualitative research rests on the assumption of that reality is socially constructed, in “that people, institutions and interactions are involved in producing the realities in which they live or occur and that these productive

257 (Markham & Baym, 2008) 258 (Kalekin-Fishman, 2013, p. 724) 259 (Lévi-Strauss, 1978) 260 (Flick, 2013, p. 596) 261 (Flick, 2007, p. 12) 56

efforts are based on processes of meaning-making.”262 In attempting to understand these processes and the contexts263 in which they are situated, qualitative scholars

“should start from reconstructing how people, institutions and communications construct their worlds or social reality in our research.”264

3.2. Studying Internet Governance through practices This first section of the chapter details the sociological framework underpinning the research. The approach has been selected in line with the specific research questions posed and the setting in which the research has been conducted. As laid out in chapter

2, foregrounding individual practices is essential in any comprehensive analysis of

Internet Governance. The two approaches that my framework rests on— Theories of

Practice and Dialogism—prioritize this aspect, but helpfully acknowledge the limitations in applying a set of theoretical taxonomies to this field. This helped me to adopt a more open-minded perception of my fieldwork, which, in turn, made it easier to access my participants. Throughout the fieldwork, I delved into my participants’ working experiences 265 and their daily practices—in so doing, I was constantly required to contextualize my interactions with them. As will be detailed further below, the practices my participants describe reflect a set of distinct understandings of the norms and regulations governing their interactions with the Internet. This will be later put in perspective to determine how the videogame and the eSports industries are governed.

262 (Flick, 2007) 263 (Freudenberger, 2008) 264 (Ibid, p. 13) 265 (North, 2016, p. 73) 57

More concretely, Theories of Practice, and Dialogism offer two crucial methodological advantages for the present research. First, both place much-needed emphasis on the relatedness between individual actors and the systems or contexts in which their practices are set. Second, they emphasize the positionality, and presence of the researcher vis-à-vis his or individual research participants and the fieldwork.266

Three grand sociological schools of thought have arisen to explain mechanisms, organization, origins, and changes within society. The first, Marxism, adopts a systemic–structural approach, while the second, Cynicism, adopts an individualistic one. In contrast, a third group of theories, Dialogism, considers the relationship between both individuals and society. This third group pays attention, firstly, to the processes that entitle any given researcher to theorize about other individuals or the study of society itself. Secondly, as mentioned, they foreground the role of the researcher—in terms of positionality and presence—operating in the research field.

In adopting Dialogism as a methodological ground, this work is positioned within the so-called ‘relational turn’ in sociology.267 This relational turn reflects the “meshing

[…of] disciplines [that] had to do with a deep critique of individualism and collectivism, culture and network apparently not being reducible to individual action or social structure.”268 Following the author’s review, practice perspective ‘surplus’ is directly reflected through this work in epistemologically, benefiting from a higher theoretical and methodological self-reflexivity.269

266 To see a detailed description and reflections of the different blueprints developed during my fieldwork, see chapter 4. 267 (Dépelteau & Powell, 2013b) 268 (Prandini, 2015) 269 (Fein, 2015, pp. pp. 98-105) 58

The theories selected for this research project belong to this third group. These include

Theories of Practice and Dialogism. One of the most important components that these schools of thought present is analysis of the dynamic relationship between individuals and the societal systems in which they are embedded.

The following two sections offer a more detailed explication of Theories of Practice and Dialogism and a thoroughgoing justification for their selection and application in the present research.

3.2.1. Theories of Practice and Dialogism Theories of Practice takes as its central focus the dynamic relationship or interaction between social beings and the systems in which they are embedded. Through the study of these relationships and an emphasis on agency, Theories of Practice also seek to provide an alternative approach that moves away from the structuralist and individualist sociological approaches.270

Pierre Bourdieu has been a leading scholar in this sociological approach. Much of his work revolves around the concept of habitus, which he defines as:

“Systems of durable, transposable dispositions […] principles which generate and

organize practices and representations conscious aiming at ends or an express

mastery of the operations necessary in order to attain them”.271

270 (Mills, Durepos, & Wiebe, 2010) 271 (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 53) 59

Bourdieu further refines his definition of this concept by adding that the “practical world that is constituted in the relationship with the habitus, [that acts] as a system of cognitive and motivating structures, is a world of already realized ends, procedures to follow, paths to take”.272 From this perspective, habitus therefore constitutes a system of conditioning. This ‘system’ is not forced upon the subjects but is rather adopted by them. This is because subjects share certain practices and past experiences that prompt them to assume a certain reality as their own; its influence on the way they behave thus becomes conditioned as ‘natural’ to them. This process ends up as a “simple mechanical reproduction of the original conditioning”.273 In this regard, Bourdieu asserts, sociology mistakenly treats subjects “identical [to] all biological individuals who, being the products of the same objective condition, have the same habitus”.274

In Science of Science and Reflexivity, Bourdieu goes one step further, asserting that

‘truth’ is, in fact, a non-deterministic concept, and that, social sciences are, in essence, a “social construction of a social construction”.275 In that sense, sociology “cannot hope for the unanimous recognition enjoyed by the natural sciences”. 276 Having clarified this point, he consequently demands a form of “epistemological vigilance, the very form that this vigilance must take in an area where the epistemological obstacles are first and foremost social obstacles”277 Bourdieu, therefore, considers a process of dialogue between the researched and the researcher to be essential. Here, the

272 (Bourdieu, 1990) 273 (Ibid, p. 55) 274 (Ibid, p. 59) 275 (Bourdieu, 2004, p. 88) 276 (Bourdieu, 2004) 277 (Ibid, p. 89) 60

researcher is enjoined to be vigilant to the own habitus that he or she brings to the field, together with those of the research participants.278

Echoing Bourdieu here, Mark Hobart offers a robust critique of the process of abstraction that the culture is subjected to within the disciplinary “elitist field of anthropology.”279 This process, he argues, overlooks the lived perspective of those individuals the researcher involves in his or her research and thus reflects a profound, and troubling, ethnocentric projection of the researcher’s own perspective.280 In so doing, it is the researcher’s own culturally derived assumptions and presuppositions that will underpin the frame of rational discussion between researcher and participant.

This is, in fact, an issue that the researcher must address and study in “[his or her] own terms”.281 Nevertheless, creating this critical awareness is a continuous procedure for the researcher, producing thus a ceaseless critical engagement with ‘normality’. This serves as an input for the researcher’s presuppositions during all of his or her interactions in the field. This last element distinguishes the reflexive approach from perspectives such as symbolic interactionism, for example.282 The only suggested method to produce this reflexive engagement is constant critique of one’s own perspectives—and, for that matter, the ways in which a particular discipline is approached—namely, by “exploring the extent to which social life is analyzable as a congeries of practices”.283

278 (Bourdieu, 2004, p. 100) 279 (Hobart, 2000, p. 10) 280 (Ibid) 281 (Ibid, p. 40) 282 (Ibid) 283 (Hobart, 2000, p. 52) 61

In short, Bourdieu, and Hobart—as well as Paulo Freire, who has described his own role as research as a facilitator between oppressors and the oppressed284—call for constant self-reflection by the social science researcher. Researchers must remain conscious of their biases in the field and consider the normality of the people they study—and how both change within a continuous process of interaction. An extension of this procedure includes the ability of the researcher to criticize the social condition of academia and the limits of academic thinking more generally.

The other school of thought adopted in this research is Dialogism. Its origins lie in

Russian Formalism, an influential school of literary criticism in Russia between the

1910s and the 1930s. Authors within this broad school revolutionized literary criticism by establishing the priority and autonomy of poetic language in the study of literature.

At the same time, they detached literary analysis from traditionalist approaches, which emphasized interpretative factors such as ideological components, historical interest or as the reflection of the author's mentality. Russian Formalism made the literary text and the artistic strategies of the author the focus of study. The result is an appreciation for the creative act itself.285

One of the prominent authors deeply influenced by this movement was Mikhail

Bakhtin. His conception of Dialogism moves away from any structural approach by paying attention to the contextualized act of communication. As Bakhtin observes,

“language is realized in the form of concrete utterances [oral and written] by participating in the various areas of human activity.”286 The essence of this perspective

284 (Freire, 1970) 285 (Mills et al., 2010) 286 (Holquist & Emerson, 1986, p. 60) 62

is seen when the author categorizes what constitutes these utterances—namely, what he refers to as addressivity.287 This factor involves a particular context, both for author, and addressee, as opposed to the distinctive signifying units of the language from

Structuralism.288 Bakhtin highlights, therefore, the need to consider the context of both actors; their relationship is a continuous process of foreseeing and anticipation, which creates a circle of interaction that is characterized by a constant trajectory of evolution and change.289

In essence, the author stands for a “stylistic analysis that embraces all aspects of style

[which] is only possible by analyzing the whole utterance”.290 Bakhtin opts in favor of sequential analysis, both for temporal, and spatial dimensions, rather than of a single, isolated speech without a context.291

Caryl Emerson interprets Bakhtin’s approach within the setting of the researcher’s fieldwork, by transmitting the need to internalize the dialogues of our interlocutors as the right means to better know ourselves. 292 This process ultimately allows the researcher to build an identity in the field, achieving a ‘wholeness’ that allows him or her to “become an outsider equipped with some—not all, but some—insider skills” necessary to adequately do research.293

287 (Holquist & Emerson, 1986, p. 95) 288 (Ibid) 289 (Ibid) 290 (Ibid, p. 100) 291 (Richardson, 2002, p. 16) 292 (Emerson, 1996, p. 2) 293 (Emerson, 1996; Herold, 2000) 63

3.2.2. Theories of practice and Internet Governance of videogames and eSports Drawing on the aforementioned theories, the analysis of Internet Governance of the videogames and eSports industries examines the practices of the actors together with the norms and regulations that are set in their ecosystem. Furthermore, the researcher must consider the environment of the actors who interact with their participants (i.e. professional eSports practitioners and the publishers who provide the actual games for the competitions). This approach moves away from a pure abstraction of cultural practices, which falls subsequently into a systematic taxonomy.

This approach thus foregrounds the specific interactions between the researcher and his or her research participants. The interactions, in this case, reflect the specific way the researcher engages with the field and interprets the data obtained from it, encompassing idiosyncrasies associated with both the time and the spatial setting of those interactions. A last critical area of concern is the stance of the researcher in what is sometimes regarded as the elitist sphere of academia. The above-described habitus of the researcher (i.e., what he or she regards as ‘normal’) and of the participants is a matter of concern and thus must be addressed through the course of the researcher’s work.

64

3.2.3. Dialogism and the Internet Governance of e-gaming For this study, the approach coming from Dialogism implies an analysis of the different groups of participants that I intend to address. In this context, Dialogism addresses the participants in a unique and distinctive way, tracing the outcomes of the study as both derived from the researcher and ‘his’ participants in a constant, dynamic evolution. Dialogism categorizes the outcome of the fieldwork considering, firstly, the development of the relationship between researcher and participants. This procedure tackles how particular experiences during the fieldwork change and shape not only the process of self-reflexivity of the researcher but also the progressive interaction between researcher and the research participants. A second sphere that Dialogism addresses are context-dependent variables that affect that situation in time and the space in which the fieldwork is conducted. These two abstract points are, indeed, reflected in this work in several aspects, including the particular strategy deployed to approach certain groups of participants and the distinct way in which the semi- structured interviews unfolded.294

It goes without saying that some universal and unchanging model of Internet

Governance is improbable. This applies to the online world generally, as well as to the videogames and eSports industries, which are the case studies for the present research.

Such a universal, unchanging model would only apply if the two investigations shared a historical condition of subjects, time, and space. Likewise, the reliability of the results should be replicable by the same author.

294 For examples of these of these two tenets of Dialogism, please check chapter 4, subsection ‘Approaching the professional’ and ‘Tackling the filed from within: eSports professionals’. 65

Since the researcher must be personally involved and committed to their positions at any given time, they are carefully aware of their own choices, for this will be how they can justify each of them and adequately convey the meaning of their findings. This

‘unique’ position will be challenged eventually, imposing a disciplinary taxonomy with underlying rules that would dictate how the governance for the Internet is or should be portrayed. According to Dialogism, the study of Internet Governance itself is dynamic, implying that the classical grounds where it is set—and by whom—are also dynamic and context-dependent.

3.3. Qualitative Network Analysis This section outlines the main methodology and intended analytical outcome of the fieldwork. I begin with a brief statement of the rationale for selecting this methodology.

Network research is regarded as an interdisciplinary field, and thus, its ‘holistic’ inclusion of paradigms has been largely criticized.295 Therefore, as argued by Löblich, and Rüdiger, the array of choices available must be narrowed in a way that identifies the adequate core both for the theory and the methodology. Qualitative approaches to network analysis share the notion that the interpretative reality of nature and social reality is being constructed, meaningful, and dynamic. 296 I also addresses the shortcoming of Social Network Analysis (SNA) by “[…] applying a micro-perspective instead of a macro perspective […] qualitative instead of quantitative methods, […] taking an insider instead of an outsider view […] [and considering] which formal and

295 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 197, quoting Law, 1992; Latour, 2005; Roldan Vera and Schupp, 2006, p. 408) 296 (Scott & Carrington, 2011, pp. 404-416) 66

informal networks exist in everyday working situations.”297 Similarly, this work takes the notion of approaches such as Actor Network Theory (ANT), thus “questions the notion that scientific facts or technological artefacts may be purely scientific and technical […] because all kinds of different forces and effects (social, political, financial, etc.) shape and construct these entities before they reach their ‘final’ form.”298 Nevertheless, it is necessary to point out that this work also leans toward

Qualitative Network Theory (QNT) because, which, differently from ANT, considers human agency as a central factor, and not the result of a patterned network. In the present case299

In short, Qualitative Network Analysis assumes that people and their social position cannot be reduced to an effect produced by a patterned network. It takes the conception of a reciprocal relationship between individuals and society as a basis, assuming that human action affects social structures and that action is guided by the meaning that actors attribute to objects and subjects in their environment.300 This last aspect is of crucial importance and thus warrants further epistemological and ontological discussion. Epistemologically, the present research rests on the assumption that much more valuable information can be found by contacting a professional with past or non- existing ties to the companies/industries that constitute the object of study.

Ontologically, this work rests on the assumption that individuals are the valid unit of analysis to inquire how regulations work by examining their practices online.

297 (Ahrens, 2018, p. 1) 298 (Vicsek, Kiraly, & Konya, 2016, pp. 79-80) 299 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 198) 300 (Fuchs, 2009; Giddens, 1984) 67

As presented before, the selection of QNT over SNA is reflected both epistemologically and ontologically in this work, by pointing out that the figure of a professional provides a conspicuously better way to capture data and identify how IG works in practice.301

Finally, Qualitative Network Analysis is partly positioned in the relational turn presented earlier by considering it the basis of the analysis within Social Network

Analysis, by sharing the common ground of analysis of the ‘social relations’ between individuals and their networks. 302

Nevertheless, I flesh out the possibilities of applying QNT to the context of the study.

Because of this, this work moves away from the relational turn, which it is associated with SNA and not with QNT.303 In a similar vein, this work moves away from the relational turn because of its emphasis and representativeness of practices as a way to determine how the governance of the Internet work in practice. As noted by Fein: “Due to their focus and epistemology, […] [practices] better describe and analyse the complexity of social action than more traditional individualistic or institutional approaches.”304 Furthermore, this thesis follows the meta-discourse turn contained in the practice turn, not only by rejecting the inclusion of a discipline, but also by considering several fields from the analysis of the practices included in the scope of this work. This approach is characteristic of authors that do “not restrict their scope to science studies […] [and who have] considered also human and social science. […]

[T]he concept of practice [is] systematically explored, as [is] also the relevance of the

301 (Dépelteau & Powell, 2013a) 302 (Fuhse, 2013) 303 (Vicsek et al., 2016, p. 90) 304 (Fein, 2015, p. 93) 68

label ‘practice turn’, and definitions of ‘practice’ [which] were confronted to the contents of bottom-up analyses.” 305 Paraphrasing Jean-Michel’s work, the thesis suggests an aversion for boundary concepts such as ‘co-production’ and ‘co- construction’. Although he explicitly refers to Science and Technology Studies, this work mirrors a sense of unity in hybridity, by considering multiple disciplines with such analysis.306

3.3.1. Conceptual framework

3.3.1.1. Network The very first trait that differentiates Qualitative Network Analysis from tangential approaches is the narrowing of the sense of ‘network’. In our context, it differs from applications such as ‘policy network’—focusing on the links and interdependencies between the various parts of the government and other societal actors307—and ‘policy community’, which is composed of [interdependent] specialists with similar interest in a given policy area.308 Differently, the concept conveys the meaning of “different types of empirically possible patterns of interaction among public and private actors.”309 This embraces individuals, collective, and corporate actors, which organize, and reorganize themselves to achieve their interests.310

305 (Soler, Zwart, Lynch, & Israel-Jost, 2014, p. 60) 306 (Ibid, p. 98) 307 (Rhodes, 2006) 308 (Herweg, 2013, p. 4, quoting Kingdon, 1984, p. 123) 309 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 199, quoting Kenis and Raab, 2008, p. 132) 310 (Castells, 2013, p. 20) 69

Similarly, the assumptions in terms of “structural outcome”311 and the opportunities and constraints derived from a given composition of actors’ relations in a structure are also considered for this work.312

Transposing these two assumptions in the context of this study, the first is related to the negotiation, adaptation, and operationalization of a company in a particular structure of governance for the Internet that already exists for a region. The second assumption refers to the outcome derived from the presence of that business in a particular region. This fact involves not only aspects related to its pecuniary sense— i.e., being profitable—but also in terms of acceptance and popularity in a region.

3.3.1.2. Actors Although the immediate units of analysis are businesses or corporations, the unique characterization of Qualitative Network Analysis is the consideration of individual actors. Individual actors have to be studied in their function as representatives of their organizations, and they are also objects of study because institutional rules will generally not completely determine the orientation of an individual’s action. 313 They will, alternatively, leave room for individual interest and orientation; hence subjectivity of relational structures has to be considered.314 The basic premise behind this assertion is that “actors tend to be selective and strategic when making resource investments and treat each actor anticipating the strategies of the other actors when

311 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 199, quoting Jansen and Wald, 2007, p. 193) 312 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 199, quoting Christopoulos, 2008, p. 476) 313 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 200) 314 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 200, quoting Rhodes, 2007, p. 1252) 70

choosing his or her options.”315 This is also important to keep a coherence for the overall backbone argument of this chapter.

3.3.1.3. Relations The first trait that defines the concept of relations within the context of Qualitative

Network Analysis is the distinct pattern of interdependence.316 Within this relational ecosystem, information, and communication play a key role in determining outcomes between the agents and the process of interaction, which can be positive, or negative and vary in intensity. 317 This definition captures the most salient dimensions to consider when applying the analytical framework in practice. More concretely, as Just and Puppis observe: “Actors occupy different positions: they are connected to each other by ties of different strength and symmetrical or asymmetrical relation […] [the] ties are often formed with actors who share similar social contexts and values. Often, they produce solidarity and trust, but they also tend to involve negative effects, such as social pressure and obstacles to adaptation.”318

The key elements in analyzing the relational dynamics are as follows: the singularity of each actor’s position, his, or her ability to cooperate with competitors and the variety and distance of their relations. Based on these parameters, it is crucial to note that the degree of status and resources—not to mention capacity to influence others—can vary considerably from one actor to another.319 Other aspects—such the concentration and distribution of power through the network—and shifts in its structure and in the

315 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 200, quoting Christopoulos, 2008, p. 477; Schneider and Janning, 2006, p. 117) 316 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 200, quoting Wasserman and Faust, 2008, p. 4) 317 (Ibid) 318 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 201) 319 (Ibid, p. 199) 71

structure of media and societal contexts, must be considered before the qualitative analysis of the network can proceed.320

The concept of ‘network relation’ is deployed according to several different senses through the present research. For instance, when analyzing peer-to-peer agreements, the relations are contextualized according to a set of salient aspects, notably culture,321 as well as the existing power relationships and the tradeoffs facing any eSports professional or company in navigating the network. Such contextual factors in relations affect their evolution, and the particular agreements, and the regulatory framework that is applied to them.

3.3.2. Research method Starting as an interdisciplinary—but purely quantitative—discipline, qualitative scientists rapidly turned to it in their research, especially after it became clear that it could be applied very effectively in a behaviorist framework—i.e., for research questions that foreground the role of social context.322 Alongside this methodological opening up of the discipline, there was a shift in the focus of analysis, from discrete data on social relations to the so-called “relational analysis of data”.323 The latter focuses on the patterning of relations, while the first approach seeks out evidence of structural equivalence of network members.324 This approach intends to cover the dynamics of ties and relations which are crucial for Social Network Analysis, leaving the outcome of any decision at a secondary level of analysis.325

320 (Ibid) 321 (North, 2016, p. 73) 322 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 202, quoting Wasserman et al., 2005, p. 1) 323 (Ibid) 324 (Ibid) 325 (Tsatsou, 2014, p. 181) 72

It is my intention to shed light on aspects that quantitative Social Network Analysis does not cover, based predominantly on structural data about the relationships and linkages between actors. 326 Similarly, I look into how particular actors interpret societal and business contexts based on “their subjective perception, their knowledge, and their values”.327

3.3.3. Research strategy Theoretically speaking, Qualitative Network Analysis “intend[s] to overcome the absence of adequate connections between theoretical concepts and methodological operationalization.”328 Thus, I am following these principles to guide the techniques that are to be implemented in the field.329 The three principles that are most salient in network theory are actors, the relation between actors, and the context of the network.330

Qualitative Network Analysis takes as a basic component the actor and his or her various levels of relations.331 I intend to unveil the interfaces that surround an actor or group of actors in a particular region. This might depend, entirely or partially, on the business units332 or any other formally organized structure that my participants belong, or once belonged, to when describing their practices. Nevertheless, the main aim of the qualitative analysis undertaken here is to detail “the maximum variation in the

326 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 203, quoting Saunders, 2007, p. 233) 327 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 203) 328 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 204, quoting Adam and Kriesi, 2007, p. 147) 329 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 204, quoting Löblich, 2008) 330 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 205) 331 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 206, quoting Wasserman and Faust, 2008, pp. 35-39) 332 Business unit is referred as an element or segment of a company, with a specific function and clear representation under a chart. 73

sample until ‘theoretical saturation’ is achieved”333, both in terms of concepts and ideas.334

In practice, this is operationalized by understanding the different layers of regulations that companies, players, and eSports professionals have to account for through their online practices. These include the localization of their companies’ global presence, aspects that share a common ground and localized practices, as well as the stakeholders that they have to interact with to operationalize their actions. Another example is the relationships that eSports professionals share with their immediate environment in order to develop their activities professionally.

3.4. Qualitative tools

3.4.1. Semi-structured interviews Among the array of choices that qualitative researchers have at their disposal, several techniques stand out as most appropriate for specific kinds of participant samples. In this research, I adopted the semi-structured interview as one of my principal methods based on the kind of data I was seeking. Qualitative interviews are defined as the

‘backbone’ of qualitative research, 335 their purpose being to obtain “detailed information, in the form of narrative or “stories”—understood as chronicles or accounts—of people’s experiences.”336 Given, as detailed above, a key objective of the present research is to develop a robust understanding of my participants' experiences, and their roles, and strategies in the contexts of the videogame and

333 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 206, quoting Baumgarten and Lahusen, 2006, p. 190; Cresswell, 2007, p. 160) 334 (Gray & Nikolakakos, 2007) 335 (I-TECH, 2008) 336 (Flick, 2007, p. 1) 74

eSports industries, the semi-structured interview method is the most appropriate.

Following Britten, the purpose of qualitative data collection is to “discover the interviewee’s own framework of meanings.”337 Overall, this technique requires that

“the interviewer has an objective and a plan for collecting the intended information”.338

Besides, the subtle particularities –or sensitivities–of the context where the professional activity is developed, might escape the formal, visible, and hierarchical sphere of the company where the daily activities are set.339

Another reason behind my choice of semi-structured interviews relies on the fact that this method is indeed considered adequate to “unravel complicated event and events that evolve over time”340 and to “ascertain the meaning of actions and experiences and the sentiments underlying expressed opinions.”341 In short, what I intended to deal with is the fluctuating nature and differential traits of my participants.

3.4.2. Document analysis I also triangulated the information gathered via semi-structured interviews with analysis of documents, the latter being used to establish relational data, prior to, and during the fieldwork. I drew on the archival record and documents and also participant observation.342 The choosing of additional techniques aimed first and foremost to increase triangulation between theory and the relevant information gathered during the fieldwork, as well as specific aspects before it was carried out. Document analysis is

337 (Britten, 1995, p. 282) 338 (I-TECH, 2008, p. 1), (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 208) 339 (Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993) 340 (Bates, Droste, Cuba, & Swingle, 2007, p. 4) 341 (Bates et al., 2007, p. 4) 342 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 208) 75

defined as “a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents”,343 and includes a variety of methods.344 In terms of objectives, document analysis aims to

“elicit meaning, gain understanding, and develop empirical knowledge”. 345 To exemplify this in my context, I utilized document analysis to complement the themes and issues that emerged during the semi-structured interviews. Doing so provided necessary additional information to aid my understanding of the particular social facts influencing the participants’ practices and their localized frameworks.

Participant observation is a standard approach in qualitative research settings346 and is commonly applied.347 In the present research, I used it to unravel current and past factors that have directly or tangentially affected a given company—its competitors, strategies of product release, showcases, etc. Bringing these up in interviews allowed me to capture, for example, how a company coped with a competitive shift or a challenging product release.

3.4.3. Ethnography and autoethnography The third and fourth methods used to gather data for this study are ethnographic and autoethnographic accounts. Throughout the work, I adopt Flick’s understanding of ethnography, as follows: “[I]n its most characteristic form, [ethnography] involves the ethnographer participating, overtly or covertly, in people’s daily lives for an extended period of time, watching what happens, listening to what is said, asking questions—in

343 (Bowen, 2009, p. 27) 344 (Ibid) 345 (Ibid, p. 28) 346 (Delamont, 2004, p. 206) 347 (Atkinson, Hammersley, Denzin, & Lincoln, 1994, pp. 248-249) 76

fact, collecting whatever data are available to throw light on the issues that are the focus of the research.”348

Flick elaborates further, noting that “observation and participation are interwoven with other procedures”.349 The “other procedures” he mentions have been in large part adopted in the present research also through my own ethnographical accounts in the field, which are described tangentially in chapter 4 and fully in chapter 6. To summarize briefly here:350

• A strong emphasis on exploring the nature of a particular social phenomenon,

rather than setting out to test hypotheses about them.

• A tendency to work primarily with "unstructured" data: that is, data that have

not been coded at the point of data collection in terms of a closed set of analytic

categories.

• Investigation of a small number of cases, perhaps just one case, in detail.

• Analysis of data that involves explicit interpretation of the meanings and

functions of human actions, the product of which mainly takes the form of

verbal descriptions and explanations, with quantification, and statistical

analysis playing a subordinate role at most.

Finally, I am also using autoethnographic accounts as a tool to understand my participants better. In that sense, I drew on the method as a catalyst to enhance my own self-reflexivity. More concretely, in the present research autoethnography is understood as “a form or method of research that involves self-observation and

348 (Flick, 2009, p. 233, quoting Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995, p. 1) 349 (Ibid) 350 (Flick, 2009, p. 233, quoting Atkinson and Hammersley, 1998, pp. 110-111) 77

reflexive investigation in the context of ethnographic field work and writing.”351 It is, further, a “reflexive accounting of the narrator’s subjective experience and subjectivity

[autobiographical writing with an ethnographic interest].” 352 Moreover, the data captured via this method will generally reflect the intended analytical features. In other words, the “[r]esearchers’ own feelings and experiences [are] included in the ethnographic narrative, made visible, and regarded as important data for understanding the social world observed, yielding both self-, and social knowledge.”353

3.5. Validity Several techniques have been deployed to guarantee the validity and reliability of the data collected and the findings made in the present research. For example, self- reflexivity and negative case sampling354 were introduced as the fieldwork progressed.

Here, I directly asked participants, or analyzed secondary literature to compare my participants’ statements. I maximized the consistency of my data by increasing the variety of participants interviewed separately for that purpose. 355 Similarly, the meaning of the information that they conveyed was clarified during the interviews.

The data so collected was further tested through triangulation with complementary techniques, such as document analysis, and ethnographical accounts. 356 The theoretical framework proposed for this work has been continually tested and compared against the data to achieve theoretical validity.357 In the case of external validity, this was achieved via triangulation and theoretical saturation.358

351 (Mills et al., 2010, p. 43) 352 (Mills et al., 2010) 353 (Ibid) 354 (R. B. Johnson, 1997, p. 283) 355 (Freudenberger, 2008, p. 17) 356 (Ibid, p. 61) 357 (R. B. Johnson, 1997, p. 283) 358 (R. B. Johnson, 1997, p. 287, quoting Cook and Campbell, 1979) 78

Potential issues arising during interviews were overcome either by triangulating the information gathered from several participants or by reaching theoretical saturation.

For issues concerning the reliability of the data directly,359 I adopted several strategies to both gain participants’ trust and to get to know them better,360 all of which improved the quality of the information gathered.361 I adopted the approach that Flick refers to as “production of the data [which] becomes one starting point forejudging validity [of the information], and the presentation of phenomena and of the inferences drawn from them, [which] becomes another [source of validity].”362 Similarly, I deployed methods such as participant observation and informal conversations, which were focused on participants’ actions and accounts situated in their everyday contexts. This approach contrasts situations in which the researcher him or herself “sets” the context for the data collection, such as close-answer questionnaires, and experimental setups.363

3.6. Outcomes of the fieldwork The present section offers a detailed introduction to the fieldwork and how it developed as well as preliminary findings. Other relevant aspects pertaining to my impressions of the field, and my role as a researcher in the context of the different strategies deployed, will be detailed further in chapter 4.

359 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 210, quoting Kvale and Brinkman, 2009, p. 249; Cresswell, 2007, p. 207ff) 360 (R. B. Johnson, 1997, p. 288) 361 These strategies are detailed further from an auto ethnographical perspective on chapter 4. 362 (Flick, 2009, p. 283) 363 (Hammersley, 2007) 79

3.6.1. Sampling and network boundaries During the fieldwork, two important issues concerning sampling boundaries—namely, which participants to include in my sample—arose. Firstly, one option—drawing the sample from pre-defined professional roles— proved unsatisfactory. I quickly determined that this approach would offer little in the way of principled ways to define the sample and would compromise data gathering. In the end, I thus elected to limit the application of this approach. Thus, job titles like “public relations manager” or

“country manager” remained secondary criteria when isolating the sample for the study of practices in the two industries.

The second issue concerns the definition of the sample boundaries themselves. Here, it proved judicious to adopt participants’ own understanding of the boundaries and membership of the respective professional network. This focus was crucial, allowing me to progressively expand my awareness of the composition of the interface surrounding a company or group of actors in a particular region. 364

To determine the network boundaries empirically, I drew on all the accessible information available prior to and during the initial stages of the fieldwork, including professional social media sites, such as LinkedIn, and eSports event venues, and online news sites. Following Merkens’ advice, I drew my initial pool of participants to include individuals with a leading role in defining daily practices those with extensive professional experience, typically across several companies. 365 This strategy eventually ascertains a natural “cap” to inclusion during the data interpretation,

364 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 207, quoting Lauman et al., 1989, pp. 64-67; Jansen, 2006, p. 72ff) 365 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 207) 80

whereby new units brought do not provide new data, reaching saturation in terms of information obtained from participants.366

3.6.2. The companies Two companies were prominent in the fieldwork conducted for the present research.

Nevertheless, the presentation is still selective—these two companies and their history by no means provide an exhaustive or comprehensive account of the industry. As will be described in chapter 4, companies constituted a background element in terms of access to participants in the field.367

The first firm is Blizzard Entertainment, a videogame publisher and developer based in the city of Irvine, in California in the United States. Blizzard rose to prominence in

1991, when, shortly after being founded, it started creating ports for other studios.

After that, the firm ventured into producing gaming software for other companies. In

1994, Blizzard launched its first hit game in the PC gaming industry—Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. After the success of this game, other titles, sequels, and expansions saw

Blizzard’s international reputation grow, to the level it is today as a leading industry player. Blizzard has three major franchises: the role-playing game Diablo, and the real- time strategy games Warcraft and StarCraft. Each of these franchises sits in an ecosystem of associated media, ranging from collectibles to novels and movies.

Other popular titles from Blizzard include World of Warcraft, a Massive Multiplayer

Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG) that holds the Guinness World Record for the

366 (Just & Puppis, 2012) 367 For more details, see chapter 3, subsection ‘The underlying paradigm: fluidity in context.’ 81

most subscribers. Other recent releases include the online card game Hearthstone, the online competitive first-person shooter game Overwatch and the Multiplayer Online

Battle Arena (MOBA) title Heroes of the Storm. Together with this suite of offers,

Blizzard owns the online playing service Battle.net, launched in 1997 with the release of the first title in the Diablo franchise.368 Besides its Irvine, California headquarters,

Blizzard has international offices around the globe, including in Madrid and Shanghai, and has more than four thousand employees worldwide.369

Riot Games is a videogame developer, publisher, and an eSports event organizer also based in California in the United States. Its story starts in 2006 when it began as an independent game developer. Three years later, in 2009, the firm launched its first and most famous title to date, League of Legends (Lol). Lol is a free-to-play,370 MOBA game, supported by micro-transactions. Since its release, Riot Games has continued to expand internationally, using that title as the main asset. The firm is heavily involved in coordinating and broadcasting competitive eSports events. It currently has offices around the globe, in locations such as Dublin, Berlin, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and

Tokyo.371

The company has around one thousand employees.372 The staff includes the designers of Defense of the Ancients (DotA), a game mode created by players using the graphic engine of one of Blizzard’s iconic titles, Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos and its expansion

368 (ActivisionBlizzard, 2017a) 369 (ActivisionBlizzard, 2017b) 370 Free-to-play (F2P) is a business model for online games the user or player is not charged to join the game, giving them the chance to get use to the mechanics of the game. The developers bring in revenue from advertisements or in-game sales, such as payment for upgrades, special abilities, special items, and expansion packs. Retreived from (Techopedia, 2018) 371 (RiotGames, 2017b) 372 (Snider, 2013) 82

Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne. Former Blizzard Entertainment employees work for

Riot Games today as well.

Riot Games has attracted a large pool of venture capital funding since its inception, including from Benchmark, and First Mark of the United States, together with the

Chinese technology company Tencent Holdings. Tencent bought a major stake in Riot

Games in 2011 373 and became the majority shareholder of the firm in 2016.374

Besides their international presence, one of the main reasons to showcase these two firms in particular here is the fact that both have faced long-running legal battles to operate in certain markets. Blizzard Entertainment, for example, had challenges accessing Mainland China, where the company agreed to partner with local firm

NetEase to bring several of its franchises to market.375 In 2007, Blizzard was sued by

Beijing University Founder Electronics, allegedly for copying without permission art design material from works by the latter.376 Other challenges include the marketing of some World of Warcraft expansions—the company had to remove skeletons from its game as a preventive measure to avoid antagonizing the Chinese Ministry of

Culture.377

3.6.3. Participant access and outcomes The participant sample included in this study comprises professionals from the videogame and the eSports industries. The methods of contacting the participants and

373 (RiotGames, 2011) 374 (Moser, 2015) 375 (NetEase, 2016) 376 (SinaNet, 2007 ) 377 (Custer, 2014) 83

collecting data from them varied according to the intra- and inter-group idiosyncrasies of the particular participant environments. The methods included social media and other multimedia.378

I recruited participants for interview via email or an invitation from a professional networking site, such as LinkedIn. I used one key criterion to find “key informants and specialized informants”379—namely, length of experience in either the videogame industry or eSports industries (or a combination of both). Sampling was aided in the initial stages of fieldwork through the ‘snowball’ technique, whereby participants are asked if they can refer a colleague to be contacted for an interview when they already know the ground of the study.

Each participant was sent a questionnaire guide alongside a set of documents detailing how I would ensure confidentiality, once they agreed to participate in the project. The purpose of this questionnaire guide was to introduce the potential topics that might be covered in interviews to prospective interviewees—nevertheless, it was left to the participant to ultimately decide what topic(s) they wanted to cover. Despite this broad- gauge approach, the questionnaires were customized for each participant, based on several criteria—such as their company of work or the market in which their daily practices took place. Transparency—in terms of the purpose of the contact, technicalities, the formal setting of the study, and the like—were guaranteed at all times to my participants.

378 (Flick, 2013) 379 (Bernard, 2011) 84

The questionnaires served to inform the interviewees rather than representing a closed- answer questionnaire. The main reason I kept this more open is that all my participants—although sharing professional knowledge related to the videogame or eSports industries—narrated a wide variety of different experiences based on 1) the companies where they worked; 2) their daily roster of work tasks and; 3) the regional division of the country in which they worked. A model of the questionnaire is shown in Figure 1.

85

Figure 1: Sample of a questionnaire

The first part of the interview sought to glean knowledge about the peculiarities of the participants’ professional experience and the roster of tasks obtaining in their current job. Since my participants differed by professional background, this way of beginning interviews offered a flexible way to establish the ontological grounds of the ensuing discussion (i.e. what constitutes a defined ‘market’ for the participant or which issues are most salient drivers of the differential traits from ‘market’ or ‘region’ A, compared to ‘market’ or ‘region’ B). That led us to address, first, topics directly related to the rules and regulations that are (or were) part of their practices. Later on, they could elaborate on how they operationalize(d) these according to the tasks and responsibilities they had. A similar procedure was followed by professionals from the

87

eSports industry. Nevertheless, questions related to the functioning of the eSports industry were initially introduced in the questionnaires.

The contextualization of the interview was a necessary step to clarify meanings between my participants and myself. Likewise, a dynamic interaction was necessary to continuously identify relevant issues for the participant in the context of the research.

It is worth noting that most of my participants, once they agreed to be a part of the study, were never unable to share insights about a particular theme on account of disclosure limitations.380 That being said—and despite the fact that precautionary measures were taken at all times to guarantee the confidentiality and anonymity of my participants’ and their responses—a total of four participants declined to be a part of the project once the questionnaire was sent. They claimed they were legally bound by still valid disclosure agreements with their respective employers that would prevent them from offering detailed information about the themes within the questionnaire.

Another common reason was that they did not feel comfortable with the topics laid out in the guide.

In the end, 13 interviews were conducted—eight were face-to-face, and five via Skype.

Although it was specified that a face-to-face interview was the most desirable option, one participant answered the questionnaires provided only, while another one answered the questionnaire and agreed to conduct an interview afterward. In the case of face-to-face interviews, the locations were agreed beforehand with my participants

380 The factors described in chapter 4 aiming the creation of a ‘worry-free’ environment played a crucial role for this to happen. 88

at their convenience. The locations varied according to that criterion. In the case of former employees of ‘a’ or ‘several’ videogame companies, the interviews were set in informal environments, ranging from bars, cafes, or gaming events. For the two participants who were then working in the companies’ object of inquiry, the necessary arrangements were made in order to conduct the interviews in their respective main creative studios or offices.

In addressing issues of confidentiality, I have employed pseudonyms for all participants. This grants anonymity to them so they and their answers—such as about personal work history or the companies they had worked for—cannot be identified.

Alongside disclosing company names, I limit the detailed factual information here in the thesis to those points necessary to contextualize specific matters. This includes the country where a company is based on or the job that my participants were/are undertaking.

The methodology was accordingly adapted for the ethnographical part of the data collection. No interviews formed part of this process—the data I gathered was instead based on self-recorded videos and contemporaneous notes taken as soon as I had finished interacting with them. This approach was the most appropriate due to several factors, such as ethical issues derived from the age of some of my participants and the channels and strategies used to gain their trust, which ultimately affected the quality, veracity, and reliability of the information gathered during the field. All the formal details of my participants in this sample have been, in this case, deliberately concealed.

Only minimal information is revealed in chapters 4 through 6—namely, the most pertinent data collected from them.

89

In addressing difficulties associated with language and culture difference, various alternatives were considered, such as my own personal expertise and knowledge living abroad. The use of translation via written or other technologies was occasionally considered.381 In the case of the interviews, which were held in English, Spanish, and

Catalan, the original quotes taken from the interviews have been translated into

English [by me]. In cases where meanings of specific expressions in any other language than English need to be clarified in the quotes, an appropriate reference is provided.

The following table presents the list of participants I interviewed. The relevant information displayed includes gender, the pseudonym given during the research, current employment, their former companies, and the total years of experience working in one or both industries.

381 (W. J. Ferguson & Candib, 2002, p. 354, quoting Riddick, 1998) 90

Nationality Gender Pseudonym Current occupation Former company/ies Total years’ experience Spanish Female Patricia NA Electronic Arts 2 years

Spanish Male Dany Ubisoft, NA 20 years Communication & External Relations Manager Spanish Male Evan E-commerce NA* 4 years Production, Support & Operations Senior Manager at Scalefast Spanish Male Ludo Freelance translator Bandai Namco 15 years Spanish Male Sentry Development Disney, Electronic 10 years Manager/Project Arts Director British Male Normand Founder & Director– Blizzard 7 years WE ARE SEED Ltd

Spanish Female Myra Responsible of special ESL 5 years projects at Planta 18 Spanish Female Daisy Brand manager at ESL NA 2 years

Spanish Female Sharon Marketing specialist at Electronic Arts 3 years Amazon Spanish Female Selina Usability and UX (Use Nintendo, Square 20 years Experience) Enix, Blizzard researcher Spanish Female Annette Engagement Design Blizzard 3 years Expert–CEO and founder at PlayBenefit Gamification Australian Male Theme Technology, smart Nintendo 20 years sales solutions, and entertainment specialist Chinese Male Phil Cofounder at Mind Ubisoft 15 years Architect Portuguese Male Panteon NA Square Enix, Ubisoft 10 years

Figure 2: Table of participants

NA* stands for ‘Not Applicable/Confidential’

91

3.7. Data analysis Through the strategies presented above, I captured information in different formats, such as field notes, participant observations, voice, and video recordings, memos, pictures, and transcriptions.

After gathering the data, I first performed a cross-check with the assumptions derived from network theory. This iterative process reflected a continuous engagement with the participants, hence avoiding any issues arising from memory bias. This process also explored immediate and situational causes, consequences, and constraints of the practices they described. 382 After that, the statements were condensed, and paraphrased. In order to keep the coding process as open as possible, concept-driven, and data-driven processes were employed.383 Coding is defined as “winnowing out the great number of statements and text into a manageable set of themes.”384 By doing so,

I gained knowledge of the portraits of the individuals and their interfaces, these being analyzed under the different circumstances associated with the practices that they described. I then analyzed the interviews considering the context-dependent meanings of my participants’ accounts. 385 The criteria for classifying the practices that my participants described not only guided the information I introduced from the semi- structured interviews, but also the accounts I selected from the ethnography I conducted in the field.

A final point to highlight is the inductive approach taken in the data analysis. More concretely, by focusing on the narratives of my participants, I delved into issues related

382 (Freudenberger, 2008, pp. 60-61) 383 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 211) 384 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 211, quoting Cresswell, 2007, p. 153) 385 (Flick, 2013, p. 173) 92

to the responsibility and the jurisdiction that these practices are subject to, together with the actors associated with them. These points shed light on the role of stakeholder agency in the regulative environment of their practices. From a wider perspective, I analyzed the models of governance where the practices of my participants are set and how they navigate through these.

93

4. Autoethnographic accounts of the field

“I am super honest […] I can sit here and be politically correct and give you the information that I supposedly should give you […]. Now, what I want to be [is] sincere because in the end it is what I have lived and what I have had time to analyze ‘a posteriori’386 […] a view of the industry, things that I have seen and keeping a very important link with my former colleagues, so I think that in the end that is much more valid.”387

This chapter offers an in-depth perspective on the methods deployed in my fieldwork, drawing on various autoethnographic accounts. It is by unraveling the dialogical relationship between my participants and myself, that I attempt to fulfill the dual purpose of clarifying my own ontological and epistemological position during the fieldwork and for the study overall. In so doing, I will detail the reasoning behind the output of each of the strategies utilized in the field, an aspect directly relatable to the quality of the data captured.

The first section of this chapter highlights the methodological underpinnings of these strategies used in the field, contrasting each of them with the literature presented in chapter 3. The second, third, and fourth sections present these strategies in detail. The criterion followed to separate them reflects several factors, such as my different position as a researcher, as well as pragmatic details such as the contextualization of participant access and the settings of the interviews or informal conversations—ergo,

386 Emphasis given by the interviewee. 387 Myra’s interview, May 24th and May 27th, 2017. 94

the headlines. This exposition is followed by a section devoted to putting the key points into perspective, shedding light on the characteristics underpinning their eventual success or failure and elaborating on the logic that guided them. The chapter closes with a set of concluding remarks that tie together the main themes and findings.

4.1. The underlying paradigm: fluidity in context The traditionalist approaches to studying Internet Governance have focused mainly on the institutional framework underpinning its regulation and control during the first years of its existence.388

In my case, the institutional view was embedded in only one of the strategies presented.

In that regard, each of the paths pursued required a distinctive conceptualization of the field—from the primary unit of access, to the figure of the participant(s), and the entire process of contacting them and collecting data from them. In a departure from convention, I sought to capture the dialogical processes that characterized each blueprint in the field by analyzing the interactions with my participants. The findings offer much-needed insight into the fundamentals—i.e., the structural, and operational composition of the participants’ respective environments—be it the videogame or the eSports industry (or both).

From the three strategies undertaken, I was able to extract several common points pertaining to the epistemological and ontological grounds of the present study. First, in my case, normative frames were most effectively identified by considering the individual’s practices as a departing point. For this purpose, as laid out in chapter 2,

388 (Mager, 2018, p. 4) 95

Qualitative Network Analysis was the most effective approach to analyze the three salient key components of the networks under study in my participants’ localized environments—namely, the actor, the network, and the relations.389 This first thread allowed me to inquire about the relationship of the individual or group of individuals with their different set of normative frames—i.e., an employee as part of the department in a company, or a company as an actor within a localized market. Finally,

I could disentangle more complex issues associated with these relationships. These included, among others, the negotiation processes that my participants went through regarding or the degree of (in)compatibility between the various normative frames in which they work.

This reasoning further foregrounds the particular epistemological stance I adopted to study practices in the videogame industry. Overall, better results were obtained when

I focused on the dynamism and fluidity of the people working in the industry and not solely on the companies within it. The access node of the professional—i.e. current or former employee of a company or a professional gamer—became, in my case, a much more valuable source of information. This valence increased significantly whenever there was an absence of a relationship with their current/past corporative frameworks.

Here, I refer to the figure of the “gatekeeper”390 as described by Flick. I encountered

“gatekeepers” throughout the fieldwork, including when analyzing the agreements signed between participants and their former employers and the epistemological stance

I took in inquiring and observing the regulations present in participants’ daily activities.

This approach was, in turn, not conditioned by the roles they used to occupy in a

389 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 206, quoting Wasserman and Faust, 2008, pp. 35-39) 390 (Flick, 2013, p. 517) 96

company. As I will elaborate, the company as ‘entity’ negatively affected the overall interaction with this part of my participant sample. Similarly, the third strategy, which involved meeting professional eSports players for interviews, further proved the inexistence of the disadvantages described above.

Drawing heavily on the principles of QNA, I was able to observe the various normative spheres through which my participants navigate as they go about their daily activities.

These included topics like the contract with their eSports team or the agreements each of the players signed with the streaming service(s) they use to upload their games. By pinpointing these relations, I could map the nature of their own individualized network of governance. Finally, I was able to observe how player’s preferences intertwine with each of the frames established variously by firms, governmental institutions, communities or, indeed, individuals. These, ultimately, determined the singularity, and dynamics of their regulative frames.

4.2. The company as the primary unit of contact The first strategy I present considers companies as the first node of contact. This was the first approach for the simple reason that the classical understanding of IG holds collective actors of this kind—be they corporations, but also governments, and other national, and supranational bodies—to be the most salient actors in the debate. This approach also reflects the historical influence of Foucault,391 who shaped both the focus and the analytical fashion of the debate. As detailed in chapter 2, other approaches to the study of Internet Governance move away from this approach by

391 I use Foucault’s notion of the existing relationship between power and knowledge to address how the fundamentals of the discourse have been taking form historically. 97

including actors that do not actively engage within this debate, as well as innovating in terms of the techniques used to gain access to participants.392

Besides this ‘institutional approach’, another consideration that guided this initial procedure was the interview-through-representative departure point introduced in chapter 3. To briefly recall, the method involves contacting an organization in the first place, to gain access to the “individuals in their role as representatives”.393 This top- down strategy marked, on one side, my positionality as a researcher, the institutional frame of operation being the Hong Kong Polytechnic University). On the other side, there was the corporate entity I intended to approach—namely, the videogame company.

In sum, the cycle of contacting companies and attempting to set up access required extraordinary patience and was very time-consuming. This initial approach—taking the company as the first node of contact—produced a wide variety of results, ranging from the agreement (i.e. an interview) to disavowal of any collaboration whatsoever, in most of the cases because the company concerned claimed it did not wish to disclose or share sensitive information.

Besides being resource-intensive, this strategy was undermined by three important factors. First of all, some of the company’s personnel did not share any interest in videogames whatsoever, an issue that otherwise aided considerably to establish a bond of trust between my participants and myself. Second, the repercussion on the staff

392 (Mager, 2018, p. 4) 393 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 208) 98

derived from the fact of working in a formal, hierarchically structured environment, detaching one individual from the total responsibility of making any final decisions or simply delegating it to someone else. Lastly, there was sometimes a lack of communication and isolation between the managerial units that composed the company locally or in their regional operative units.

As detailed in chapter 3, Riot Games (hereinafter Riot) and Blizzard Entertainment

(hereinafter, Blizzard) constitute the two case study companies selected to detail this part of the study. It is also worth briefly detailing the logistical steps undertaken when approaching a company and attempting to obtain agreement to participate. The first step was explaining the project to the company in question, agreeing on terms and conditions, and finally traveling whenever necessary to conduct participant observation and interviews with staff members there in a pre-established sample of job roles. Initial contact modes varied, from phone calls, social media—Facebook, Twitter,

YouTube messaging, and LinkedIn—and emails. Each of these channels required a different strategy in terms of length, treatment of the recipient, language, etc. Briefly put, the form mattered, and had to be contextualized based on the media I was utilizing.

During the preparation of the first basic email, I based my approach considering the previously introduced institution-to-company mindset. I was aware that by committing to a company as my participant, this would signify discarding any others that I would get in touch with. Figure 1 presents the very first email sent to Riot.

99

rejected because I had not “reached” anyone sufficiently empowered to authorize my request. After thoroughly checking the respective official websites, I finally received an answer from Blizzard’s University Relations department (see Figure 2):

Figure 4: Answer from Blizzard’s University Relations department

In response to this first refusal, I sought a bypass by contacting Blizzard’s offices in

Madrid. In this case, I used (with limited success) several phone numbers and email addresses of non-official websites. I further refined my search criteria and contact list by using professional social media platforms, such as LinkedIn. Through their

‘premium’ feature, I could contact people outside my own network directly. After reaching several of Blizzard’s in-team staff, only one person replied and suggested that I contact their country manager and/or public relations office directly. Following this up, I ended up with yet another email address; I sent another message to that address, which remains unanswered.

Finally, I drew on several other social media channels. Through these, I was able to contact the regional divisions in charge of the Spanish and European markets. As is the case with other multinational companies or brands, brand-related groups on social media are abundant, but most are unofficial, or not directly related to the formal organization of the company. One such case is shown in Figure 3, which presents a

101

screenshot of Blizzard’s Twitter account for Europe. Figure 4 is a screenshot of an unofficial Facebook group from Blizzard’s title World of Warcraft franchise for the

Spanish servers.

Figure 5: Official Twitter account for Blizzard Europe

Figure 6: Unofficial Facebook group for World of Warcraft for the Spanish servers

As presented above, the other company that best exemplifies this procedural pattern is

Riot Games. Initially, it seemed to be a much more accessible organization eager to collaborate. After sorting out some problems with their official email address, I received an encouraging reply from their ‘Third Party Research’ committee. This entity is explicit in defining itself as not directly related to the company and having no

102

decisional influence over my proposal. Nevertheless, the committee respondent confirmed this was the correct channel to use for inquiries coming from universities/academia. Since their first reply took several weeks to come, I also contacted the official Facebook page of the company responsible for Spain, with a brief message. Shortly afterward, I received an answer from the person responsible for its maintenance, who offered to contact the “person in charge”395 on my behalf to deliver my request. The conversations were in time substituted once I received an email from the above-mentioned Third-Party Research committee from Riot, agreeing to collaborate.

Riot’s committee assigned me a guide—hereinafter, ‘the Rioter’—to assist me through the whole process of submitting a tailor-made proposal to the company. The bullet points guiding this process were uploaded on their official website in April 2017.396

Nevertheless, at the time of my submission, the exchange of emails was the only way to go through this process. The project had to be submitted according to the guide shown in Figure 5.

395 Fragment extracted from a Facebook messenger conversation held on 06/03/2017. Directly translated from the Spanish ‘la persona que se ocupa de esto’, meaning the responsible person assigned to deal with a request. 396(RiotGames, 2017a) 103

Figure 7: Questions for Riot’s proposal

The content of this new work constituted a double challenge in several areas that adversely diverged from the original Ph.D. project: not only did its focus have to follow the guidelines given by Riot, but there were also other sections that had to be introduced to fit the minimum requirements if it were to be accepted. As an example, see point five from the list presented in Figure 5, which addresses the project’s usability for Riot’s players or developers. The Rioter duly communicated to me that the committee would review the proposal and would let me know about its final decision.

These accounts reflect a similar pattern across all of the companies contacted. That is to say, the initial, top-down approach of contacting company representatives through public contact points was slow and cumbersome and saw the organization outline clear limits to the information they would disclose. In some cases, this approach also entailed compulsory modification of the original project to fit the organization’s demands.

Such company-dictated modifications were not limited—as in the case of Riot—to the requirement to produce a tailor-made proposal, but also took the form of preliminary

104

steps to follow to introduce the project. This can be illustrated by requests from two other companies, which agreed to an initial interview to describe my work. In these cases, I had to concisely explain the project, its tradeoffs for the company and, to some extent, adapt my wording accordingly (i.e., ‘shadowing’ 397 instead of ‘participant observation’). In this case, both companies accepted my request to speak with their respective regional teams.

As previously explained, these steps were replicated for several videogame companies that had regional offices or markets in at least two different locations that operate under disparate regulatory frames (i.e. Spain and Mainland China). For each of them, I followed the same course of action stated at the top of this section—contacting, introducing the project, and proposing a collaborative agreement. At the same time, the width and depth (i.e. frequency) of staff contacted had to be duplicated for every company. The names, actions taken, and information accessed through snowball sampling were subsequently and meticulously listed. Figure 6 shows the most recently updated list of participants (redacted for confidentiality).

Figure 8: Sample of the Excel table for participant listing

397 ‘Shadowing’ in this context means observing the daily operational activities of a company as a third, independent party. 105

This figure best exemplifies the condition of ‘isolation’ between the managerial units of a company that I referred to above. For example, representatives only from Blizzard, and Riot—and then only in Spain and/or Europe—ended up occupying almost half of this list. Despite my robust efforts to communicate the details of the project to the company, I had to (re)introduce the work to every person I talked to during the approximately four-month period that I interacted with them.

Similarly, issues arising from the hierarchical chain of command of the organization became more noticeable when I personally visited some of the companies. As I had done with Blizzard, I managed to get appointments with some companies from my sample range in their central offices in Spain. They confirmed they had received all of my information, but the staff responsible for make a decision was at that moment not available. Both for Blizzard and Activision, 398 the person who was ultimately responsible for deciding whether I could consider them as participants or not was unable to provide an answer due to circumstantial factors. The reasoning given for their unavailability was that they were out of the office attending conferences, corporate meetings, or other events such as gaming fairs.

On a similar note, some companies offered further elaboration on why they would not participate in my project. These are worth noting because they further explain the potential tradeoffs between the researcher, the actual research, and the interests of the participants. For example, Riot justified the rejection of my proposal based on several factors. The first one was that the “potential player-impact”399 would be severely

398 Activision-Blizzard is Blizzard’s publisher. They are, still, two separate businesses but in many cases, they share physical office space. 399 Quotation extracted from email conversations with Riot on 25/4/2017. 106

muted due to the “many externalities [such as variable industry regulation and consumer protections]”400 that the analytical part of my project approached. Summing it up, Riot deemed the project I submitted would not help players due to one of the focal points of the study—namely, the analysis of different normative frames that Riot had to work with in relation to their players. Their argument also rested on the fact that regional issues are handled by staff remotely, and that those issues hindered the value of the project if I intended to conduct research from a single location.

Overall, the tradeoffs between the potential benefits of the project as introduced by

Riot and the main goal of my Ph.D. project became progressively attenuated.

According to Riot, they could not support my proposal due to the assets that the company would need to mobilize to do so, thus constituting significant leverage for them. Further emails saw the following short message in reply: “At this time, we won't be able to provide support for this request.”401

This exchange of emails exemplifies two important issues. The first was the imperative to modify the project—thus going beyond the parameters I had developed myself for the Ph.D. research—simply for the sake of accessing participants. By considering the entity of the firm as the primary unit of access, the need to comply with corporate norms—namely, the limited decision-making capacity of its employees and directly related parties—severely compromised the project. The other important fact is that, as stated by Riot, the staff member identified as being in charge of regional tasks were collaborating remotely and thus shared no single physical space.402 All of the points

400 Quotation extracted from email conversations with Riot on 25/4/2017. 401 Quote extracted from email conversations with Riot on 06/05/2017. 402 Quote extracted from email conversations with Riot on 06/05/2017. 107

identified in the foregoing discussion indicate the limitations of the initial access strategy and the value of adopting alternative approaches. In particular, I move now to detail the second access strategy I adopted, which I deployed in parallel to the first.

As a closing note for this section, the following chart offers a summary of the procedural steps I followed for each of the companies I contacted. To keep participating companies’ confidentiality, only two companies are mentioned (i.e.

Blizzard and Riot). It is necessary to clarify that the total amount of time elapsed— from the first interaction with them to the time between each of the communications and until the final outcome—varied for each firm. In order to protect sensitive data, the graphic represents the total amount of time devoted per company, independently from the actual point of contact that brought me to the next step. As specified in chapter

3, each of the courses of action already included forwarding a questionnaire, which was sent whenever possible as a referential guide, together with the documents provided by the university to reassure participants of confidentiality during all the process of interaction with the companies and their staff.403

403 The content of these questionnaires is introduced in chapter 3. 108

Blizzard Initial Entertainment Visiting the offices email/call/contact N/A N/A in person -Total time: three via social media months-

Riot Games Initial email/contact Proposal Resubmission of the Rejection -Total time: four via social media submission proposal months-

Company A Interview Initial email/contact Interview for the Initial phone call -Total time: five via social media (to introduce the project months- project)

Company B Initial email/contact Interview for the Phone call -Total time: six via social media project months-

Company C Initial email/contact Visiting the offices Phone call Rejection -Total time: three via social media in person months-

Company D Interview Initial email/contact Phone call Rejection -Total time: three via social media (to introduce the months- project)

Figure 9: Different stages of contacting companies

N/A stands for “Not Answered”

In the end, companies A, and B agreed to an interview through their public relations representative for the Spanish market. The place, time, and interviewee were arranged at a time convenient to the participants. After the interview, all the formal requirements were assured by both parties to guarantee the confidentiality of the interview’s content and the anonymity both for the company and the interviewee.

4.3. Approaching the professional Simultaneously to contacting several companies, I diversified the networking efforts in two different areas: the first one was by inquiring into akin industries related to videogames, such as the emergent eSports niche in Spain. The second way was by getting in touch with professionals on LinkedIn who used to work in the companies sampled, for Spain, Europe, and Mainland China.

109

I was aware that some videogames franchises—i.e. Riot Games and its title League of

Legends—are also prominent inside the eSports industry not only in Spain but also worldwide. Right when I started contacting companies via their official channels, I came across the organizer of the then most recent League of Legends tournament in

Barcelona. This was organized by an eSports broadcaster through its Spanish division for the Mobile World Congress in 2016.404 Since I had already been in contact with the public relations department of the company, I introduced the project to her. Like other participants contacted directly, she not only agreed to participate but also kindly referred to me another contact—someone she had once worked with at Riot but who had now departed the firm. This was the first major difference in comparison to the previous strategy. By considering the professional as the primary node of contact, and the company they worked for as a background element, it provides far more effective and efficient to access, contact, and reach an agreement with participants. The capacity to deploy the ‘snowball’ sampling technique was one key advantage. More broadly, this method was less stressful and more natural for both myself and my participants and made it far easier to build trust and rapport. The result was more assured confidentiality and improved quality of data collection.

As previously mentioned, apart from a few emails, LinkedIn was the most effective mode of access in the approach where the professional individual was the principal node. LinkedIn’s listing function (illustrated in Figure 8), which lists by both company and region, allowed me to approach participants with short messages as invitations describing my interest in talking to them, as shown in Figure 9.

404 (MWC, 2016) 110

Figure 10: Listing function for LinkedIn by company and region

Figure 11: Initial message sent on LinkedIn, and answer from one participant

This strategy has several advantages over the initial approach of contacting companies.

First and foremost, by approaching professionals who had now departed case study firms (but whose work history was available on LinkedIn), the limitations arising from the relationship between employee and employer were largely mitigated. In this way,

I was not only able to obviate the need to bypass a formal hierarchy of any kind, but

111

there were a much higher number of potential participants available to contact. In other words, the pool of former employees that worked in a company was in this case much higher than the current staff from that very same company. The above-mentioned snowball sampling was greatly benefited derived from the fact of interacting with my participants out of the corporate context–e.g. as shown in Figure 9-. Furthermore, this approach offered a much more flexible way to capture data. Unlike a formal office setting, the locations in which meetings were held—bars, restaurants or social/gaming events—were informal. Conducting the interviews in such informal settings meant participants did not have the shadow of the office hanging over them, and they knew whatever they said would be kept confidential. This informality allowed for much more personal trust and rapport and—as highlighted in the quote at the top of the chapter—produced a more open dialogue with much more detailed and comprehensive data provided by my participants. Ludo, an independent translator, confirmed this viewpoint during our interview:

I have on LinkedIn [the names of companies] for having worked

with them directly but […] in general I have worked [for] many

more companies […] I have it there as more grouped work with 400

games without highlighting it […].

Ludo’s interview, June 26th, 2017

The general weakness or limitations and concerning the quality of data obtained via this strategy are described in chapter 3. In that regard, triangulation, and negative case sampling were used in order to obtain theoretical saturation.

112

The interview I conducted with Myra, a former employee of the eSports broadcaster, is instructive here. Working for a different multinational videogame firm at the time of our first interview, she nevertheless spoke freely about her former job. The interview took place at a bar near to her current place of work, which provided a natural setting for open-ended conversation. The interview format was also distinctive— namely, a two-way conversation about the issues stated in the questionnaire guide, which I had sent her beforehand. Thus, it was Myra who set the tone and pace of the discussion, a crucial factor in building participant trust and rapport. Since we ran out of time to cover all the topics, I had included in the documents sent beforehand, she herself offered to meet me a second time and finish the interview.

The way this interview process progressed could be taken as representative of how this particular access strategy unfolded in all cases. Myra not only felt willing and able to share her experiences working for her former company but also felt free to comment openly on all the issues we addressed. Furthermore, she referred me on to other contacts whom she felt, based on her knowledge, and experience, would be able to offer additional data on the topics covered in my research. This approach to sampling not only made it easier to find additional “key experts”405 for my research but also facilitated more rapid development of trust and rapport since each new participant was introduced to me through someone they already know.

One final point is worth mentioning. Unlike the first access strategy I employed, the second strategy had the advantage of allowing me to map the field of industry practices much more effectively. This was because taking individual professional actors as the

405 (Mager, 2018, p. 1) 113

key node, I could enquire about experience across a number of different companies, as most participants had worked for more than one. Thus, the similarities, and differences across location and time became available to me, something that was precluded by a focus on accessing the field through one company at a time. Thus, I was able to develop a transversal perspective on the experience of work practices across the entire gaming industry over a significant number of years.

As I will detail further in chapter 5, the variation in the sample I developed in this way allowed me to compare corporate environments and to explore new dimensions to ultimately achieve a higher level of theoretical saturation. In short, by comparing staff that worked in the industry, I could isolate their daily practices as an object of inquiry.

4.4. Surveying the field from within: eSports professionals The final access strategy I deployed differs from the prior two. Nevertheless, it is similar to the second approach in that this strategy focuses on individual professionals as the first node of access. In this approach, however, the focus is the eSports industry.

This section will present in detail how I deployed this approach to access and interact with participants and the nature of the data that was collected through it.

Following the same lead given by the participants from the videogame companies and eSports broadcaster, I managed to reach the manager of a professional eSports team located in Vitoria, Spain. The first exchange of emails was followed by a personal visit to the firm’s training center in the city. Due to several pre-scheduled events that kept their schedule closed, I was only able to visit them after being several months in the field.

114

Like the videogame industry, the eSports industry is strongly marked by fluidity in terms of the professionals who work in it. This fluidity—whereby former employees retain strong links with the colleagues they have previously worked with—was confirmed when I first talked face-to-face with the eSports’ team manager, Basko.

Accessing this participant presented a discrete set of challenges and issues. Before our first encounter, Basko repeatedly inquired about the purpose of my visit. Since the team had a routine of scheduling appointments with people outside the organization, such as press, or fans, I came to realize that I was being placed, by default, into one of these categories. In an exercise of self-reflection, I decided to approach this group of participants with the minimum amount of external formalities, such as providing them with a questionnaire in any form. Similarly, from contacting professionals directly, the idiosyncrasy of the field moved away from the settings that characterized the very first approach. Unlike in the previous situations, I had to adjust for factors exclusive to this case, such the underaged professional players who became part of my participant pool.

Likewise, the procedures for capturing data varied accordingly as well. For example,

I never took a recorder with or took notes in front of my participants but did so immediately after returning from an engagement (using the notetaking and storing

Evernote software). Furthermore, I kept a personal journal during fieldwork, thus recording my impressions of interviews and interactions and logging any other observations that came to mind from my immediate experience in the field.

In the event, this approach proved perfectly suited to the nature of the field itself. For example, once participant observation involved meeting a group of participants at their training space, which was in fact a residential flat converted into a workspace. I arrived amidst what appeared to be the participants’ daily work routine. The flat looked a lot

115

like any undergraduate student flat might, with the living room converted into the main space for working. Desktop computers were laid out along the sides of the room and there were cables across the floor and a large projector showcasing the finals of the

European League of Legends Championship Series. Only an old couch next to the balcony broke that concentration of computerized panorama. Amidst that scene, the trainer was sharing details about the previous match, resembling the style of a football coach bolstering the line-up of his team. The manager greeted me, and we started talking about our backgrounds, our fondness for videogames—he used to be an avid player of Valve’s title Counter Strike—and his relationship with the eSports industry.

He assured me that Riot was indeed carefully monitoring all the ongoing competitions of their game. I later confirmed that statement when spotting members of Riot’s staff at a gaming event where the participants were competing.

Like Riot, other videogames companies share space as publishers in the eSports industry (e.g. Blizzard’s StarCraft franchise). This is an example of how diversification in the videogame industry takes place, and how it shares space and personnel who have an avid passion for videogames, as a medium of distraction, professionalization, or competition. Like I found talking to the participants I met in the two previous access strategies, I found that most of the professionals in the eSports industry I encountered were at one point in their lives very connected to videogames

(many still are).

Basko introduced me to the rest of the players and the trainer later that day. I started chatting with one of their latest signings—an international player who spoke very little

Spanish. I noticed during their training session that they were using English to

116

communicate, and only three of the players were from Spain. To my surprise, the team’s composition was not in any case unusual. The international transfer of professionals characterized not only the professional background of the videogame industry but was even more noticeable in the case of the eSports counterpart. Its settings were established in a distinctively fast-paced environment in terms of professionals moving from one team to another. As an example of this, only a few months after our last encounter, I found out that Basko and three out of the five players

I had spent time with had signed onto other teams, either to compete regionally, or in the European league.

Later that day, Basko invited me to share a meal with the group. This meeting was a good way to ‘break the ice’ with participants I had only just met. During the meal, we shared several informal conversations—individually and as a group—which provided me with the chance to introduce myself and my work. This distinctive way of approaching my participants stand apart from the previous access strategies presented.

It relied much more on informal—indeed, quite social—meetings to establish the bond of trust bond with my participants. Nevertheless, like the second strategy, in particular, it was through building trust and rapport that the strategy proved effective in terms of quality of data and information gathered.

After our first encounter, I had a chance to reflect on my role in the interactions with my participants. I was not—and was explicitly attempting not to be—like the typical external people they would deal with routinely outside their immediate environments, such as fans, or journalists. I spent the first hours with them without any preconceived notions, besides only stating the fact that I was a researcher when we introduced one

117

another. What is more significant is that those introductory and informal conversations held with the manager, trainer, and team, revealed insights about their daily lives and practical issues that they had to overcome that might not otherwise have been uncovered. This process allowed me to lay naturally some of the questions I had in mind–including the ones of the semi-structured guide I already prepared. Later that day, I was able not only to progressively interiorize the information they shared with me, but also answer those questions myself.

Some situational results set in Vitoria exemplify the statements made above. During my days in the city, I shared quite a bit of time with Basko. In one of our encounters, he explained to me how he was dealing with the tournament league’s committee.

According to him, the committee recently had a case of a player from another team who got sick right before the start of the league season, and they wanted to establish standardized rules for new signings. Because the discussion did not affect the team he was representing directly, he decided not to join any of it, because those rules were not well defined, and they would not be affected by the outcome of the committee’s decision.

Another example underscores the normative frames that the players had to abide by when conducting their normal practices. All the team members were a part of—and therefore, employed by—the regional team in Vitoria. This first normative frame obeyed the contract-based standards for traditional sports. Nevertheless, this formal employment remained inextricably linked to their online individual (net)work and

118

activities, such as broadcasting their games via Twitch. 406 Similarly, the way the newest signings of the team were recruited by the team’s manager relied on publicly available data—namely, of the player’s game performance. Other situational examples include the moment when one of the team members left our gathering at three in the morning to go online, play, and stream the content of his game, while the rest of the team could see it through notifications on their phones. These examples share commonalities with Basko’s discussion with the league’s committee via WhatsApp about the contravention of new signings. This last strategy therefore provided a direct window into the diffuse daily practices of my participants. It offered me the possibility to inquire and analyze the creation, application, and enforcement of the various normative spheres that my participants interacted with on a daily basis.

One last example that captures closely the effects of this third access strategy happened during the last days of interacting with my participants. A couple of weeks after I met the team in Vitoria, I joined them again during the biannual eSports event celebrated in Madrid. The ‘Gamergy’, organized by the Professional Videogame League

(LVP),407 lasted three days, and the best national teams of different eSports games such as League of Legends, Valve’s Counter Strike, or Super Cell’s Clash Royale were competing for various prizes.408 As I got into the event, I met Basko’s team in their stand and I was warmly greeted by him.

406 Twitch is a live streaming platform, part of Twitch Interactive, a subsidiary of Amazon.com. Besides the potential donations from individuals, brands pay Twitch users with the sufficient number of viewers to advertise their products, similar to how companies offer YouTube users to do so using the video sharing platform. 407 Liga de Videojuegos Professional (LVP), from the Spanish ‘Professional Videogames League’ (LVP, 2018). 408 (Panoramaaudiovisual.com, 2017) 119

Among other videogame-related activities, the spectacle spotlight was the pre- scheduled matches for the above-mentioned games. For Riot’s title, a subdivided, octagon-shaped space with benches surrounding a big stage in the middle served the purpose of an arena for the competing teams.

Figure 12: Stage for the League of Legends matches, at the ‘Gamergy’. July 2017, Madrid, Spain.

Source: https://www.panoramaaudiovisual.com

I made use of the spare time to become familiar with that environment and to network a bit more. Even though I had played computer games my entire life, eSports in Spain had been a novelty to me up until just a few months before I commenced fieldwork.

The ‘Gamergy’ had been running for seven years—a period when I had myself not been living in Spain for more than a few weeks at a time—and the attendance rate had grown significantly during that time. As noted above, I spotted two members of Riot who were present to ensure that, as a publisher, the competition associated with their game proceeded according to their standards. Furthermore, I got to know other teams

120

with similar compositions to the team I had met few weeks before; some were associated with traditional sports teams—such as Football Club Valencia—and others to telecom companies, such as the Movistar Riders from the Spanish-based telecom company Telefónica.

All these teams competed in the same game and map409 during those three days. Again, for someone who is not familiar with eSports events, the scene in each of the matches resembled to what a traditional football match can offer to its spectators. The industry had unmistakably taken several key aspects from traditional sports, from pre-match interviews with the trainers to repetitions of tense moments during the match, and the

‘casters’ (i.e., the commentators) way of speaking.

Basko’s team won the finals. As the players returned to the stand after their win, I congratulated them on their victory. I noticed fans and press casting sullen and puzzled gazes in the winners’ direction. The celebrations lasted late into the night, and we ended up in a bar where the team’s trainer used to work. The scene reminded me of the way ‘traditional’ sports are celebrated—namely, the kind of local bar where people actively talk about football. At this event, discussion included every single detail about the game and the Spanish league—the characters, tactics, professional players, and their teams, league rankings, etc.

Among the crowd, I spotted a person celebrating euphorically. I recognized him as a player from the opposing (i.e., losing) team from the finals. I quickly approached one

409 League of Legends features several types of games associated with three differently designed maps, with a variety of terrain elements that ultimately influence the strategy followed by each of the two competing teams. 121

of Basko’s team players, asking him why a losing player would be celebrating so jubilantly. He told me that that player did not mind losing the competition since the only thing that mattered for him at that moment was the fact that he secured playing for two different teams at one time, which were in two different countries. Together with this, this player also had his own channel in different streaming services where he was uploading his content regularly. This last example concurs with what Taylor

(2012) describes as actors navigating an amalgam of norms in a (still) unregulated industry at the international level.410 In this case, the example shows that not only companies but also individuals, navigate these waters, primarily by relying on peer- to-peer negotiations and their perceived value as professional eSports practitioners.

From a broader perspective, this set of examples points toward backing up the sensitive paradigm to study agent’s practices under regulative frameworks affecting them. As I have shown, these are best understood by identifying the origin, applicability, and potential conflict of those regulative frames, all under the individual priority of the individual entity—be it a person or a company—subject to them. The next section puts the three strategies into perspective to systematically identify and detail their various components.

4.5. Strategies in perspective: the basics of the industry Several points can emerge from a transversal comparison of the access strategies deployed in the field. To recall briefly, the first strategy considered the videogame company as the primary node of entry. The second treated the professional as the key and initial point of contact. The third strategy took eSports players and their teams as

410 (Taylor, 2012, p. 172) 122

the primary node of access—with direct contact in the normal environment in which their everyday practices take place being the outcome.

I have offered details of these three strategies—and the outcomes they produced in terms of the insights derived from them—in large part in order to highlight the weaknesses of the existing approaches to studying Internet Governance laid out in the literature review in chapter 3. Guided by my previous work 411 and the existing literature on Internet Governance,412 the first approach proved to be very limited in terms of participant access and information obtained. In contrast, the second and, especially the third strategy, kept the institutional, or corporate element in the background.

For the first strategy, several tenets can be identified that affected the whole interaction process with my participants. The most evident is the corporate framework where the strategy was set, which influenced aspects such as the number of participants that I could interview, to the information that they could disclose. Examples of this can be drawn from the interviews when participants often pointed either to their official sources of information (e.g., the company’s website) or to other departments (e.g., the legal department) referring to questions stated in the guide:

“The truth is that at the level of eSports […] all the legal matters

[…] at an international level we are part of an association called

411 This work refers to the unpublished dissertation from my master’s degree, titled “Internet Governance and the End User: past, present and future perspectives for the End User and the race to tame the cyber space”. 412 (Just & Puppis, 2012) 123

[name of the association], which is the one that carries the whole

legal issues, and has lawyers in all countries”

Daisy’s interview, 3rd June, 2017

More generally, attempting to access the field via institutional channels as a primary unit of access, implied (in most cases) a long process that ultimately offered limited results in terms of data capture. In that regard, there was a clear difference between interviewing a participant in their role as a company’s public relations officer and a participant talking about their professional experiences and knowledge outside that context. Mead’s concept of “role”413 applies directly here when comparing the first access strategy I deployed to the second and third ones. The constraints derived from the first strategy materialized not only through aspects such as participant accessibility but also through the process of interaction with my participants. Had I considered only the company as the principal unit—as in the first access strategy—the research would have been subject to artificial truncation of the saturation of my participant sample. It would have also placed potentially adverse limitations on the in-situ collaboration and participant observation (e.g. ‘shadowing’ of staff in their workplaces). The company would have driven most of these limitations, either through non-disclosure agreements as a precondition for access, the centralized decision-making (which, as noted, slowed the process of working in the field dramatically) and the requirement that I submit a research proposal to the firm that they would vet prior to agreeing to collaborate with me. As the quality and breadth of the data gleaned from interactions that resulted from the second and third access strategies attest, had I simply adopted the first strategy

413 (Ritzer, 2005, p. 652) 124

throughout, these corporate limitations would have resulted in a much more truncated and lower quality set of data for the present research.

A final consideration arises from the much more informal approach taken in the second and third access strategies. For example, during my interview with Evan, we addressed topics not specifically related to the questionnaire guide that I sent him beforehand, such as a tattoo he has of the orc tribe in Blizzard’s Warcraft franchise. When asking him about it, he proudly answered that he really liked the orc faction in the game and that it was his favorite in the Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game

(MMORPG) title World of Warcraft. In another interview, Selina, and I shared our common interest in Japanese animation and her curiosity in pursuing a Ph.D. on feminism and videogames, as well as the personal ups and downs experienced working and living abroad. These moments worked as a catalyst in gaining trust and empathy from my participants, which, again, was essential to create an ‘anxiety-free’ environment for the interviews in general.

This point was especially pronounced when I was unfolding the third strategy. The intuition and the appropriateness of every step required a continuous, reflexive and dialogical (re)contextualization of myself in relation to my participants. This last strategy was deemed to be the most effective one to acquire firsthand knowledge about the normative tenets for the practices of my participants. As a clear connection with a theoretical counterpart, it represented a practical application of what Flick expresses as “methodological principles and steps [that] are subordinated to practicing a general research attitude in the field, which is observed or, more generally, studied.”414

414 (Flick, 2009, p. 233) 125

In short, both the second and the third access strategies proved much more effective in accessing the field to gather information in the first place but just as importantly, to find “key informants and specialized informants”.415 Similarly, the features contained within Theories of Practice and Dialogism thus provide fitting, not only to unravel the normative aspects underpinning my participants’ daily practices, but also to aid my own self-reflexivity and reduce aspects such as my own bias on the field, gain trust, and to tackle the dialogical relationship with my participants. In other words, these theories helped facilitate me becoming—as Emerson notes in interpreting Bakhtin’s commentary on the researcher in the field— “an outsider equipped with some—not all, but some—insider skills.” 416

4.6. Summary This chapter has pursued two key objectives: to detail the methodological stance I adopted for the project and to offer a justification for studying Internet Governance of the videogame industry based on the practices of the professionals who work in it. To do so, I presented my personal account of my fieldwork from an autoethnographic point of view, exploring the three different access strategies I adopted. These strategies ended up foregrounding many of the core limitations in the traditional view of the study of Internet Governance. This partial and intentionally selected reconstruction of the autoethnographic accounts during my fieldwork served primarily as a catalyst to support my epistemological and ontological positioning of this project.

415 (Bernard, 2011) 416 (Emerson, 1996, p. 2) 126

The underlying contextualization of the idiosyncrasies of the field changed the elements for each of the blueprints presented, including aspects that range from my role as a researcher in the field, the nature of my participants and the array of methods used to approach every environment, contacting, treating, and extracting data from them. Moving away from the top-down, institutionalized approach, the strategies presented emphasize the usability of treating the professional as a primary node of contact, as well as the accounts behind their practices. This blueprint best captured the dynamism that characterizes the global videogame and eSports industries.

As I have already explained, the first strategy—which was grounded on the institutional approach—offered very limited reach in terms of participant access. This first access strategy sprung directly from a classic approach to the study of Internet

Governance, which as the state of the art lays out focuses on large institutions. I thus selected the corporation as the principal unit of contact and analysis in this first strategy. As a result, the ‘shadow’ of the corporation hung over the entire research process—for both me and my participants, before, during, and after my interaction with them. The final outcomes were similarly deleterious, from the low rate of participants accepting to collaborate with me, to the modification of the grounds of the project due to the tradeoffs between the company and the original goal of the Ph.D. project. Furthermore, the limitations were also present in the information that the participants could disclose, and the repercussions due to the formal boundaries between my participants and myself. These aspects were materialized in pragmatic issues such as the timing and locations of the interviews. These limitations argue for running the second and third strategies as alternatives. Nevertheless, the analysis of the procedural steps for this first strategy proved valuable in uncovering important

127

contextual factors for the research, such as the way the different firms interact with the outside world in practice, and how they are set up functionally across regions and divisions (and the challenges to collaboration that arise as a result).

The second and third approach instead treat the professional practitioner as the primary unit of access. In activating these strategies, I contacted employees who had worked professionally for one or several videogame companies, as well as professional eSports practitioners. Following Mager, I addressed the figure of the stakeholder, with the sharing of their experiences in the gaming and eSports industry being the main source of data.417

As I laid out in detail in the main body of the chapter, these latter two approaches improved the quality of the information gathered significantly. Important reasons for this were the absence of any corporate entity between my participants and myself, which allowed me to build such rapport and trust that I could more readily access my participants' experiences and accounts in the company/ies where they worked.

Likewise, accessing participants in a variety of informal settings provided opportunities to gather crucial, but often background and contextual, information in the form of informal conversations, shared experiences, meetings, and discussion of topics not strictly relatable to the main theme of the study. These techniques underscore the value of gaining trust and building rapport naturally with participants to improve the reliability, validity, and comprehensiveness of the information collected.

417 (Mager, 2018, p. 9) 128

Overall, the discussion of the three deployed access strategies detailed in this chapter cast the importance of studying these industries, not just in terms of practices, but also by looking transversally into the experiences of the professionals who work in them.

In this way, the normative frames governing a given industry are more clearly laid bare in their full detail. The second and third strategies—especially the third—consistently reflected the fluidity that defines the industry, thus reinforcing the value of running these strategies in parallel to the first.

Finally, the findings confirm the value of beginning analysis of Internet regulative frames from the individual first, then “up” to the system.418 This approach marks a stark contrast with the institutionally centered, top-down approach that has underpinned the traditional Internet Governance debate. Although useful and fruitful in many ways, there are other agents that rely on the Internet to perform their practices but do not actively engage with it. Nevertheless, they do live and work every day facing challenges related to their own normative frames, which are intertwined, and ultimately determine the boundaries of their actions according to their own preferences.

Their practices reflect how they navigate, abide, and negotiate with other stakeholders over the terms of these norms. The following chapter will explore these normative frames, their origin, and the underpinnings of the actors behind them.

418 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 206, quoting Wasserman and Faust, 2008, pp. 35-39) 129

5. How the global videogame industry works: narrative accounts of practices and normative frames

“In any problem, there is always a reason why people do this or do that so before criticizing people and try to be putting themselves in different points of view you should try and dig deeper to understand why this is. […] it's very easy to blame or to show like if this is a fault or a big problem […] you have to try to go out of your little world and your point of view and try to see in lot of views to absorb and keep calm and carry on […].”419

“[The Internet] can influence people traits [and] it can be scary […] I got two young kids and I tried to regulate where they do gaming and Internet […] because I wonder if they will get out to the world out there particularly in the Western market and that's not really well regulated and that scares the s*** out of me […]”420

This chapter details the middle third of the data in the thesis. Chapter 4 focused on the development of the field and illustrated my position in each of the access strategies deployed. In this chapter, I present the analysis of the data derived from the semi- structured interviews conducted in the field. In so doing, I link the data analysis directly with the research questions outlined in chapter 1 and subsequent research objectives.

To briefly review, the research questions outlined in chapter 1 were:

419 Panteon’s interview, November 21st, 2017. 420 Phil and Theme’s interview, October 15th, 2017. 130

• To what extent do the practices of the stakeholders of the global

videogame industry adapt to the regions where they operate in,

regarding culture, social norms, socio-political settings, etc.?

• In this process, what regulations do they account–and why–in their

daily practices?

• How does that explain how Internet Governance unfolds in practice?

As specified in chapter 1, these questions are designed first to shed light on the distinct aspects of the global videogame industry by offering direct views on how its companies operate. The first section of the chapter takes up this task. The second section then addresses issues arising directly from the regulatory frames that my participants’ practices account for. In doing so, they identify the normative tenets that characterize each of the companies and the regions where they operate.

It is worth underscoring at the outset that the data analysis draws directly on a narrative approach. Most of the discussions that emerged during the interviews reflected the interest of participants in laying out their experiences as professionals in the industry chronologically, such an approach is the most appropriate for the research. This chapter also intends to represent a bridge between the adequacy of this sample (also justified in chapter 4) and the data analysis extracted from the information captured in the field. The main techniques used to accomplish these purposes are semi-structured interviews conducted during the fieldwork with professionals from the videogame and eSports industries.

This chapter focuses on professionals who work or have worked in the videogame industry. Chapter 6 does so for professionals in the eSports industry. Dividing the data

131

analysis in this way is both pragmatic in terms of space, but also reflects the distinct contexts in which professionals in the two industries operate. While there are, as mentioned, many shared aspects across the two, the professional, and normative contexts clearly differ, making it logical to divide the analysis in this way.

These first two sections will go through the accounts of my participants in relation to the norms and regulations that companies engage prior to the release of a game, first, and in relation to the players of these games. Another section will cover practices which share commonalities across companies and regions where they operate. This will lead to the final part of this chapter, which will offer a summary.

5.1. Practices in the videogames industry. What particularities does it have? As will be observed through the content analysis of my participants’ interviews, the practices that they described share the peculiarities of the settings that characterize the videogame industry globally. From my very first interview, it was clear that these moved away from a single, global view of how the companies operated concerning a single brand or company exterior image for their customers. Their accounts addressed the aspects which the companies considered to regionalize their products and services, which shared a direct correlation with the regulatory frames associated with these adaptations. This view contrasted with their global perspectives of internal practices, such as their corporate culture.

The practices approach proved very effective for identifying the tenets of my participants’ daily duties and the regulations associated with these. I could get a

132

transversal view across companies, regions, and roles, as well as a direct view on how rules were created, implemented, and executed according to the idiosyncrasies of the duties and responsibilities of the individuals concerned. In that sense, I refer to the basic definition of governance offered in chapter 1, which emphasizes the ultimate purpose of creating, negotiation, and enforcing rules. In the case of the videogame industry, it embodies practical examples such as the language and content to be displayed in a game to banning the accounts of players accused of improper conduct while playing online.

As presented in chapter 4, I based my participant pool by inquiring about my participants’ professional expertise and exploring the idiosyncrasies of their practices.

By doing so, I could zoom out, and progressively map a wider picture with different angles that included companies, the stakeholders they interacted with and the markets where they operated. This allowed me to ultimately theorize about the particularities of the industry itself and its growth, tackling, for example, norms and regulations that were transposed from a time where online gaming was not as popular as it is today.

The particularities are presented in this chapter as, first, aspects regarding the process of creation of a game and the operational steps required to introduce a game to a market.

Later, I will present the idiosyncrasies of the normative frames between players and the videogame companies, to finally introduce the tenets that my participants identified as similar across companies in the industry. As a final note, my participants showed a small awareness of the Internet Governance discourses or the leading institutions related to it, such as the Internet Society. In most of the interviews, my participants knew very little about it.

133

5.1.1. Creation of the game My participants described a common pattern of adaptation that a game undergoes when it is introduced to a market. More specifically, participants noted a distinct set of norms applying at different stages that they had to navigate in their daily game- creation work. Examples include the specific company they were working for and, especially, the market into which the game was to be introduced.

This first part of this section covers the part of the game-creation process my participants refer to as localization.421 The most relevant aspects include language, visual design, and content customization. More concretely, in practice localization reflects the distinct adaptations that a company determines need to be applied to ensure the game will be accepted in its target market

Several of my participants mentioned language localization. This goes well beyond simple ‘translation’ of a videogame from one language into another. Ensuring the game language is as local as possible ensures that its success in the target market will be maximized, according to my participants.

Evan worked in Confidential Corporation422 for several years before moving to his current job, a company specialized in offering online payments for gaming companies.

Almost from the very beginning of our interview, we addressed the necessary prerequisites for the successful release of a videogame into the Spanish market. He not only pointed out language as important, but also considered localization as a necessary

421 Localizing a videogame is defined by my participants as the steps that the company follows to introduce a videogame in a given market. 422 I have adopted this pseudonym in place of the firm’s real name to ensure confidentiality. 134

feature for videogames to reach the intended market. He described how during his first years in the company this was a key point in his learning process:

Everybody thinks that a game is translated but the game [is instead]

localized. Localization and translation are two different things;

translation means changing the language [while] localizing is

adapting the language to the [target] market, in line with the world

of videogames. That was what my localization marketing manager

boss taught me [….] I'll tell you a real example that happened to us

when we were working in Bruges and we were doing the Spanish

version of the WoW423 game and we [thought] we knew how to

speak English and Spanish and that was enough […] and if the name

of a city [in the game] is common it should have stayed that way,

´Stormwind´ and in the end it had to be ‘Ventormenta’ […] and then

my boss told me that that is the difference between a translation and

a localization; we have to adapt what we have to the market [that

we intend to be in]. As a company—as far as the workers are

concerned—it is not a global company. The developers in the

United States have the most important things there […]. I was rather

surprised [and] started to inquire and contact different companies in

the same industry and yes, it is true that each of them has its

‘personality’424; each is different from the others.

That is, a company is different depending on where it is?

Absolutely: policies […] wages, evidently. In terms of the final

customer, it is a global company though.

423 WoW stands here for the game franchise, World of Warcraft. 424 Emphasis given by the interviewee. 135

(Evan’s interview, May 31st, 2017)

Much like Evan describes a part of his duties, Ludo approached this issue directly. He worked for different videogame companies for over a decade localizing their products in Spain, both as an in-team translator and freelance. He regarded translation as a part of the localization process of a videogame, while he explicitly differentiated the latter as the key to making a videogame match the market it is targeted for. During our interview, he emphasized that certain trends in mass-consumption, such as watching original versions of TV series or videogames, affected the importance that companies place on the need for videogames to be translated. Even with that in mind, he said that this should not affect the quality of the localization itself, which has to account for the cultural context of the target market.

That kind of [request for localization], for whatever reason, is

determined by the client because they have already done their

market studies or because they have already considered that it was

the right thing for their product but it is not a state regulation like is

the case […] in China, Germany, Australia, and so on where it is

more strict and you have to change the whole game […]; that is the

difference between translating and localizing […]; translation is part

of the location […]. Your job is compromised because of a design

decision […]. There are also some linguistic texts; for example, the

director of dubbing, if the game is dubbed, you can still change

things or even if the dubbing actors are famous […]. The game goes

through many hands [and is a product of] teamwork [where] things

such as covers are modified, the character designs, the soundtracks

[…].

(Ludo’s interview, June 26th, 2017)

136

Ludo kept emphasizing the importance of faithful language localization—for example by ensuring the humor, pop cultural, and popular references are local—stating that regionalization must be done within a coherent context, considering the time spent and the potential number of consumers that the game will reach:

If the game is released in Spain […] you have to make it sound as

natural as possible without spending [too much] time […]. [The

jokes] must match […] [Nevertheless], the creators say that [the

game has to reach] the maximum number of people possible and of

course there are people who say that they prefer English jokes, but

that refers to a character from a television program that did not get

into the United States and nobody will understand in Spain […];

today we have access to a lot of information […] [so] we

‘consume’425 American and not Spanish [pop culture] […] [you

might not] miss a reference that another two million people or users

of Spanish from Spain will not understand. And in that sense, I keep

thinking that the ideal is to regionalize within [a] coherent context.

[…] [Furthermore], there is no [such thing as] original language;

that is a utopia [...] there is an original language when you have a

game like Beyond Two Souls,426 in which Ellen Page and Willem

Dafoe cover movement capture and do all the dubbing.

(Ludo’s interview, June 26th, 2017)

425 Consume is used here figuratively of the refer to large amounts. 426 Beyond Two Souls is a game developed by Quantic Dream and published by Sony Computer Entertainment. The participant introduced this videogame as an example of when a game should or should not be original—in terms of language and region—using the patterns of filmmaking and actor's real voices as features to be included in this taxonomy. 137

Patricia, who used to work as a marketing manager for Electronic Arts, described the translation, and eventual language localization of a videogame as a part of her task roster. Nevertheless, as she related, this was a legal not a corporate requirement— every game sold, distributed and played in France must be translated:

Let’s see […] everything in Europe [...] from my experience leading

to other markets it is [the] same except in France […]. There cannot

be anything [only] in any other language; everything must be

translated. [Here] in Spain it’s a little more flexible with that,

although in Spain we [still] localized everything.

‘International’ 427 [would provide] you all the material so that

absolutely everything was localized [...] and that you do not have to

have anything in another language [other than English]. Then in

France, it is by law but in the end [they left] it prepared to all markets

alike, so that is why we could localize everything.

(Patricia’s interview, August 16th, 2017)

As introduced through these three participants, language adaptation and localization put in perspective the particularities of the industry when referring, in this case, to the characteristics that the product per se must have, considering the target market(s).

Language localization obeys, in the cases presented, a pre-defined regional criterion— either from the corporation in the case of the different markets or the government, in the specific French case. Even though none of this implies an Internet regulation per se, the discussion points clearly to the procedural idiosyncrasies of the industry, and

427 In referring to ‘International’ here, Patricia means the managerial unit that coordinates the localization of the company’s products internationally. 138

how normative frames can emerge from a range of stakeholders involved in the process of creating and releasing a game. It also shows how these are then transposed into the daily practices of game creators and marketers.

Like language, videogames are localized in terms of design, the visuals, and content as well. The process by which this occurs is also instructive. By visual features, my participants referred to game characters or the design of the game’s environment. This adaptation reflects either the perceived customer or market demand—the aim being to reach the widest possible audience—or salient regulations obtaining in a target market.

Dany, who used to work at Ubisoft for more than a decade, mentioned two salient aspects of this design and visual localization. His first point was that localization becomes, somewhat unintuitively, progressively more important the longer the company operates in a market. Because of this, having a local partner—and, ideally in time a dedicated local team of its own—is essential to effectively operate inside and outside Europe:

Yes, in the market for example, and Ubisoft was also a distributor

for other companies […]; although the final objective was to create

business offices to distribute at a local level […]; in France for a

long time we had Lucas [Arts] as a distributor […]; and in Germany

we had some Electronic Arts products because there was no other

distributor […]; but we always had a local distributor […] then...

there were always constraints or limitations […], for example, in

Japan we were not aware that some colors signify death.

White

139

White, purple […] these are negative colors […]; we had this

situation with our localization department that when we had to

release a product in that market, we had to change it a bit, not only

translate but also adapt it.

Translation and localization.

Yes, if several years ago it was translation, now it’s localization

because in the end you have to look at the market; [only then] you

will know if there are some things that are prohibited or which

things won’t work […]; maybe now it’s a bit more global but we

had these things before for sure.

(Dany’s interview, July 6th, 2017)

Several of my participants brought up the corporate focus on design localization repeatedly. It is worth noting that the standards of a game, content-wise, depended on where the location of the main headquarters of the company. From that point, a game was adapted to the local target market. Sharon, who worked at Electronics Arts (EA) for the Spanish market as a marketing manager, cited the guidelines coming from the company’s headquarters in the US as the principal norms she would follow. This ultimately changed certain features of a videogame, such as a videogame’s cover:

And for particularly or sensitive issues, Spain would have violence

[…] not so much about being legal but more social-related […] that

came from the United States […] [they are] most sensitive country

regarding that.

The US?

140

Yes, at least from what was coming from Electronic Arts, if not the

most sensitive, one of the most sensitive […]; not only on that issue

[...] for example, a weapon cannot be depicted pointing at you on a

game cover [...] that is, videogames are [treated] like record covers

or things like that. [They] cannot point at you, for example [...]

because that would be [considered] like explicit violence [...] more

explicit than simply holding a weapon […]; but let me tell you, from

the United States they lowered these standards enough and we

simply followed it and there were no more problems.

And what about other issues, like say sex in videogames and things like that?

Yes, but really the biggest problem that exists is the cover—that is

what is going to be seen in front of the public at any point of sale

and then what was inside the videogame, that was another issue.

The ‘tone’ then was established by guidelines from the United

States?

Yes, it is true that in some games where covers were edited or

content but always on legal issues and things like that […] we did

not raise the ‘tone’ but the United States lowered it […] a very

explicit subject like sex or any kind of language maybe too [or] any

kind of inappropriate language and that kind of things, if it is inside

the video game [it] always remains [...] behind warnings that are

always placed.

(Sharon’s interview, July 2nd, 2017)

141

Ludo exemplified localization by pointing out how Nintendo, based in Japan, would self-censor their products to get into the Spanish market:

But when you modify a character, for example […] in Project Zero,

the main character of Miku, […] for example in Japan it shows more

cleavage than in [another] market […]. Nintendo applies higher

self-censorship because Nintendo Japan is much more open in that

aspect than Nintendo Europe.

There is the case of Paper Mario were […] [there are] three sisters

and one of them is a transvestite in the original Japanese version and

in the Spanish version […]; Nintendo believes that for a certain

market it does not want to include certain Lolita428 references, and

[they] already force and start the machinery to add, remove, modify,

or localize in general.

(Ludo’s interview, June 26th, 2017)

Like the localization practices for language adaptation, design customization was also introduced as required by law. Phil and Theme, who have been working in the videogame industry in the Mainland China market, referred to the cases where the content had to be modified directly because of governmental regulations.

Me: Are then the regulations that you could or should consider

when playing a videogame from Mainland China […] [will they]

be different than playing it from Hong Kong, for example.

428 Ludo’s use of the term ‘Lolita’ here is referencing the fashion style coming from Japan that tries to capture the innocence of youth, and nostalgia for the 19th century. The term is normally associated with girls considered sexually precocious, deriving from the character in Vladimir Nabokov's homonymous novel. 142

T: Certainly. From the government […] there are certain categories,

for example, blood, skeletons, zombies and these kind of things…

Me: About this […] was it because the government did censor

them or because of companies wanting to publish faster and they

censored the content themselves?

T: [It was] the government […]

P: I do want to comment on this […]. Because […] when you start

comparing [Mainland] China with other markets, censorship, [the]

firewall naturally comes into play […] in Beijing […] what was in

that movie […] Kingsman Service.

The Golden Circle?

P: But the first one. Samuel429 comes into the KGB MI6 in Beijing.

They said: “that is what secret service if they don’t even have a

name” […] that is the real secret they do not even have a name...so

Beijing yeah indeed...

Me: So, they just make it publicly normalize like it’s ok?

P: Yeah

(Phil and Theme’s interview, October 15th, 2017)

429 Here, Phil refers to the actor Samuel L. Jackson, who starred in the movie. 143

Another participant who exemplified localization affecting a game and coming from governmental regulations was Panteon, who is also a long-term industry insider from the Mainland China market. He explained that, besides being a requirement for a game to be released in that market, this localization constituted a significant trade-off for a company to keep a videogame in that market. In that sense, governmental selectively targets titles that eventually become successful in order to maximize the impact of their actions:

Yeah […] for example [there is] this game [that] was very popular

in China and this company sold around seven million copies and 30

percent of the users are from [Mainland] China […]; the game was

so popular and everyone was talking about them [and] the

government started to have a look and said “ok this is against our

policies, [it] is too violent”. They even asked the developers to take

out the cop cars because they don't want to influence users to steal

a cop car and things like that […] so developers changed things. But

still, they wanted to block the game, so they blocked the game […]

so if it's too big and it isn’t aligned to their regulations. you know

[…]

Do they just stop them?

Yeah […] so this developer […] to avoid certain kinds of content

[developers] know the work around. For example, I have a friend

that is working on The Walking Dead IP430 and this IP is totally

blocked for games […] but there's a work around […]; they cannot

call it ‘The Walking Dead’, maybe ‘The Realm of Survival’ or

430 IP stands for Intellectual Property. 144

something. […] No decaying corpses or cadavers […] you know

these are all restrictions so there's a way to go around but you just

need to know what the rules and are always keep updating [your

awareness of] new restrictions [coming] from the government. So,

everything is manageable; you just need to know the rules and then

you will be ahead of any problems in the future.

(Panteon’s interview, November 21st, 2017)

Content modification is also commonly mandated by independent regulatory bodies.

Ludo and Selina not how the German courts ban the display of Nazi symbols in any content distributed in Germany, including games distributed, sold, and played there.

This, they note, is by no means the only source of compulsory localization, stating that classificatory systems such as the PEGI431 code, required companies to adapt the games for certain audiences. Dany added that this regulatory layer sometimes overlaps with local laws and could be considered as a general frame that companies must work in:

L: Let’s see […] usually there are not very strong regulations that

we say like the case that you comment on of Chinese censorship or

the German or even Australian censorship that you say there […]

yes that [you have to] ‘cut’432 if you want to do the game because

there can be no reference to the Second World War, almost. [In]

Spain there is no such regulation, there is no such problem […].

[But] what you can see for instance is the PEGI, which is the

classification by ages. Obviously, if the company wants the game to

431 PEGI stands here for Pan European Game Information, a European video-game content-rating system. It was developed by the Interactive Software Federation of Europe (ISFE). 432 Emphasis given by the interviewee. 145

be for players over 7 years old then, [the game] will obviously

exclude age-inappropriate terminology and sexual references and so

on. But this does not come singlehandedly from Spain. For all of

Europe, you have the PEGI, and the ESRB433 for the US or the on

for the Japanese market. The… CERO 434 is it called? [it’s] the

Japanese age classifier […]

(Ludo’s interview June 26th, 2017)

S: PEGI is the only one I know […]; Germany has another

classification […]. For example, there cannot be a character named

Adolf. If you have a character named Adolf, this is impossible […];

There cannot be swastikas […]; there can be no confusion like this

you know. Do you know Wolfenstein435?

Yes

It was the first one they had to modify precisely for this, because of

Nazi symbols and that sort of stuff […]; you should probably have

to look at this [...]. Germany is more sensitive about this […].

(Selina’s interview, July 5th, 2017)

D: [There is] PEGI at a European level, ESRB in the United States

and CERO […] in Asia […] in Japan. Each market has its own

regulations and works according to that. But, independently, it could

433 ESRB stands here for Entertainment Software Rating Board, a self-regulatory organization that assigns age and content ratings for videogames and enforces advertising guidelines for these in Canada, Mexico and the United States. 434 CERO stands here for Computer Entertainment Rating Organization, which is a Japanese non-profit videogame rating organization. 435 Here, Selina refers to Wolfenstein 3D, a first-person shooter videogame developed by iD Software and published by Apogee Software and FormGen, in 1992. The controversy of the game in Germany stemmed from its explicit depiction of an enemy Nazi army, with the final boss portrayed as Adolf Hitler. 146

be that the local government says ‘no’,436 even if they have the

PEGI, maybe at a governmental level you have others […]

So, PEGI only works as a framework, so to speak, and it can be

different on a smaller scale?

Yes, it could be, not province-wise but country-wise. In fact, in

Germany, besides the PEGI logo, there is another one locally that

can potentially prevent the game from being released because they

have a different scale of [restrictions on] violence.

(Dany’s interview, July 6th, 2017)

Finally, besides language, and visual content localization, my participants mentioned other aspects, such as consumption patterns, which generally differ from target market to target market. This aspect influences the actual business model surrounding the game, and thus, the game itself. Game mechanics are featured according to the tastes or preferences of the target market. Analogous to the language and visual design/content customization, the in-game design, and mechanics vary according to regionalized criteria. Panteon cited this with the example of the success of the free-to- play videogame model in Mainland China:

So, for example, a very good example of free-to-play model that

you see everywhere in the West was first invented in China 437

because the Chinese didn’t see the value [of paying] up front for a

436 Emphasis given by the interviewee. 437 The participant emphasized the success of the free-to-play model in the Chinese market, not the actual place where it was created—namely, South Korea, where it originated in the 1990s (Alha, Koskinen, Paavilainen, Hamari, & Kinnunen, 2014, p. 2). 147

game […]. The only mode of that worked well for the Chinese before free-to-play was the subscription model and World of

Warcraft, which was one of the first examples where the Chinese would see, a value for a service; you pay a subscription [so you could] play online. Then they came up with free-to-play [...]; you can play everything for free but if you want to be better or evolve faster or whatever, you need to pay, These two examples are models of consuming that then went to the West and were adapted by the

West.

[…]

For example, the way you present a game to a Chinese is very different […]; the tutorial is a lot less […]; the tutorial makes everything for you […]; you just need to click next, next, next […] whereas in the West you are keeping some highlights and then you have to figure it out by yourself. The way people consume the things in the game is different: the Chinese consumer likes [this] faster […] they are willing to play faster [and] if they like the game they are going to pay to show off that they are the best or they are prettier

[than] others. In the West, this is not well accepted [...] especially when you are paying to win. […] in the West they don’t like that, they think that it breaks the balance and it’s not fair because it’s a free-to-play game you must keep the balance. Also, the characters, the way their clothes are presented normally, you should make them

Chinese or Asian looking to be better accepted…

Correct

148

I think that these are pure reviews of things that I think that are quite

important.

(Panteon’s interview, November 21st, 2017)

As Panteon related, there were projects he worked on that failed because of this aspect:

When I was at Ubisoft Shanghai, they tried to create some internal

games coming from the Western market and most of them didn’t

work well [...] so normally they were doing a portion of the game

for the West. […] It was not local; it was not localized […] it was a

Western mentality to try to come to China [...]. And even if you had

a Western IP438 [you know you have to] think about the local culture

and adapt the game. […] They don't know how people consume the

content, how fast.

(Panteon’s interview, November 21st, 2017)

Akin to the aspects introduced before, my participants related the content as modifiable according to different overlapping regional criteria. These modifications are made according to regional laws, market preferences, or company standards. Furthermore, as Dany mentioned, the classification of this content is also subject to several layers of norms, which overlap according to regional specificities (i.e. PEGI for Europe, but further specificities in Germany).

To conclude this section, irrespective of the nature of the job they did, their category, or specialization, my participants all referred to similar practices for a game to ultimately reach the intended market. Product characteristics that are related to game

438 IP stands here for Intellectual Property. 149

features, are understood as variables to play along in order to be able to finally release a game in a given market. As related by my participants, these changes come in diverse forms and from different agents depending on the market a company finally targets for game release. This adaptation can come as self-established by the company (e.g., to appeal a larger audience), coming from an independent regulatory organization (e.g.,

PEGI), or determined by the country where the game is released (e.g., forbidden symbology in a game sold in a market). The company ultimately decides to engage with this amalgam of norms and regulations, which have evolved through time to become in all cases more sophisticated.

5.1.2. Prior to releasing a game Regional dynamics are also extensible to practices such as the process of introducing and distributing both physical and/or digital forms for a videogame. As with the localization of certain features of a game, the process of releasing a game involves in all the cases described by my participants a set of regulative frameworks that companies must account for. The dynamics of each market—be they market pressures to publish faster, special governmental procedures, or the format which the company uses to publish a game—involve different actors that companies account for engagement with via a pre-established set of agreements.

Phil’s account of his experience emphasized the importance of having a local partner to introduce a game into a market and the tradeoffs between the time that this process takes and the pressure of the market where he is currently working:

150

So, the first thing that you have to do is look at your publishing

partner […] it has to be a Chinese company. Take for example, PC

games or mobile games that now have to go through a governmental

submission [...] all these different things [mean that] you have to

look for partners to publish. That's the first thing […]; so, the

publishing partners, they know how to make money. Because they

have so much data [and] so much experience they can look at your

game and say, “well, I like your game, but it doesn't help on the

retention basis”. You know, when you need higher retention rates,

we have to make some game features. It might need more hand-

holding to educate players in terms of the tutorial modes. We might

have to bump up some of the values in the way you monetize […]

so one could say that [it] is like a standard package [...]. And these

publishers have more or less the same data that has been extracted,

so they have the developers overseas to help modify or add those

different things [...]; so you get a lot of that but you also get the

exceptions, like you know, like for example, Clash Royale.439 They

do not have to change a hell of a lot [thus] it works everywhere,

right? Because they absolutely nailed what is the best for the game´s

experience, right? For the tutorial, for the retention, for the

monetization…

(Phil and Theme’s interview, October 15th, 2017)

One of the sources that modifies the procedures for releasing a game is pressure from the market where he is currently working. According to him, as a developer, the business makes a company modify the game according to what other stakeholders might deem adequate to ultimately fasten the game release:

439 Clash Royale is a game developed and published by the Finish videogame company ‘Supercell’. The game combines elements from collectible card games, tower defense, and MOBA. 151

I mean, they [the shareholders] don’t bother […] [and] there is a

reality that comes in […]. Gaming is about having fun, but it is also

a business. At the end of the day, every product that you make has

to make money. […] As a pure developer you could just keep adding

features […] but at some point, you have to draw a line and say,

“that is it”. […] So, the PR440 journalist doesn't like this because the

game is finished in 6 hours and it should have been 18 hours? That's

a major fault that is going to be disclosed [and] you [will] suffer if

it gets a score in a Metacritic […]; they live and die by those press

reviews […]; it gets very influential on what is needed there but […]

in the Mainland Chinese game or in the Mainland China market,

[the] marketing [department] will certainly have materials [on]

sales, advertising, videos, animations and graphics to make a short

film about whatever ads they need […]; they know how to do the

other things [like] how to make money […]; they will come up with

[something] otherwise to get people to be attracted to the game.

(Phil and Theme’s interview, October 15th, 2017)

As stated above, this process varies on the idiosyncrasies of each market. Panteon gave an example from the Chinese market to emphasize the supervision coming from the government, and how he, as a developer, had to know the salient particularities and the compulsory regulations that have to be implemented:

I need a license for a game to be published in China. You need a

Chinese licenser and it needs to be isolated from the world. So

normally, only Chinese servers in the PC need this license, because

in the mobile it's still a little bit different. At the moment, you just

440 PR stands here for Public Relations. 152

need a small certificate [...] But you don’t need a company to

publish your game […]. For PC or online games, the government

restricts you […] because there are a lot of rules for the server, like

anti-addiction. Content-wise as well it's different and normally they

don’t like to interact, so if you want to play outside your normal

circle, you need a VPN.

I see, but not for all the games that are not allowed in Mainland

China but also to play with people from outside Mainland China?

Correct, correct [...] so [it works] in the same way that Chinese who

live abroad need a VPN to connect to servers that are in China to

play in China.

(Panteon’s interview, November 21st, 2017)

One last example of how regulations play a major role during the publishing process of a game came through my participant Sentry. Sentry is a professional in the videogame industry with more than 14 years of experience. During our interview, he described the evolving business model for videogames, from the physical format to publishing purely online. While doing so, he accurately described all the actors who, in practice, have to be considered in the process to evaluate the profitability of a game:

The thing is that [nowadays] there are different business models

[…]; the digital download model breaks [with] everything [...]; it

takes the dynamics from iTunes [...] and Google. [It] generates

many business models compared to the ‘physical’441 model [which]

is totally different [...]. Then the digital download between taxes and

all the nonsense [...] and licenses that you pay as a company, [the]

441 Emphasis given by the interviewee. 153

Royal management quota […]; we are talking about the amount that

you can get once you get your return on investment. Let’s say, on

the initial investment you get 57 percent of the profits of the gross

benefits. Then to that, you must apply corporate taxes […] but that

is basically 30 to 35 percent. [You pay] 5 percent for the platform

that is managing the real engine, 7 to 12 [percent] which the VAT

that is prorated by the international distributor [like] Sony, who

makes you pay three months or six in advance [...]. That is to say,

you take the game, and you do not start the return at least three or

six months after that—can you imagine it?

(Sentry’s interview July 12th, 2017)

My participants emphasized, in this case, the different stakeholders that they actively must engage with to finally be able to place a game up and running (i.e. for it to be licensed or financially profitable). Following a similar pattern of localizing the features of a game, these particularities entail several layers of stakeholders—the game developer, licenser, or government. Each of these stakeholders is associated with, at least, a set of rules that must be followed in order for the game to finally see the light of day. These processes obey their own regional particularities (e.g. the need for a

Chinese partner or the requirement to pay a margin to the online platform used to publish the game in the Spanish domain). In any case, regulations are entirely determined by the place where the game is to be published. This means that the process and the regulations—coming from any stakeholder involved in the process—are to be applied indifferently whether a game is released in physical or digital format.

154

5.2. Practices in the videogames industry: A mosaic of norms between the company and the players Another key set of examples that illustrates the regulative dynamics of the videogame industry go hand in hand with practices associated with a company that enforces rules and regulations on the players of their games. Patricia stated what other participants supported—namely, that concerning regulation, the industry changed drastically due to the incorporation of the Internet, and in this case, online gaming.

And in the end, public relations was stuff related to the media and

videogames releases, […] we also did not have the legal part in

Spain but we had all of Europe in Switzerland [...]; then all that

regulation was given to us [and] we had no relationship with our

legal counterpart […]; but for example, in games like the WoW …

[it] may have more complications at the legal level because they are

RPG442 games. We only had Dragon Age443[...]. Then the games I

was playing did not have or had very little margin for legal

problems, like the Sims, or Monopoly.

(Patricia interview, August 16th, 2017)

As acknowledged by Sentry and many other of my participants, several points are to be considered in that regard. This section exemplifies several issues, such as the regionalization of the contract between companies and players (and the practical problems arising from this), the location criteria of applicability and law enforcement and the resolution of conflicts between players and companies.

442 RPG stands here for Role-Playing Games. 443 Dragon Age is a dark fantasy role-playing video game series created by Canadian developer BioWare. 155

A recurrent point mentioned by my participants was End User License Agreements

(EULAs) or Terms of Use (ToU).444 Players accept these agreements when purchasing or keep using a service from the company, affecting aspects such as the property of the player’s data. The company can eventually make these clauses extensive from other markets or regions and amend them considering external boundaries, such as consumer law enforcement. This was the case with the recently introduced EU General

Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which—while strictly only in force inside the

EU—Riot decided to apply on their players globally.445

EULAs constitute the contractual relationship in terms of rights, duties, and responsibilities between the player and the videogame company. These issues acquire a practical spectrum when addressing problems of misconduct—for example, unsportsmanlike behavior. Another example goes along the lines of regulating the cases where an online account can be transferred from a player to another. Dany, for example, exemplified the application of EULAs when facing player misconduct.

[And] I assume that, for example, if I am online, and there is

someone who threatens for no reason or kills a teammate, he keeps

his, or her anonymity?

Ban; ban for this. I can give you a clear example. Rainbow 6 […]

which is a very cooperative game, a 5 vs 5, and you have the

terrorists and the anti-terrorists. The terrorists have to blow up […]

and the anti-terrorists they have to rescue a hostage […]; everyone

444 (Conway, 2015, p. 178) 445 Here, I refer to the email sent by Riot on May 23rd, 2018, to all their users. The email, with the subject ‘Improvement to our Privacy Policies’, announced that Riot would apply the EU’s GDPR, which they made extensible on their players, globally. 156

has their objectives but it is very cooperative […]; so, if there are

rules inside the game […] you can find yourself banned for a while,

a day if it is a minor fault or a week, if it’s a serious one […]. I give

this example because my son plays with his friends and one player

got angry during a game and started killing teammates, and then he

was banned. But these are rules from the game and are extensible to

our other cooperative games. It is like this because, first, you have

to clarify that it is a game where teams are a key component, and

you cannot have a member that leaves the rest behind. These are

rules that the players know.

And these are established by the game itself?

Yes.

And, well it might sound obvious but, have you ever had any

problem of not being compatible rule wise, with, let’s say, a

restrictive market such as Mainland China, where you said you

were working in?

Not yet.

(Dany’s interview, July 6th, 2017)

Since the concern surrounding the enforcement of these agreements in practice was indeed a recurrent topic that my participants brought up, we addressed the topic of regional application of the EULAs with Evan. As a side note, the fact that many of my participants share professional and personal experience in the videogame industry, was of great help to corroborate their accounts. Most of them are, in fact, avid videogame

157

players (or used to be), often in games produced by the companies they worked for.

This aided my research when capturing their impressions and experience, both as active players, and experienced professionals.

[R]egarding the gameplay there is no difference [but] in the

policies, there is.

And by ‘policies’, you mean the end policies for the player?

The EULAs […], because each market is different and that's why I

said that it is not the same when you talk about localizing, the

policies that you can have in Hong Kong than the policies that can

be in Europe in terms of Internet, some companies might regulate it

and some others won’t.

(Evan’s interview, May 31st, 2017)

Evan thus put in perspective the development of parallel regulatory frames directly affecting the EULAs. When we addressed this point, he first made a direct reference to countries where the governmental legislation developed in parallel and caught up with industry practices. By stating his example, he brought up a major issue affecting the regulation that companies have to account for to operate in a given market. As far as regulation is concerned, there is always an intended legal frame to regulate the production and consumption of video games. Nevertheless, the origin of these regulations is based on regional development coming from some other institution. This ultimately reinforces the regionality of laws and regulations that affect online gaming:

158

If for example, the legislation based in Japan, which already has an

electronic base,446 it can be very restrictive at times; but it is harsh

because it protects. I will give you an example: all that has to do

with digital download right now, who can say what the police can

or cannot do something when I can or cannot return a product? 99.9

percent of online video game stores put it like this: if you unlock the

key, you cannot return [the product]. But now you tell me that I have

up to 48 or 24 hours of online gameplay to let you try the game and

if you do not like it you can give it back. In other words, now

Steam447 comes and breaks the rules. Is there any regulation that

says otherwise? No. You have to put a warning that if the product

is unlocked, I cannot do a thing after that.

But that depends more on the company?

Yes, but in Japan they say that if it's broken because there is a bug

or because a developer has made a code error […]; it is

contemplated that if there is something that prevents you from

playing, they have to refund you the money without any cost and in

the rest of the world there is no such thing.

(Evan’s interview, May 31st, 2017)

To better depict how EULAs were bought in practice, he gave one last example related to the practical applicability of the agreements between the company and the player.

He related that, among World of Warcraft players, it was known that a user of the game

446 In using the term ‘electronic base’, Evan refers to the high level of technological penetration across the Japanese population, as well as Japan’s mature videogames industry. 447 Steam is software owned by Valve Corporation. It includes functions related to a digital distribution platform, such as video streaming, digital rights management, multiplayer gaming and social networking services. 159

rented his online account to another player from a different country. When the company became aware of this practice, they banned the original user’s account immediately. Nevertheless, the action of renting out use of an account was not expressly delineated within the EULAs established by Confidential Corporation.

Therefore, the company had to undo their actions and allow the original user of that account to lend it to another player. Only from that moment did they create a new policy to prevent cases like that from happening again.

There is a case on the Internet that is shocking and generated huge

hype. An Arab player bought an account from an American player

of World of Warcraft because he had a unique object at the time. [It]

happened that the policy of [Confidential Corporation] in America

was that you could not sell the accounts according to their policy,

but they did not specify anything about the renting of that account.

Exactly.

But on international grounds it is not illegal: you are selling the use

of that [and] it was not pre-established in the policies of

[Confidential Corporation]. It was allowed and [they] had to make

an official statement and roll back the banning or suspension of the

account. Therefore, [Confidential Corporation] has a global policy

but to a certain extent adapted to each market.

(Evan’s interview, May 31st, 2017)

Besides this case—which shows the reactionary measures established by the company—Evan raised another example that depicts the overlapping criteria of

160

regulations, and therefore the regionalization by the company of the above-mentioned

EULAs:

[Let me give] a more drastic but real example: in online gaming

there are cases of suicide or threats of suicide or aggression […] if

you receive a threat in a country ‘X’ maybe you have no obligation

to do anything, but in the European Union you must follow a very

strict policy and call the police to warn them and do a follow-up.

And you must do it; otherwise you can get a penalty and all this

considering the data protection law.

And this comes from [Confidential Corporation] that applies the

corresponding European directive?

There's a part [coming] from the European Union but a part

[coming] from [Confidential Corporation] [that] must adapt. It's like

that.

Then, you as a player of the European Union, must comply with

it?

You have to comply with certain regulations, that is—I cannot tell

you exactly […] but I can tell you that these policies are different

for the player. You [the player] do not notice it, but if for example,

you are a player from Spain and I am playing from a market in

Oceania, even the patterns of the game are different because they

play different markets but [in regard to] EULAs terms […] the laws

that you have to abide by change; [yes,] that is completely true.

(Evan’s interview, May 31st, 2017)

161

He further explained that, in practice, the applicability of regulations between the player and the company might present problems coming from diverse angles. This time, he further extended the example of suicide threads coming from a player whose

VPN is located in Spain, emphasizing the impossibility of successfully carrying out localized policies of Confidential Corporation’s EULAs in Europe. As he related, the cause of this to happen was the lack of legal framework and mechanisms to execute it.

Everything about the online legislation [in Spain] is still

underdeveloped. I have heard that some months ago, the first

channel in Spain devoted to online gaming had started broadcasting,

and people were celebrating it […] And I would say, “but in South

Korea they have been doing that 10–15 [years] with Starcraft One448

and they have many channels, but well […] [regarding] laws that

would clash while I was working […] [it was] not because I was a

Spaniard. I was a resident of France, in Paris, and I worked for an

American company based in Paris. […] Perhaps, an example of

application is that we had people who came to us with suicide

threats. You would call the National Police of whatever region in

Spain and say, “look, I call you from Paris, from a videogame

company, because a player at this address is threatening to commit

suicide” […]; 90 percent of the time they would just laugh their a**

off. They would tell us, “you are kidding”, and I would answer “It’s

ok, don’t believe me, but I am giving you a warning; I don’t care—

I gave you an explanation, now go, and check”.

448 Starcraft is a military, science fiction real time strategy videogame franchise owned by Blizzard. 162

I'm in Paris and I call you from Paris but imagine that I'm the one

next door and we had to argue with them because of what the kid

does. He is threatening to commit suicide and then you have to give

me a follow-up. Am I going to do your [the National Police’s] job?

[…] And this is the ‘real-life’449 shock in Spain; it happened back

then and I'm pretty sure it will continue to happen today; but you

have to follow the legislation and warn at least and say what is

happening.

The legislation, in this case, at the European level?

In Spain, it would be the duty of help [i.e. duty of care]. This is the

same as if you go down the street and see someone who is going to

shoot themselves—you have the obligation to warn of what is

happening. [You are not going to] to take a shot but in Spain, in

terms of any another legislation, it is still underdeveloped. In Spain,

unfortunately, if you do not do something very serious, nothing

happens.

(Evan’s interview, May 31st, 2017)

Upon finishing discussing this first example, we also addressed more complex scenarios to depict how regulative frameworks work in practice on purely Internet- based gaming. We addressed a hypothetical situation where two players are virtually located in two different countries, but they have different standards regarding a specific issue—for example, sharing of pedophile content online within the premises

449 Emphasis given by the interviewee. 163

of the game. As with the example of the applicability of EULAs, the geopolitical location was the ultimate criteria to establish the applicable standards.

So, in the end, does it, or does it not depend on the server where

you play or basically where you play from?

Then you enter the gray area […]. I'm going to give another

example: two players are sharing files or links to pedophilia photos on a

European server. One is Spanish and the other is from a less restrictive

country—I don’t care, I don’t want to mention any country, just one where

the law applicable is less restrictive. Do I have to apply different standards

because one player is in Spain and the other is in another country? […] The

result is that the two accounts are banned, do you see? The two accounts are

suspended—the Spanish [case] ends with a report [to the National Police];

the other ends with nothing [happening]. What is happening here? When you

cross the offline barrier to real life, that barrier depends on where and how

you are.

That's why I say, it depends on the regulatory status of the Internet policy

within a game [because] on the Internet there is that anonymous part [where]

people think they can do what they want, but when the ‘reality check’450

comes, the result is usually another. You can tell me that maybe it’s not

regulated [or] that the regulations are different. Each country is its own

world, and the American security policy is not the same as the Spanish.

(Evan’s interview, May 31st, 2017)

450 Emphasis given by the interviewee. 164

During our interview, Evan also pointed out that, in case of any conflict happening between the player and the company—e.g., due to a disagreement over the actions taken by either of them—the case could potentially go to court. As he related, the territoriality principle described before would apply, as was the case for the user who rented out his account or the example of the suicide threat. Nevertheless, Evan emphasized the fact that very few cases ever reach court and most thus expire because the player took no further action.

Well […] the general rule is that all gaming companies ‘cling’451 so

to speak, to one core article—that [is], the accounts are the

company’s, but I rent it to you, so you can play. If you look at any

policy, 99.9 percent [of the companies] have that. For example,

anyone that buys the game and creates and online account in World

of Warcraft. When, for example, you pay a monthly subscription,

[if] you look at the legal terms in the articles of the company, you

are paying an amount to rent that account, but the owner of the

account is the company; nothing is yours.

Do they do that to cover themselves from any trouble?

Yes, when you enter a gray zone, the companies, what they do, is

defend themselves. For example, if what you do with your account

creates a controversial case that brings too many repercussions

[back] via the media? Bam! [he claps is hands] the company takes

your account and you can say whatever the heck you want […]; it

is a safe passage but the truth is that it is a very good [mechanism]

for videogame companies because if you cannot have ‘X’ dude

451 Evan uses the expression ‘to cling’ (from the Spanish: agarrar) to emphasize the fact that all gaming companies use this ground article as a basis for their policies. 165

doing ‘Y’, [by] saying that ‘this account is mine’, [you] avoid

having a public case go on and on. […] When it collides with real

life you have the case, I was telling you, [where] [Confidential

Corporation] says they rent you the account, yes, but the guy sold

the content on the Continent [i.e., in the EU], and the client won the

case […]. The case is on the Internet; you can find it very quickly;

I think it was the son of an Arab Sheikh or something like that. And

when it hits the gray area, the company had to give in because [the

absence] of legislation won.

Do you mean a lack of [Confidential Corporation’s] own

legislation?

They did not finish that policy correctly and then they fixed it later

on but [...] in those cases, there is a problem. It has happened in

many cases. They have taken the same actions by suspending

accounts, but players did not claim anything, or they did not take it

to court and it stayed like that. This happened on many, many

occasions, I can tell you that.

(Evan’s interview, May 31st, 2017)

Finally, we moved on to other practical issues arising from player–company disputes.

He referred to the companies’ server and player IP452 address virtual locations as the ultimate features to consider in eventual enforcement of norms by the company. This led our conversation toward other cases that could happen in-game that would require addressing multiple frames of international regulations for both actors. This time, both

452 IP stands here for Internet Protocol. 166

for the company, and for the player, the geopolitical extension of a country was the one accounted for in how to define regionally delimited normative frames. As Evan related in the case of banning the accounts of either party when sharing pedophile content, a country-level criterion determines the legal responsibilities for both actors, who have a contractual agreement and are clearly identified. As Evan explained, the company’s own standards prevail when there is no other legally applicable frame:

You were telling me the case of a person who is in Spain and

shares pedophile content with another person who is in another

country with less restrictive law. In the end, the accounts are

banned in both cases, [and] that depends on the fact of the

legislation and sufficiently powerful in these cases to suspend the

accounts or not?

Not really, the policy there would be [application of] the common

sense of the company.

The common sense of the company?

That is, you can suspend an account due to an inappropriate attitude,

as well as the EULAs policies of the videogame [company], that

occur when the rules are broken; [then] you get a warning, and if it

gets serious, then you get a suspension of your account. That is,

people think that when I'm online in a game or online generally for

that matter, anonymity is constant; but the information I have that

allows you to have that account, I do not care if it's an online game

or at any time—you're not anonymous. […] The suspension of the

account applies in both cases, but I will send the report to the

authorities, if I have to. Ernesto is Spanish; in Spain, pedophilia is a

167

crime; they are going to take legal action against Ernesto, and if he

lives in another country, it does not matter. The matrix where the

company goes reflects its policies but if this company is outside in

a country where laws are less restrictive […]

Then everything is left in the hands of the company basically?

And where you have, so to speak, the business, yes. If I am a

company from a less restrictive country but working through my

European servers and I am receiving reports of pedophilia, for

example, [in] the European Union it is not allowed, the United

States does not allow it […] 90 percent of countries do not allow it.

If I allow that to happen, they will take legal action. That is what

happens when you, a company with a looser policy in that regard,

then I will go against you because it is happening in your domain,

what’s on your servers and therefore you are the ultimate

responsible [party] if you do not act.

(Evan’s interview, May 31st, 2017)

Regulations applied considering geopolitical location—location of the player and the company—were exemplified by other participants. Dany confirmed this pattern when two players, physically located in two different places, have a dispute online. In his case, he stated that the physical location of the servers was not the main criteria to determine the applicable legal framework for an alleged criminal act, but the location of a player.

168

There is a common ground, whether you play in Asia [or if] you

are united to Europe […]; [it] is the game that makes the

regulations.

Then basically it is the player, from where he is playing—the

regulations that apply from that place?

Yes

[But] I mean Mainland China is a special case but for example, in

the rest of the world to put it in a way to show the difference, then

regulation applicable is the one from the place where the player

plays, and it is already independent of the place where the game

servers are.

Yes, yes, yes, independently, in fact, the servers [...] the servers are

the same, it is the criterion of the final player [...]. Although, within

a specific game when it is the game that places the regulations.

That is to say, the state or the authority do not have anything to do

with the norms that can be applied to this game?

No.

(Dany’s interview, July 6th, 2017)

Panteon and Annette exemplified the practices that derive from the legal relationship between companies and players and how, in some cases, other actors can actively intervene to shape it. In the case of Mainland China, Panteon mentioned this when

169

addressing the measures that governmental regulations apply on videogame players, and the considerations that the developers have to account for in order to play along with these:

Well, there are some rules, especially on PCs. You need to apply an

anti-addiction system, especially for younger people; you need to

control how many hours they play a month and they need to control

the age; they need to give out their ID for the government to know

who is playing and then you need to add a system that really controls

the hours and the language that is spoken in the game. […] The

government says the rules you need to follow, and you need to apply

this to your game. […] I never did it, but basically it should connect

with an API 453 of the government or at least [so that] the

government can access [it] for sure.

Can anyone with a VPN just jump through all of this?

So basically, VPNs were blocked in China even more during the last

months that they have been blocked in the App store. The

government is always trying to find out the source and take them

down, but again the willingness of players always sees companies

happy to create a service. For example, NetEase—that’s a very

famous service called ‘Yuyu’, that provides a VPN to a lot of

players and they are not legal—they are totally not legal because

this is not allowed. Users will be able to access the content outside

of China and it is becoming more challenging to connect to any

453 API or Application Programming Interface is a set of commands, functions, protocols, and objects that programmers can use to create software or interact with an external system. It provides developers with standard commands for performing common operations, so they do not have to write the code from scratch. Retrieved from (Techterms, 2016). 170

VPN, private servers, you know. Known VPNs, they are having less

and less margin to do stuff because it's becoming more and more

closed.

Have you ever experienced something like that?

Not me […]; but there was recently news on the media regarding a

guy that was selling VPNs to customers and it was taken down and

shown as an example. He was arrested, and it was shown to the

media that if you are selling VPNs and you get caught, you are going

to go to jail for five years or three years or whatever. […] They want

to control what their users consume; they want to keep them intact

in some way [...]. So, they control the content—that's the way it is.

(Panteon’s interview, November 21st, 2017)

Annette, who worked as in customer support for Blizzard in France, mentioned other similar situations that she had to deal with. Her job as a customer support officer and later on as a nurse, allowed her to see the company from different angles, especially by meeting staff from different departments. During our interview, she kept emphasizing how several aspects—both in terms of employment and online gaming— were strongly guided by governmental regulations.

I was studying nursing and they called me from Blizzard from their

headquarters in Paris

So, they insisted you work with them?

171

I applied for this work and they gave it to me at the end of the year

because I think it is compulsory [when] you have more than 600

workers; I think it is a French law [that] if you have more than 600

workers you need to have a full-time nurse working in the company

who is responsible for doing general consultation and all these

things […]; and in the end this nurse ended up being me.

(Annette´s interview, September 20th, 2017)

On a similar note to Evan, Dany and Panteon, Annette mentioned an example of

how French laws affect the personal transferability of an online account:

But let me answer a couple of [your] questions. On one side, if you

did any sort of infraction within the game, the rules applicable are

the ones from the game and not those of the countries. Considering

this, there were some things in the country that affected [the player].

For example, in France there is a ‘pacts’ contract—I do not know

the name exactly—but basically Blizzard has a policy that when you

accept it, they are [making] sure the account is yours454 and cannot

be transferred and you cannot transfer it to your sister, for example.

But there are some countries [where] you can make a kind of

contract with your partner because you are a couple, or you share

some sort of relationship. So that also happens; these are things that

you can legally enforce [in those countries], so you can share an

account and there is no problem. That is, there are legal issues in the

countries that do affect the majority [of players]. These are norms

454 Here, Annette meant the ownership in terms of personal identification, and not referring to the actual ownership of the account. 172

that the country has and what the player can do is to adapt to these

norms in their country.

Therefore, as a player you have these two inputs, right?

Oh yes, you have the regulations in your country that you may use

in your favor. For example, if you want to share your account with

your wife, for example. […] That is to say […] to a certain extent

the norms of Blizzard are universal […]; the ones that you accept

when you play World of Warcraft when you click the terms and

conditions. But you can twist [the terms and conditions] according

to the rules of your country

(Annette interview, September 20th, 2017)

Annette relates the practical experiences while she was working in customer support.

Similar to Dany, she exemplified how the regulatory practices and the processes that she followed, worked in the in-game conflicts. These depended, almost exclusively, on normative outcomes pre-established by the company:

So, for example, I am writing [to] you via a ‘client ticket’,455 for one

player that says that they are missing five thousand gold.456 Then I

go and look at the history of that account and I checked things, such

as what could have happened, the way the money could have been

managed, what actions the character457 did before the guy logged in

and so on [...] I don’t know […] hardcore stuff, from emails that are

sent back and forth, to items that were placed in the auction houses

455 By ‘Client ticket’, Annette refers to opening a case or incident for a customer. 456 Here, Annette refers to the World of Warcraft in-game currency. 457 By ‘character’, Annette refers to the in-game avatar of the account of that player. 173

that were bought by fourth characters […] very idiotic stories […]

to steal money from account to account.

Hang on a second, that reminds me—did you ever play Diablo

Two458 at some point?

Yes, yes, I played it a lot [she giggles].

It was very frustrating, the scamming that was going on back then.

Exactly, exactly! And to be able to track down those cases, like

‘CSI’459 style. It was great fun.

And when you did these investigations—the rules, everything was

within the frame of Blizzard. Basically, if somebody had

discovered that somebody had stolen and so on […]

Yes, yes, yes, that was clear; the rules were stipulated about what

had to be done with this kind of players and the way we had to

proceed.

Alright.

There were things out of the scope, then we go, “What the heck can

we do with this?” And for that, there was always an organization.

So, there were the juniors and then the ‘seniors’ that were the ones

who managed the customer support department. Well, you know,

the typical pyramidal structure. So, these were the ones that gave us

458 Diablo is a role-playing, ‘hack and slash’ videogame franchise created by Blizzard. 459 By ‘CSI’, Annette refers to the popular forensic crime TV drama series ‘Crime Scene Investigation’. 174

a bit of support with these extras by saying, “so I would do this or

that”; then they would give you permission to do stuff outside what

you were normally doing.

Correct.

So, I learned a lot, and I liked to help people, being the intermediary,

but I still missed the fact of including nursing in that. So, in the end,

I decided to say, “ok, that’s it”.

(Annette’s interview, September 20th, 2017)

The cycle that Annette described allowed her to meet people across different departments, as well as to have a better overview of how the company and the industry, worked in terms of the corporate culture.

So then […] as a nurse, I had a more global vision of the video game

industry. Every morning, I attended a meeting with Human

Resources, and I saw many different things; you become aware [at

the strategic level] about the procedures for finding someone if there

were any troubles […]. You see all these things because you are a

part of the team, and you help them to make decisions and that was

an amazing thing.

(Annette’s interview, September 20th, 2017)

Annette was one of the participants who best exemplified the approach of practices attached to the experience she had in the company. These are described from her perspective, including views across functionalities, and jobs. For the same reason, the

175

practice approach proves useful in terms of disentangling governance practices not only across jobs but also across companies and their distinctive regional operating units.

As my participants portray, in practice videogames companies do coordinate actions globally, but they manage regional units almost independently from one another. Proof of that is, as Annette described, the specialization of personnel according to certain functions. This conditions the familiarity they share with both the tasks that their job requires and their relationship with immediate colleagues and staff. These obey, in almost the totality of the normative frames accounted, a country-based pattern.

5.3. Global practices During our interviews, several of my participants cited characteristics that are similar across companies or that are not subject to regional traits. Some features have already been mentioned, for example by Evan (brand image) and Panteon (a game that did not need major modifications for a specific target market). These aspects or practices certainly differ from company to company to some extent but within one company do not vary across regions. In this section, these are exemplified, and grouped according to what my participants recurrently mentioned during our interviews. These include the financial performance and the size of a company, the professional specialization of my participants among their peers, and the corporate culture of an enterprise.

My participant Theme noted that certain game mechanics for some games are consistent across the globe. For companies, he acknowledged that the clearest threshold relies on the categorization of the company within the context of

176

international financial markets, and how that influences their strategic decision- making. For Theme, the common language used between professionals in his field was one of the other traits that do not differ across the globe.

Particularly, Wall Street [is] much more than Asian stock

exchanges. For example, if you do millions in profits but then Wall

Street tells that you were supposed to do ‘this’ [something else].

[…] Traders have faith in your ability to hit a target […] so when it

comes to public companies,460 they only want to see this go up and

up and up […]. So, that pressure, I think, it's very similar, whether

[it] is Tencent461 or Nintendo or anything else that is around the

world. They all feel that same pressure, quarter by quarter, year by

year. […] So, the mentality can be quite a different culture in that

area versus a private company that doesn't have the same pressures

[and] you might do things for a strategic value […]; [in the case of

being] a medium, small or an indie 462 company, you have the

advantage to pivot very quickly [...] because otherwise there's no

room to make a decision. […] When it comes to the guys that are

making the games […] you know we could sit here, or we could be

anywhere in the world, we could have gaming guys from all around

the world and we could understand each other very quickly when

talking about games. We could say “hey the pressure is on” or “how

we could overcome this?”. They are artists trained in the gaming

language to be creative [...]; that's a wonderful thing, so that's very

common, particularly in the development [of videogames] all

460 Theme here, makes the distinction between publicly listed in the stock exchange market, or rather, private–not listed. 461 ‘Tencent’ is a Chinese multinational investment holding conglomerate headquartered in Shenzhen. Nowadays, it is the largest videogame corporation in the world, by revenue and market value. 462 ‘Indie’ stands here for ‘Independent videogame development’. These companies/studios create their own videogames without financial back up from large corporations. 177

around the world. […] So, for me it's less about that company [or]

that country; it's more about the structures of each of those

companies—that is where you feel the change.

(Phil and Theme’s interview, October 15th, 2017)

Dany also related the size of the company as the most significant difference when addressing this entity inside the videogame industry globally, directly linking the notion of being publicly listed on the stock exchange. Dany referred to it as directly relatable to strategical actions that a company can take regarding this factor during the different stages of its development:

Concerning my beginnings in the company, when I first arrived, we

were 500 people all over the world. Now they are more than 12,000.

[Back] then, there was very little part devoted to studios, very little

production; the games were made only by 15 or 20 people from the

beginning, [and then] we added 50 to 70 when I was a producer [...].

But there were productions of 15 to 20 people; almost all [of it] was

distribution […]. It was distribution because production was very

small and [we were a] young company that was very familiar: 500

people at that time. There were 8 to 10 distribution subsidiaries, and

now [we] are more than 25. […] We did meetings and dinners

almost with all the departments; we almost knew each other

[personally]. From there, we began investing a great amount in

production by opening many studios in emerging markets [...]. Then

because of taxation we later opened in Montreal and we grew

massively in a very short time. The first time I went to Montreal,

there were 100 people [or] 200 at most. From there we became 500

to a thousand […] and there are almost 4,000 [...]; then we thought

178

of opening in China and for a long time, even from a strategic point

of view, and also because contacting Japan, like [with companies

such as] Sony, Nintendo, Sega. In Japan, [we] also opened

something through China and then Singapore, Pune, India […] well,

several studies.

And in any other places?

Shanghai and Pekin [Beijing], yes [...] two places [...]. Well, in

Thailand, and Vietnam, we did not open anything.

Ok […]

It is a much more global business [when the company does] the step

[...] to enter the stock market […] from a small company, you

become a big company.

(Dany’s interview, July 6th, 2017)

Besides the financial performance or the size of a company, other aspects that were described as similar included company practices, such as training opportunities for employees. Panteon referred to these particularities when narrating the experiences that he had in several of the companies he had worked in. He differentiated and categorized the management style per region of origin of the company, a factor that influenced the practices that the company has in terms of relationship with its staff. He later narrated that there is no actual connection between these traits and the capability of a company to be able to produce a game:

179

So, Ubisoft is really good in terms of connecting all their studios and sharing the knowledge […]. So, they invest a lot in people's […] informing people, they give a lot of lectures, they bring a lot of people to train you in different ways to be more agile, to know how to handle people in different situations, [to] become a better manager […] depending on which kind of position that you were

[in]. […] Overall, I made a good relationship for the rest of my life, you know.

And could you put that in perspective?

Yes, I think it’s also important to compare it to the next job I went

[...]; that was Square Enix [which] is also a big company [...]. I went to Ibis Shanghai […] where there is a studio from Square Enix, which is big […]. I don't know if it's as big as Ubisoft, but they are almost at the same size […]. And the experience there was totally different. So, it depends on the company. You have the East which is Japan and then the West which is everyone else […] besides Japan

[...] and I can tell you it's really friendly in terms of the knowledge learning, the sharing […]; there was nothing like that, [in Square

Enix] it's more like you survive by yourself. You have your manager and you have to do this […]. You know, it was totally different, you had to approach it, you jump with a parachute to that product […] you need to learn everything […]. It was a little bit more of an individual way to […] handle that project. Everything was different from Ubisoft […]; [a] completely different experience.

Would you call that company culture or environment?

180

Yeah. […] Ubisoft is French and EA and 2K are American […]. In the way that their culture is different but since they are bigger studios, they have at least 200 people. That culture is a little bit more similar […]. And to be honest, I rather prefer bigger, more people, and more rooms than just a few people at a time, if you are working for someone else. [It] is a much more interesting experience than just a small group where you need to come up with your solutions, there's no one to talk to besides your boss at that time, and my boss has different interests and there was no one that you could discuss different solutions to the problem and handle all the situations. For me, that is where I can learn a lot. When you have a lot of people in a similar position doing something similar, you share a lot of experience with them as a professional in that way.

And that's the environment you did not like […] that was more

like a small team, Square Enix type?

Yeah, so basically, Blizzard is known for localizing their content pretty well, so, not only the language but also the audio; in some cases not so much in the game but they culturize their games pretty well with local language and local voices and they keep a very good culture among their different hubs around the world and basically what they have in China is dedicated for the Chinese market... so and again for China they have a separate version from the other versions. Normally, the servers are separated in some games because normally, the games don't go against the Chinese policies, but they know how to adapt. They do really focus on the local market.

181

So, then it's a little bit odd when you describe that Square Enix is

not from the US, but you mentioned one or two studios that were

from the US and you told me that the company culture is quite

different.

Yes, for American culture, and European culture and Asian culture,

the way the companies are managed is still very different. I've never

worked for an American company but there’re certain subtleties

among American and European versus Asian companies, where I

already worked not for a very long [time], which it doesn't suit my

mindset […]. I think that the culture is different and has nothing to

do [with producing a game] because two different companies can

do the same job, but they have different cultures in the company,

but they can still produce the same amount of work. How did they

do that, or have they collaborated, that is different ways to do it.

(Panteon’s interview, November 21st, 2017)

Finally, Selina, and Ludo added examples of issues that are different from company to company. In a way similar to Panteon, Selina regarded the country of origin that determined the corporate culture of a company across the globe:

Ok, Blizzard is quite different from Nintendo [...] and Square Enix

and Nintendo have more things in common because they are both

Japanese. […] In Blizzard, you can tell that they are an American

company [...]; everything was great, it was all confidentiality and

the like [...] these things are very American [...]. And then it is true

that you probably could notice there were in France [...]. Well, I do

not know if it is because I was in Paris or because there was a part

of the shareholders who bought it [Name of the company]… they 182

live there and they are French […] but I think, that culture is the culture in general where your fans are [...]. And the fans of the video game were in Irvine in California [...]. In fact, we had a meeting in the afternoon […]. Then, with Nintendo [...] not so much [...]; we were more separate. We did not have a direct connection. It was more apart from Europe [...]. And then it was true that the employees were treated worse. It was more like numbers. It was much more impersonal.

Blizzard treated the staff more like people [...]

Yes […] and much more respect, good salaries [...]. It was a little better for everything, so [...]. You were not in a family—it was a company and that’s it. If you were kicked out, you went.

Could there be that cultural difference between the West and East

a bit?

I also think that the fact that Square Enix was in London and

Nintendo was in Germany made a difference. […] I found for

Nintendo in Germany that sometimes a big boss from Japan came.

Then, sometimes, we had a lot of work [...]. And there were other moments that we did not work because we had just released the game [...] and we had to wait for more content […]. There were times when we did not have anything to do, and right that day the boss came, and they told us to pretend we were working or testing

[…]; it must be cultural.

(Selina’s interview, July 5th, 2017)

183

Finally, Ludo also described his experience working for several companies. He exemplified that each company had its own way to manage independent contractors.

When exemplifying Ubisoft as a partner to work with, his statement resembled matched the ones from Panteon, in the sense that the company offers training opportunities for their employees independently from the market where they operate.

[I]n the end, as I am self-employed, I am open to listening to the

offers that come to me as I am open to work for everyone. However,

[…] there are companies that I do not feel comfortable working with

[…]; there are companies that treat you very well and in fact,

[companies like] Bandai, Nintendo, with their Spanish branches—I

have always been treated very well […]. And there are companies

that told me directly, “I have a problem if you get married now”.

Seriously?

Yes, then I would like to emphasize that […] there are companies

that empower you to feel part of a family. They are the first in telling

you, “Hey, we want to put your name in the credits”. And there are

other companies that are less friendly in that respect and you are a

number, no matter what work, what you do […]; they always look

for their benefit […]; they replace you. […] Each company has its

way of seeing the work corrections, its own way of working. […]

Ubisoft is a company that people tend not to like from a user

perspective, and it is a company that cares a lot about you, they give

you a lot of real training and that is fabulous, I still haven’t seen any

translator, at least from Spain, that ever complained […]; other

small companies, like Bohemia Interactive, it is a company that is

184

working with the model of ‘cheap agencies’463 and did not have the

quality. They will end up making non-internal translator teams that

are also autonomous translators but controlled, so to speak […].

And, well, those people take care of it—they make you feel part of

the project. [It] is very intimate to them to ensure the quality and

look at the guidelines they want you to follow.

[T]he final product is—it has a higher level of quality. There are

also companies that work autonomously, […] directly or through

agencies […]. Some companies have internal studies to have

everything controlled, especially because of confidentiality, you

know. But I say […] if you are a translator and you signed a

confidentiality contract, the agreement is the same if you are in the

company or if you work from home.

(Ludo’s interview, June 26th, 2017)

Like Evan, Theme, and Dany mentioned, videogame companies share only certain components with a high level of localization according to the companies’ different markets. These features refer to aspects relatable to videogame per se, such as regionalization of its language design and content, as well as its procedures to release a game. Differently, only a few aspects remain global, including brand image, and financial performance, together with issues regarding indoor corporative culture.

These attributes are not directly relatable to the production of consumption of videogames, but much closer to how the companies work inside doors.

463 Emphasis placed by the interviewee. 185

5.4. Summary The main objective of this chapter has been to engage with the norms and regulations that characterize the videogame industry globally. To do so, I delved through my participants present and past accounts, which disentangled the characteristics of their professional habitus, understood as a contextualized “system of conditioning”,464 the practices and the normative frames they interacted with.

I first addressed the general traits that characterized the industry for the markets in which they share expertise. From that point onwards, we addressed the stakeholders, and the normative frames inside and outside the company that they accounted for, based on their practices. Similarly, my participants expressed common practices across companies and markets.

These core factors for the analysis follow those contained in the framework of

Qualitative Network Analysis, which has as a primary objective the inquiry of relationships and linkages between actors. 465 From that point, I interpreted this analysis from a normative perspective, within the different societal and business realities based on my participants’ “subjective perception, their knowledge and their values.”466 My participants echoed what North describes as “subjectively derived models”,467 regarding several of the strategic decisions where the companies’ practices are set. Examples include corporative practices, such as investing in knowledge sharing for their employees.

464 (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 53) 465 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 203, Saunders, 2007, p. 233) 466 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 203) 467 (Ibid, p. 36) 186

As my participants have introduced, the industry has experienced a drastic change in many of its facets since the advent of the Internet. Especially with activities such as online gaming, companies’ operational complexity, and the industry expanded globally to a significant extent. This opened a path to inquire and investigate the idiosyncrasies that derive from their governing practices.

As my participants recount, the normative frames that guide the processes for these practices lie behind an amalgam of standards established by the companies, governmental regulations, and the agreements with other external stakeholders to whom companies are related. In all of these cases, these intertwined normative frames are characterized by their own criterion when addressing regions or markets, matching only occasionally with country-based regulatory frames. This echoes the importance of the industry in terms of governance practices, or what Katzenbach (2013) argues when asserting that, “technological devices and Internet services should not be seen as external triggers for regulation but as parts of the heterogeneous networks that constitute the social, just like norms or power.”468

An approach based on my participants’ accounts of the practices proved to be valid to offer a perspective across companies and regions or markets where companies operate, thus offering the possibility to inductively establish patterns for how the industry works. The assumptions and conceptual notion borrowed from Qualitative Network

Analysis—i.e., definitions of network, actor, and relations—proved to be an adequate

468 (Mager, 2018, p. 2, quoting Katzenbach, 2013) 187

methodological framework to address the norms and regulations using as a basic unit of analysis, individual actors, and their different levels of relations.469

What Samuelson and Schultz refer to as the internalization of norms that reflect societal values is reflected through, the norms behind companies’ practices, which are defined regionally.470 These aspects regard issues related to the game, characteristics that the game has, the stakeholders necessary to place a game in a market, or the relationship between players and company. In practice, these adaptations range from aspects concerning the language of a game, the visual design, the content, or the stakeholders needed for the game to finally see the light of the day. The reasoning behind these changes relies on socio-cultural and localized practices, as a result of abiding laws, the unchanged standards preset by the company or culturally identifiable criteria such as sharing a common language. These particularities, only occasionally, match territorially with norms coming from other regulatory actors—e.g., coming from the government, compulsory translation before a game can be marketed, or the prohibition against displaying certain symbols.

Operationally, companies develop their own normative standards for their games.

These are the ones used, initially, at a global scale, and are aligned with the company’s headquarters. The criteria that the company uses is driven by what Castells defines as

“technological creativity” 471 —e.g., a team of developers creating a game.

Nevertheless, later on, this product is subject to “relations of production, consumption, power, and experience, along with the information infrastructure that supports these

469 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 206, quoting Wasserman and Faust, 2008, p. 35-39) 470 (Samuelson & Schultz, 2007) 471 (Howard, 2011, p. 63, quoting Castells, 2001, p. 61) 188

relations.”472 During that stage, the relations established are solidified in the nascence of a new normative framework. This is exemplified when the company ventures into a new market or region with different standards than existing markets, in which case it adapts, considering these. The adaptations are ultimately negotiated considering the tradeoffs between the company and the rest of the actors involved in the process of operating in each market. Eventually, the idiosyncrasies become a part of the company’s policy to operate there.

Overall, these processes convey a behavioral pattern that directly links the notion of the culturally differentiated market to the regulatory practices of the companies. Both are intrinsically intertwined, meaning, the first is accounted for when addressing the development of the latter. Here, North’s notion of “cultural values” 473 attached to audio-visual goods and services serves as a reference to back up this practice. Likewise, cultural variables are regarded as a critical element to understand the changes in the norms that are accounted to introduce and develop a company’s product, an aspect that emphasizes the interrelatedness between culture and policy development.474 There is a clear connection between adaptation of practices not only in terms of product specificities but also on the development of the company’s activities and the regional normative frameworks associated with these. With different, territoriality-based criteria, these activities ultimately are linked and constructed based on offline regulations, associated with different considerations coming from other stakeholders, such as governmental institutions, or the own criteria of the company. In any case, attending to cultural specificities maps the application of norms where companies

472 (Howard, 2011, p. 58) 473 (Hobart, 2001; Just & Puppis, 2012) 474 (Just & Puppis, 2012, pp. 237-260) 189

physically or virtually are located and operate. Besides the evidence of cultural adaptation, it highlights the importance of looking at what Mager (2018) coins as

“private modes of ordering”,475 and the manner how culturally localized practices influence them in the context of the power relationship where the industry is set.476

From a wider angle, this trend also points toward the importance of usefulness of an interdisciplinary approach to understand these processes when tackling the relationship between actors.477

In a similar fashion to their products, companies develop global regulatory specifications in terms of legal relationships with the players of their games. In case of a non-preexisting or in any case, with lower standards than the ones that the company has, the company becomes the sole contributor to that normative frame based on their own regional standards and criteria. This disparity, which is caused among others, by the company’s original culture is, in any case, a factor that the company integrates into its own normative frame to finally be able to operate in each market.

The historical cases stated by my participants indicate that, in the case of a loophole in their policies, these are modified accordingly—although never applied retroactively.

These cases are considered as exceptional, since most of the times, disagreements between players and the company end up without further consequences for any of the actors involved (e.g. a formal case lodged with a regional court in the player’s location).

Although the reason for that is unclear, it certainly requires the active awareness and enforcement by the players of rules that affect the countries where they play from, based on where the IP address is located. Regulatory frameworks are created according

475 (Mager, 2018, p. 3) 476 (Conway, 2015) 477 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 203, quoting Saunders, 2007, p. 233; Loader & Dutton, 2012) 190

to these patterns, and the fact that the activities are held online is no exception. In this regard, the creation, and applicability of regulations is transported, as Castronova puts it,478 from the offline to the online activities. In the cases described by my participants, the ‘reality-check’ is defined, being the geopolitical criterion of law enforcement– when applicable–then one that is progressively present for all the activities that the companies hold.

Finally, some of my participants accounted for practices of companies that share similar traits and are invariable across the regions where they operate. These were exemplified by issues such as their corporate brand image, financial performance, and indoor corporate culture, i.e. level of confidentiality in their agreements, career opportunities, relationship with their internal staff or employees.

Although aspects such as a brand image or financial performance are indeed related to what players or investors perceive externally from the company, cultural aspects regarding corporative practices are strongly marked by the country of origin of each of them. These differences influence directly the internal norms that they develop and the emphasis that they place in several of their facts, such as knowledge sharing, or level of confidentiality across their activities.

The next chapter will address the idiosyncrasies of the eSports industry from a normative perspective. It is worth noting that—even though it shares similarities with its videogame counterpart—eSports operate in a distinct, well-defined ecosystem, resituating videogame companies as a part—albeit a central one—of the whole

478 (Castronova, 2008) 191

normative map. The data will come, this time, in the form of the content analysis of semi-structured interviews, as well as ethnography conducted during my fieldwork.

192

193

6. How the eSports industry works: narratives and ethnographic accounts about normative frames

[In eSports] there isn't one [entity] organizing, that owns everything […]. So [for] basketball, there's the NBA. 479 […] The NBA decides everything. [In eSports] all the third-party organizers want to become the NBA. FACEIT480 wants to become the NBA for Counter Strike so that's the ESL481 […]. The big issue with eSports is that there are six companies competing to become the NBA”482

This chapter continues the data analysis of this project. Chapter 5 disentangled the normative underpinnings of the global videogame industry by taking a closer look at the criteria behind the regionalization of its practices from a normative perspective.

This chapter unveils the idiosyncrasies of the eSports industry in a similar fashion, focusing on how its normative frameworks originated and have been applied in practice.

479 NBA stands here for National Basketball Association. 480 FACEIT (Face It) is a production company founded in 2012 in London. It is an independent platform for professional competitions within online multiplayer videogames. 481 ESL (Electronic Sports League) is an eSports organizer and producer of competitions worldwide and is based in Cologne, Germany. 482 Normand´s interview, June 13th, 2017. 194

Connecting to the research objectives stated in the introductory chapter, we can briefly review the research questions as follows:

• To what extent do the practices of the stakeholders of global eSports

industry adapt to the regions where they operate in, regarding culture,

social norms, socio-political settings, etc.? In this process, what

regulations do they account–and why–in their daily practices?

• How does that explain how Internet Governance is held in practice?

I answer these questions by analyzing the content of interviews conducted with professionals from the global videogame and eSports industries during the fieldwork.

I complement this data with ethnographic accounts from professionals within the eSports industry, including managers, coaches, and professional eSports players. In a manner similar to the previous chapter, the common axis to present the results of my data collection is my participants’ practices, either considering their narratives based on past or current professional experiences or from my own observations. This allows me to offer an overview, from different angles, on how industry stakeholders develop their localized activities, such as content broadcasting, organizing, or participating in professional leagues. This is followed by the inquiry into the regulatory frames associated with these practices.

The chapter proceeds as follows. The first part details the main elements of the interactions in the eSports industry. The next sections lay out the analysis of the practices of each of the main actors—the eSports companies, the publishers, and the companies behind the actual game used to compete and professional gamers and their

195

teams—in turn. The findings in terms of the regulatory frameworks accounted for by both will be introduced accordingly. This will be followed by the concluding remarks for the chapter.

As mentioned, the three actors that constitute the eSports ecosystem include eSports companies, publishers, and eSport professional players and their teams. I intentionally prioritized the analysis of the practices and experiences of these three actors since they have a much more active role from a normative perspective. Sponsors, whose core activities are not within the eSports industry and fans, are mentioned as a through-line theme in the broader discussion.

6.1. Practices and interactions situated in the eSports industry As presented in chapter 2, the eSports ecosystem is characterized by the constant interaction between its component actors and the circular relationships among them, which materializes through their practices. From the perspective of practices, the first three groups that I introduce actively engaged and shaped the normative ecosystem, as opposed to two which only have the normative component in the background. First, there are the eSports companies (i.e. tournament organizers). Second are the publishers

—the videogame companies that produce the actual games. The third core group is made up of the professional players and their teams—including managers, analysts, psychologists, and coaches. The sponsors (e.g., hardware and telecommunications companies) constitute the fourth group in the ecosystem. Finally, there is the fan- base—that community of viewers that provides essential support for the eSports community.

196

As the opening quote of the chapter indicates, the eSports companies compete to extend the range of their activities, with the aim to eventually become a referent in the world of eSports. These practices are extensible to publishers, who see the ‘rise of eSports’ as an opportunity to extend the popularity and life span of their games.

Following this logic, the publishers also develop their own eSports divisions to manage and supervise the competitions related to their games. Finally, the sponsors are also competitive actors and create their own teams to compete regularly.

The governance dynamics in the eSports industry, which are strongly marked by this competitive environment, are predominantly shaped by peer-to-peer agreements reached among the various actors. The Internet has thus created a new industry and a set of relationship and practices that determine how it is regulated. Even though competitive videogaming is no novel practice,483 the eSports phenomenon and its eventual dissemination globally would not have been possible without the Internet.

Therefore, the dynamics among the actors in this industry are a kind of window into the regulatory practices that have evolved within the ecosystem to govern this novel form of online sports gaming.

A first look indicated that my participants abide by norms and regulations according to several criteria, including regional idiosyncrasies, and divergent social and cultural contexts that differ from actor to actor. Furthermore, the normative frames were constantly negotiated according to the actors’ interests and agency as well as the webs of power relations obtaining among them. These dynamics materialize pragmatically in issues such as the level of country-based laws directly affecting the actors —e.g. the

483 (Borowy, 2013) 197

categorization of eSports as a professional and not as a ludic activity— or the regulations introduced by the publisher of a game. The following sections will approach these practices separately to reveal the idiosyncrasies and the normative frames behind them.

6.2. The eSports companies

6.2.1. Content broadcasting Among their daily duties, eSports companies—such as ESL or FACEIT mentioned above—broadcast a variety of content related to the leagues they organize. This content includes the retransmission of commercial eSport events, programs related to the training processes of eSports teams, and interviews with eSports team members.

Concerning regulation, the practices that my participants regarded as relevant are related to the filtering of this content. Myra referred to this when we addressed the norms and regulations, she encountered in her past role running the Spanish division of an eSports company for more than five years. In this role, she would identify cases where there were no existing corporate guidelines to follow when filtering the content that they were producing or (re)distributing. As she narrated, she had to rely on her colleagues and own experience in the absence of a ready set of strict guidelines.

Are you aware or have you ever been aware of any regulations

that are only applicable in Spain?

Never […]

198

So it is given by the company? Do they have the legal ownership

for the content produced and streamed?

What you can regulate is someone storing content that is yours. If

you complain then the streaming platform automatically withdraws

it […]. You can also decide, in the channel you created on their

platform, to eliminate certain content. […]; you decide what

happens and what does not happen on your channel.

So, the communication policy is marked by what is said in the

United States, although the company has offices in France or in

Europe in general […] but at a user level [it] is the company and

the actual consumer.

You said it. More importantly, when I was in the organization, there

were some directives of communication indicating who is a valid

person to do interviews, to speak with the press […] but never some

rules of action within the Twitch channel of each of the users, never.

I did not see any guidelines that were related to what could or what

could not be broadcasted. It was a bit left to the common criterion

of the people who were in the organization at that time. In fact,

personally, as a bit of an outsider to the regular streaming content, I

saw that we had totally absurd programs. People behaving foolishly

and stupidly, which is not by far serious in my opinion.

(Myra´s interview, May 24th and May 27th, 2017)

During our second interview, I asked her to further exemplify the statements of our previous encounter. She confirmed that it was left to the staff, in most cases, to ultimately decide what content could or could not be published.

199

I remember a program with one of the most famous casters484 in this

country […]; the TV director started to say b******* or I don’t

remember what nonsense […] and they wanted to sell this content

to me; they wanted brands that would sponsor this. Of course, who

wanted to sponsor? It was like this, without any criteria, because in

the end, this is a bit like what we talked about the other day […] if

there are ten guys who want to see idiocies, we are going to give it

but […] you cannot distort your content by doing this, even if the

TV director asks you to. We cannot do this, therefore there is no

clear limit for the nonsense.

It’s a little bit, the philosophy of what people ask to see, maybe?

Yes, but […] for example I once made a video which was sponsored

by Audi and a Youtuber recorded a video driving an Audi at 300

[km/h] on a Spanish highway where the speed limit is 120 [km/h].

Of course, the car company automatically withdrew the

sponsorship, but this guy has a large audience—among them, very

young kids. It is more that the video is not removed indefinitely

because the video has become so viral and nothing can be done

about that. The sponsor withdrew the sponsorship [...] but the video

is still there […]

Everyone who wanted to watch the video has seen it [...]

Yeah, so, the video never disappears because there are not the right

security measures. Then, everything that you upload to the network

or the cloud or wherever you want […]; in the end, you control [the

484 A caster is the person in charge of conducting and commenting on the match. 200

content] as a tutor or parent or the staff who is in the company.

Nevertheless, the control is not in someone’s hands, and there’s no

collective awareness of what is good or bad.

There has to be some point in the middle.

That's what it is and if there are values […]; in our case, for example,

we knew them. There was a directive, but it did not reach Spain. So,

you leave it to the criteria of three or four people who are producing

that content […]

Then, is it ultimately the company who has this responsibility?

Yes, and then it depends on where the company is from, which

country, regardless of the millions of subsidiaries that it has. The

company has their own normative standards, [and] that may ‘look

like what an egg to a chestnut’.485 Then, there is no actual criterion,

which is alarming to me.

(Myra´s interview, May 24th and May 27th, 2017)

At first glance, the examples that Myra depicted identified three normative frameworks that were involved in the decision-making process of what content to broadcast; the companies’ own criteria/policies, the agreement with external stakeholders, such as third-party sponsors and, finally, market regulations—i.e. directives that did not reach Spain.

485 Myra uses the expression ‘what an egg to a chestnut’ (From the Spanish: parecerse lo que un huevo a una castaña), to emphasize the dissimilarity among companies’ values and culture. 201

Myra kept emphasizing a recurring concern—namely, the clear mismatch between the actual audience of the content and the filters that had to be used before the final release of the game. With the commonality of ultimately broadcasting content, each of the cases is defined by its own normative regional framework. This is equally reliant on the standards dictated by the different stakeholders involved in that process. As she described, these practices are filtered depending on the production of the content, its consumption, and the companies’ standard on how to filter it.

6.2.2. Tournament organization Tournament organization was another of the core activities of eSport companies as mentioned by my participants. Within that framework, several normative considerations were addressed for this activity, each dependent on my participant's experiences. This was the case for Normand, a professional in the videogame industry who also shares a close relationship with the eSports industry and with several professional players. He emphasized that the practices between tournament organizers had to be accounted for within the setting of the industry, characterized as it is by intense competitiveness. This reverberates in the practices and the agency that companies have in terms of establishing their own norms and regulations. According to Normand, these competitions are a key strategic component that allows the organizers to establish their own normative standards, by becoming a major agent within the tournament organization. The companies compete to gain control and influence of the tournament ecosystem. This way, they are ultimately able to emulate the functions of a national and supranational institution, similar to traditional sports.

202

Like the NBA for example [...] which is different in a way because

there isn't one [entity] organizing, that owns everything […]. So

[for] basketball, there's the NBA. There's the party organizer and

there's no other basketball […]; the NBA decides everything,

although they did not invent basketball and that's why all the third-

party organizers want to become the NBA. FACEIT wants to

become the NBA for Counter Strike so that's the ESL [...] because

as soon as they get [that] they have the opportunity to get lots of

money. The big issue with eSports is that there are six companies

competing to become the NBA.

(Normand´s interview, June 13th, 2017)

Daisy, who works in public relations for one of these companies, introduced me to the tasks and regulative aspects that her company has to consider when organizing its own leagues and competitions. The first aspect she addressed were the complexities of the tournaments in comparison to traditional sports. Although she considers eSports as a discipline encompassing the values of traditional sports—such as intense competition—she mentioned clear differences when it comes to regulatory practices.

Differently from those, her company is obliged to abide by the rules established by the publishers to develop their normal activity, whether they cover competition per se or the updates of the game via patches. As she described, her enterprise creates a ‘safety net’ to prevent conflicts, illegal activities, or just to be flexible enough when engaging with the rest of the stakeholders.

So, what we are trying to do is to promote a minimum of standards

with a salary and a minimum wage […]; so that makes you accept

it [eSports practice] as a job […]. Here [in Spain], the fact that it is

203

not considered a sport officially has to do with the fact that there is

no regulation in that regards […]. In France, I recall one week, or

two weeks ago, they passed a law for this, but for the legal jargon, I

probably can’t say the exact name.

Were they trying to put together a legislation draft or something

similar?

Exactly, some sort of decree to establish guidelines [...]. In Spain,

there are several initiatives such as FEVeS,486 which is the Spanish

Federation of Videogames and eSports. It was created for eSports

but goes a bit slow because it is a lot of bureaucracy and legislative

issues, which might be more complicated. […] I don’t think though

that it would be a good idea to apply the same legal frame that you

apply for traditional sports, it just would not be suitable. For me

there are two key problems: the first one is that our ball, so to say,

it is somehow the videogame, which is a trademark, and belongs to

another entity. They will change the rules because you can make a

regulation, but a company is not going to let you change their

marketing strategies. To set an example, tomorrow Riot Games

shuts down League of Legends, all over the world. You can say that

this or that regulation says whatever […]. But they will answer you

that it is their product... and at this level can be very problematic

already […]. My knowledge is very much sketchy, but everything

is quite regulated …

(Daisy´s interview, June 3rd, 2017)

486 FEVeS stands for ‘Federación Española de Videojuegos y eSports’ [Spanish Federation of Videogames and eSports]. 204

One of the key differences in terms of applicable norms compared to traditional sports is the role of the publisher. Daisy kept emphasizing the unique position that the publisher has, in this case, when her company organizes a tournament with its game.

Similarly, she emphasized the uniqueness of their practices from a regulatory perspective. Differently from traditional sports, the medium used to compete is the actual game. Therefore, as she asserted (almost) permanent rules would not fit in the dynamic context that she described:

[In traditional sports] […] the ball must have a certain weight. The

football goal net must have a length and so on […]; here, we are

talking about computers and games that are constantly being

updated. If we implement a very strict regulation that would prevent

them from updating, that would not work either. I think we must put

a new regulation in place but, at the same time, it’s positive that we

can rely on existing regulations of traditional sports. Now, at the

same time, we have to acknowledge that the lack of regulation in

certain areas has meant more freedom for everything […]. For

example, with the issue of energy drinks, which is one of the main

sponsors of all competitions […] as in other countries the issue of

energy drinks and minors is not well perceived. […] Betting

companies is another good example. Riot Games is a company that

does not let any kind of advertisements of betting companies in their

events […]. Then, on the one side, you have the leagues’ own

regulations, but Riot has its own policies. […] I think it's something

very complex, but it is something necessary and something that will

be up-to-date, and I think ‘it does not rain to everyone's taste’487

487 ‘It does not rain to everyone’s taste’ (from the Spanish: No llueve a gusto de todos). Daisy uses this expression to emphasize the fact of a decision that has a different level of approval among the actors directly or indirectly affected by it. 205

because placing obstacles even if [it is] necessary, [it] always comes

back at you somehow. Then after a new league season comes out,

we have our own regulation where everything is stipulated.

One of the key points to understand how localization work came right after she mentioned the role of the publisher in the eSports industry. Nevertheless, the legal framework that is actually considered above any other agreement between publisher and eSports company is the consideration of the professional activity of eSport, in this case, Spain:

And has there been any law that you had specifically for your

normal activities here in Spain?

The truth is that at the eSports level, not yet. At an international

level, we are part of an association called ESIC,488 which is the one

that deals with the whole legal issue and employs lawyers in all

countries of the world. […] The thing is, we have not faced any big

troubles because our events are classified as recreational, then [...]

there is no regulation. For example, betting companies, to mention

a topic that it’s a bit thorny. The fact that there is no regulation does

not mean that all the companies are going to go like crazy […]

[therefore], there was also a lot of common sense. I think that has

prevented any awry situations in a way. At the level of legislation,

for example, even though it is not legislated, we are very careful in

everything that is anti-cheating and anti-doping. We have our own

policies and we carry them out... […] but at an international level,

488 ESIC (eSports Integrity Coalition) is a non-profit association created by key stakeholders in the sphere of eSports, such as ESL or Intel, to deal with issues of common interest, in particular the threat that match manipulation and betting fraud and other integrity challenges, pose to eSports. Retrieved from (ESIC, 2018). 206

the only thing that we have is our own policies to know if the person

who is playing from home is the player. In the end, it is a policy set

in an online environment to detect odd behaviors within the game

when regulating the events. Then within the league season, we have

our own regulation where everything is stipulated, but I already tell

you, at this stage, we have not found anything that [...] totally the

opposite [...] in Spain there is still everything to regulate

Of course, […] then all these types of regulations come directly

from the company?

Yes, yes […] I mean, sometimes if we are organizing an external

league then […] in the end, as we are not experts in law, we have

decided to outsource it. […] We have to do because we, we want to

take care of our reputation as organizers. […] Then there were cases

years ago of players who took that before competing, which is not a

‘usual’ 489 doping practice but of course, here it makes sense

because, in the end, you have to be focused on your game.

(Daisy´s interview, June 3rd, 2017)

Through this set of examples, Daisy stated several aspects directly addressing the main question of this chapter. Regulation-wise, the practices of the company are strongly marked by the coevolution of their own framework. They develop this framework initially for each league season as a preventive set of ground rules for the tournament they organize. Nevertheless, as Daisy pointed out, this frame must be flexible enough to incorporate the demands coming from other stakeholders, both on- and offline (e.g.

489 Emphasis given by the interviewee. 207

publisher’s updates of the game and prohibition of sponsoring logos of betting houses for teams in competitions with the publisher’s games). For these regulations, as with

Riot Games, publishers apply their own criteria, based on their code system of rulebooks.490

From a broader perspective, when comparing eSports in other countries, such as

Germany, or South Korea, Daisy pointed out that the current settings of normative practices of the company—within the company and with third-party stakeholders— are determined by how eSports are regarded in Spain. Finally, and emulating the existing practices in the global video game industry, the lack of any other regulatory frames in the country implies that the standards are to be set solely by them.

Following the thread of regionalization of practices organizing tournaments, Myra also exemplified how normative frames worked considering the necessary stakeholders to organize and conduct events considering that they have to be profitable:

In the end, there have to be well-established rules to make it possible

to compete... so now we move on to the next step […] they [the

eSports company] are like FIFA491 in eSports. It is one of the first

companies, at least the first in Europe, that starts to set the rules.

Then, […] also in the United States and China, they are the ones

who put those standards. In the end, there should also be a

significant base of players and you have also the audience because

the event has to be profitable. This is a business […]. And there are

490 (Myers, 2018) 491 FIFA stands for ‘Fedération Internationale de Football Association’ [International Federation association of football]. 208

two sources of financing in my event: the ticketing and another are

the sponsors […]

And what about streaming?

Well […] when you consume videogames, the most important

platforms in Spain are for free and […] albeit they developed a

mechanism and you can donate to a channel, it is not a source of

funding as such. In the end, you can monetize the ticketing and the

whole sponsorship, partly offline, and online. Then the online

sponsorships go like this: within Twitch, when you stream your

Twitch signal, with whatever is happening in the event, there are the

logos of the Twitch partners, that do not have to be the same

sponsors as the offline ones.

(Myra´s interview, May 24th and May 27th, 2017)

Besides pointing out the stakeholders needed to make the event viable, she related a second example that brought up the question of conflict of interest between the organizing partners. A few years ago, she was assigned to manage and organize a videogame competition in Shanghai, where the company has offices nowadays, together with a second European-based and a Chinese-based partner. She appraised the experience as not very positive, due to the organizational restrictions and the cultural misunderstanding between the companies. These issues affected practical aspects such as the actual game used for the competition but also the equipment available to broadcast it. She finally emphasized that in order to overcome this practical regulatory restriction, it is necessary to collaborate alongside a local Chinese partner.

209

I arrived in Shanghai without having the information of the

suppliers. […] When I had a word with the counterpart from China

[…] I could not talk to them because they were at the same

hierarchical level. From the boss to the subordinate and the

subordinate to the boss there were two levels, so to speak. Then, this

caused us a lot of problems […]. At the time of broadcasting, for

example, with the virtual platforms that we have in Spain, they were

not the Chinese ones. Besides, the game that we were to use in the

competition was Warcraft 3.

But, was this established by the circumstances, or?

Yes […] this was managed by the partner we had in China.

Just to clarify which things were or were not given or that you

could control and what things you could not manage?

A really big problem was that […] one of the people in my team,

the competition director, allegedly screamed at two guys. The

problem was that the casters and the person who was responsible

for that, was a very funny Chinese lady, who threatened our other

partners 492 by saying that she wanted to organize everything

because it was an international tournament and then our part was

more like a ‘show match’493 kind of thing. Then that lady, who had

a major role deciding the casters and the organizers of the event,

said overnight that she would not come back and that she was taking

all her stuff. So […] [you have] these working dynamics; it’s

492 Myra refers here to the other European-based partner. The name has been removed for confidentiality reasons. 493 Emphasis given by the interviewee. 210

something I had never experienced. For example, I knew the guy who was allegedly accused of screaming and [he] is a very correct person. I think he’s a nice guy; I know him [he is] a very active and results-driven professional […]. Under any circumstance, he was being disrespectful, but in the end, they were all together in the hall of the hotel and then I was in the shower, so I could not go down

[…]. Then my capacity of control was the most limited I have ever had in all my career in the company.

And company-wise, how much freedom did you have?

The company was in the same situation as I was. […] The solution was to give in and pay twice the amount that we agreed beforehand to the lady. […] The streaming part went well for us, but they confiscated our TV equipment on the Chinese border. We knew that something would happen, so we carried the essential in our suitcases. It took three months to receive it. This equipment was

[worth] about €20,000. So, it was extremely bad in many ways. For me, it was a very discouraging experience.

But from the beginning, you told me that the restrictions you had

were demanding and after what happened […]; did you also have

operational problems with the people you worked with?

I mean […] we went hand in hand with [the European-based partner], which was the company with whom we co-organized the event.

And did they say something about it?

211

It was their decision not to communicate anything to [Myra’s former

company] [...]. In other words, if my company had been aware of

the blackmailing […] things would probably have been different.

[…] The other day I spoke to a colleague, and he said that he

organizes many events at the Shanghai exhibition center and that he

has done well only since he had a perfect Chinese partner when he

arrives in China to give instructions to. The Chinese counterpart is

now ready, but if you go with a perfect Castilian494 to a producer

without a Chinese partner, they do what they want […] and you

cannot say ‘no’ because of cultural reasons.

So basically, you have to go hand in hand with a local.

Exactly, that is important, and essential.

(Myra´s interview, May 24th and May 27th, 2017)

The example elucidated by Myra brings up several observations that can be added to what Daisy related. Territorial regulations—e.g. inspection of equipment when entering China or the platforms used to broadcast the tournament—severely undermined the preparations and outcome of the tournament that they co-organized.

Furthermore, as related by Myra, cultural differences, working practices, and the hierarchical relationship in relation to communication, also played a significant role during the process. Therefore, as she concludes, these aspects are to be accounted for when seeking a project that involves stakeholders in a similar position as theirs. The disagreements derived from that ultimately resulted in the forceful acceptance of one

494 In referencing Castilian here, Myra means the variant of Spanish spoken in Spain. 212

of the partner’s demands to prevent further damage to the rest of the celebration of the event or its organizers.

These cases exemplify once more the criterion behind the stakeholder’s normative frames. The practices that surround the organization and the celebration of a competition entail different stakeholders, each of them with their own regulative demands. These sets of norms are negotiated according to a blending of power and tradeoffs across the agents involved in the process of organizing the tournament.

Regional normative frames are, if existing, contextualized according to social, economic, and culturally localized practices. These are accounted for considering the ultimate criterion of the physical location of the tournament.

6.3. The publisher Together with eSports companies, publishers have a key presence in the eSports ecosystem. Besides their role in practices such as tournament organization stated by

Daisy, my participants pointed toward the actual agency that publishers hold and how that influences the rules and norms they set in motion, are strongly connected to their own practices. Similar to the activities that an eSports company undertakes, videogame companies create their own division to manage the aspects related to the competitions with their games. These divisions share the corporate name or game franchise but are independent of other aspects in terms of operational idiosyncrasies. Normand, who worked for Blizzard as a European market manager, emphasized the different agenda for a single publisher, and how that affected the rest of the stakeholders in the eSports industry.

213

They [the publishers] have different KPIs. 495 For example, ‘X’

[videogame] company will have a KPI of increasing the number of

micro-transactions and increase the number of players and the KPI

of ‘X’ company’s eSports division is to increase the number of

viewers […]. They do have an effect on each other but in general,

they are different. Because of that, they can't have the players’ best

interests in mind. It has been proven […] time and time again that a

third-party organizer doesn't have the players as their primary

concern […]; they will work on how to increase their viewership

numbers and they do whatever they can to achieve that. Sometimes

that will include exploiting [...] well, not exploiting the players, but

giving the player a less optimal situation.

(Normand´s interview, June 13th, 2017)

Normand mentioned two important distinctions that are necessary for understanding the role of the publisher from a normative perspective. First, publishers benefit from the existing synergy between owning the game and consolidating themselves in the eSports ecosystem. That way, they strengthen their own regulative frames in the process. Similarly, it is necessary to acknowledge that within the same company, different goals condition the strategy and the normative frames associated with it.

The view of the publisher as an agent that progressively concentrates agency in the eSports ecosystem—not only as a business but also in terms of setting up their own standards—recurred in many of the interviews beyond that with Normand. My participant Sentry also addressed this concentration of activities and power in the

495 KPI stands here for Key Performance Indicators. 214

hands of publishers. Although his main ground of expertise is in the videogame industry, he confessed to be an avid gamer and a casual viewer of eSports matches.

Throughout our interview, he put the practice of two major publishers in the industry—

Riot Games and Blizzard Entertainment—into perspective:

Having an eSports team is very expensive. Having talent is very

expensive in Spain [and] there is no good structure. What Riot is

trying to do with League of Legends is […] that they want to turn

their league into the Champions League.

[…] But unlike Blizzard, for example, with Riot, I think, you have

an extreme case […] they want to take control of everything that

happens at the international level.

Sure, because they want to take the advantage [...] it is a start-up,

that is taking money out of Twitch [...] [they say] “no f****** way,

I'm not going to take money from you”.

And would you say that Blizzard took a more passive approach on

the theme of eSports?

Blizzard knows that their business model is dedicated to

videogames [...] their turnover is much higher than that of Riot´s

because now they only have one game […] [Riot] is preparing a

second game [...] but it's interesting what they want to do. They want

to have the absolute control [...][and] annihilate the European

leagues and manage them themselves [...] especially small leagues

that can take away [Riot’s] rights [...]. And it's normal if they

manage their own product because they are the ones with the

215

license, and they are the ones providing the client and the player's

server […]. What allows you to do eSports? […] [It] is the same as

wearing Real Madrid’s496 emblem [...] what I'm going to do is, I'm

going to bring sponsors who can cover the operational costs to

manage an eSports budget […]. For each extra step that the player

goes out, you are losing more people [...]; then, what interests

[them] is that their your game that ends up being [...] good [at]

creating [a] base [...] so I think they are trying to build a large base

[...] or a model of absolute control.

Sentry regarded this exclusivity as the strategy of the publisher, in order to take the regulative control of any competition associated with their game.

[They need] to be able to feed the eSports, and that is one of the

purposes. On the other hand, you have the monetization package of

the game directed to a niche of players, so that at any given moment

they can jump to the professional [level]. Well, I do not have the

latest figures from the eSports [...] but globally 63 percent of the

players and enthusiasts, come and watch eSports [...]. I am not an

elite player [...] I play sometimes with others to have a good time.

[…] It's a game that lasts for half an hour or 40 minutes [...] and

allows me to be with the children at the same time [...]; then it is

important to understand the profile of the player.

(Sentry´s interview July 12th, 2017)

Myra also described the logic behind the willingness of the publisher to have control over the eSports activities related to their games. She also pointed out similar dynamics

496 The interviewee refers here to Real Madrid’s value as a marketable brand. 216

to the ones addressed by Sentry. Nevertheless, she added the acquisition of human capital by the publisher as another strategy to size the agency and increase the control over the ecosystem:

Then […] this is a business that depends mainly on how profitable

it is and how much the publisher is willing to engage. Riot Games,

with League of Legends, became so successful because they were

the first ones to offer a free-to-play game. Before you had a large

number of players that were paying high amounts for having a

game, but this one is a free game and I can download it. This is how

the number of players of League of Legends began to grow. Then,

they started to think about how to push the game to be even more

successful within the industry [...]; then they hired [Myra’s former

company] for a year and a half to organize it all. Later on, they hired

staff from our company, and they opened their own division of

eSports. Now they are the ones who make their competitions, staff

for the events, staff for streaming, television […] everything.

(Myra´s interview, May 24th and May 27th, 2017)

As stated by Normand, Sentry, and Myra, the publisher tends to monopolize and rule the ecosystem using the initial synergies derived from owning the game. As Normand exemplified, under the name of the same publisher, the company can create a division with similar functionalities as an eSports company.

As my participants have presented, the process of monopolization at different levels is carried out by the publisher using two different strategies. First, by increasing a base of players through the popularization of the game. Second, by partnering with

217

companies specialized in the creation of eSport events and eventually acquiring human capital of the companies specialized in organizing eSport events. These two processes allow them to become a major regulatory agent when organizing competitions. This gives them, ultimately, the chance to take control of the rules and regulations affecting them. Myra, Normand, and Sentry clearly exemplified how these power dynamics are reflected within the eSports ecosystem, resituating the agency that the publisher and the eSports broadcaster have. This, at the same time, increases the capacity to apply and enforce rules coming from the publishers.

6.4. The professional gamers and their teams From a normative perspective, there is a third relevant stakeholder in the eSports industry—the professional gamers and their teams. As briefly introduced in chapter 2, the origin of eSports teams is very diverse. They can be sponsored by traditional sports teams, by software or hardware companies, energy drinks companies, and a range of other brands that consider eSports as a valuable opportunity to advertise themselves.

The players sign up for these teams in a similar fashion as players for traditional sports do. Nevertheless, the fast pace of transfers is more conspicuous in the case of the latter, which is highly defined by how frequently players or other team members move from one team to another. The length of contracts is normally based on the standard duration of a league season, which is six months. These bilateral agreements between the members and the receiving teamwork as their first normative framework. Besides this, three more practices were considered by my participants as key factors to understand the norms and regulations players and teams abide by: 1) the content that professional

218

players broadcast; 2) their regular participation in tournaments, and; 3) the regulations of the game itself.

Based on their practices, I pondered on the three regulative spheres associated with these. I delved into the idiosyncrasies of these normative frames to see the criteria behind their creation and applicability. Finally, I also analyzed the negotiations that the players and their teams are subject to and are associated with their activities.

6.4.1. Content broadcasting Besides the eSport companies and the publisher, the activity of content broadcasting online is a common practice for eSport professional players. Amateur and professional gamers also stream, and broadcast content related to the games they play or the progress in their training. This not only includes the content related to third parties

(e.g., agreements with eSports companies), but also content they produce on their own using their private accounts, through streaming services such as the above-mentioned platforms Twitch and YouTube. When Myra briefly mentioned these platforms in the context of tournament organization, she also mentioned the content eSports players broadcast as an additional source of income, besides their regular participation in leagues and official competitions. When addressing the topic, she acutely criticized the non-existence of filter for this type of content.

For example, I know that there are players who are eSports

professionals and have private streaming channels where they

record themselves. They are discussing their training processes in

their games, using foolish language. The problem is that this content

is available to 10-year-old kids. Their parents allow it, and this is

219

the only filter that is placed, by each parent in their house. If the kid

can consume that content, Twitch497 itself decides that ‘X’ content

should stop.

So, it is the sole responsibility of the final consumer […] and are

there any other cases?

Well, there is a Youtuber who uses lots of swear words [and] that is

not normal […]. In the end, you have a very broad audience. You

can tell that there are 18 or 20-year-old people, but you have to think

about those who are 15 or 12 [years old]. Then I will always

remember that we organized an event called ‘Ingame Xperience’,

and [in the event] there were the top-level Spanish Youtubers. I

remember a meeting with one of them who lives in the United States

[…]. In the United States, this is much more regulated. Here in

Spain, I know it is becoming more regulated […]. So, he never lit a

cigarette in front of any of the kids that attended the event. A group

[of kids] came and he even hid behind me to light a cigarette and I

told him: “What are you doing?” [...] and he told me “I do not want

to be seen smoking because in the end I'm an example for them, so

I do not think it's a good idea” [...]. This something that comes from

the person’s judgment. I do think he is a gentleman from head to toe

and makes his videos silly, but it is the kind of humor of Mister

Bean498 [she laughs] […]; this guy has common sense, but you have

to compare this to the other 50 [Youtubers] that are not very famous

in this country, for example.

497 Twitch is a live streaming platform, owned by Twitch Interactive, a subsidiary of Amazon. Brands pay Twitch users with a sufficient number of viewers to advertise their products. Users can also get money coming from donors. 498 Myra refers here to the British sitcom created by Rowan Atkinson and Richard Curtis. 220

(Myra´s interview, May 24th and May 27th, 2017)

Myra referred the broadcasting platforms as ultimately being responsible for allowing the content to be finally available and accessible, similar to the country-based restriction of YouTube to display selective content. According to what she described, she personally dealt with several professional eSports gamers and Youtubers, albeit only a few of them were aware of and accountable for their reputation and impact of their practices on their audiences. Due to the lack of a pre-established set of norms to filter the content that these famous Youtubers and professional gamers broadcast, she emphasized the disparity between the criterion of norms affecting the content produced and consumed. This was exemplified by her when referring to the practices related to content filtering when broadcasted in the US, and the higher awareness of the

Youtuber she met, who produced content in that country.

The observations I made during the time shared with the eSports professionals corroborated what the participants whom I interviewed, stated. For example, the professional eSports players I met in Vitoria, all of whom belonged to the same team, shared the same living, and training spaces. Nevertheless, they had unequal personal backgrounds related to their career paths until they signed up for the team. Some of them had built their popularity and were very consequential and self-reflective about it. When sharing their thoughts about what it meant for them to be a professional gamer, some told me that they were lucky to be the first ones in their generation to live from the sole activity of playing videogames. I observed that these attitudes were reflected through their practices, especially when they were producing their own content and the content for third parties. Some players took advantage of the already acquired

221

popularity to pursue individual goals, focusing on their own figures as celebrities while ignoring their immediate environment. This ultimately influenced the attitudes toward their colleagues and immediate environment, reverberating into the outcomes of the agreements that affected them.

Several of the dynamics described by the players in terms of content broadcasting share a direct connection with the theoretical framework presented in chapter 2 regarding the production and consumption of cultural goods. For example, dynamics reflect what Howard (2011) describes as “hypertexts”499 and the processes associated to the production of these. The industry is set in a context where the production and consumption of cultural products strongly determines the patterns related to community building, which shares a strong connection with the norms and regulations affecting, in this case, the players. Finally, and specifically for the practices related to the filtering of content, my participants showed how these are localized in attending to one or several criteria. Castells’ reconstruction of Habermas’ “public sphere” 500 in the context of the network society, becomes illusory, or at least, modeled. Individuals can indeed choose what to produce or watch, but the content is always filtered by the entity who is potentially accountable because of it (i.e., the streaming platform).

Similarly, Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is exemplified by eSport professionals as well. Although, being a part of the eSport leagues in the same country or even playing for the same team, they do have different ways to make use of their popularity and fame and popularize their professional career.501

499 (Howard, 2011, p. 67) 500 (Howard, 2011, p. 89) 501 (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 59) 222

6.4.2. Tournament participation Tournament participation represents one of the major activities for professional teams and their team members. This practice involves several layers of normative frames that come straight from the actors they interact with.

First, the players and the rest of the team members share a contractual agreement with the teams they sign up with, which is a requirement to participate in tournaments.

Furthermore, a second key normative frame involves the norms established by the league organizer. These need to be followed by the participants once they sign up to compete regularly. At the same time, the leagues can acquire a national, continental, or global spectrum, depending on the organizer’s criteria, which is set either by the publisher or third-party eSports companies. Examples of these include the ESL pro- league, 502 which are cross-continent, or the country-based ESL National

Championships.503

Agreements between the players, teams, and league organizers are commonly established on a peer-to-peer base. The lack of a supra-organization that could act as an umbrella combining or supervising these agreements—such as Daisy’s example for

FEVeS—grants the agency to the entities involved in these agreements to develop their own framework. These norms are a result of the sole negotiation between the actors involved and reflect the existing power dynamics among them.

During our interview, Normand cited an example that reflected the dynamics of this power play between actors, and how this decided the fate of the prevailing normative

502 (Breslau, 2016) 503 (Richter, 2015) 223

relationship between the actors involved in the process. He exemplified a recent case that involved a conflict of interests between players, a US-based association that was created to ensure the rights of professional players and, finally, the eSports company that was organizing the tournament.

I don't know if it's even still around but [The US-based player

association] is there to protect the players [and to] make sure they

have the best working environments. They make sure that they are

paid the right amount of money [...]that the prize pools get paid on

time […] [that] they are not mistreated […]; you know, a decent

working environment. But the problem is [let’s] say [the eSports

tournament organizer] had a situation where they were running an

event in Europe and [the US-based player association] said “no—

these guys are not providing the correct, you know the ‘good enough

quality’504 for you guys […]. Plus, it crashes […]; you will have to

be traveling too much; it's going to be bad in the long run and we

recommend you don't play in this tournament”. The players went

crazy and overturned the rule because the [eSports tournament

organizer] had a 500-grand prize pool [...] and realistically […] they

all signed legal contracts [...] so that [the US-based player

association] could stop them to go to an event. But as soon as [the

US-based player association] did stop them going to an event they

said, “this is b*******” and they put it on all over social media and

they were ransoming them basically. They [the players]

blackmailed them [the US-based player association] into letting

them go to this event and all the things that the organizer was

providing were bad for the players […]. But the players didn’t care

because they were getting a lot of money. If they get hurt, they will

504 Emphasis given by the interviewee. 224

only talk about it on social media […]; that's where I think players

have too much control […]; it seems though they are not educated

enough about the system.

(Normand´s interview, June 13th, 2017)

The case mentioned by Normand, shares similarities to the one Myra cited in terms of the power dynamics among the actors. The relationship between the stakeholders surrounding the organization or participation of the tournament involved a power dynamic that influenced the normative frames established and was abided by the rest of the actors. In the case described by Normand, the US-based player´s association finally decided not to enforce the existing agreement between the players and itself and was downgraded to the role of advisor. The players decided to voluntarily abide by the regulatory frame established by the eSports organizer, based on their own agenda, and against the recommendation of their union.

One example that confirmed this set of patterns was brought up during my time with the eSport professionals. During the celebrations after their most recent victory, one member of the team I visited in Vitoria told me that a player from the opponent team was celebrating their victory with them. While being apparently careless about the result, I was told that he was celebrating a major boost in his career as he had been able to compete in two national leagues at the same time.

The agent with greater lobby power influences and eventually takes over the ecosystem, jeopardizing any pre-existing agreement. In a context of non-existing regulatory frames or institutions that function as an umbrella, the normative frames

225

behind the agreements are decided and configured accordingly. Therefore, this is a pattern that prioritizes the power play as a first variable to determine the prevailing normative frame, which is based on the standards coming from the successful party in the negotiation.

6.4.3. Game play Besides the regulations coming from the teams and leagues, another important set of norms for the eSports practitioners came from the publisher of the game. The changes made to the game were indeed the other major concern not only for the organizers of the competitions but also for the players themselves. This issue was clearly palpable through my informal meetings with the players and their other team members (i.e., after a tournament). Among avid players of Riot Game’s title League of Legends,505 it was known that the updates via patches of the game were crucial for the players and for their in-game strategies. These updates could come in the form of introducing a new playable hero, or as modifications of the existing ones, to keep the game balanced

(e.g. by ‘nerfing’506 a game character). For the players, these updates represented not only a change to their solo playing-style but also a reconfiguration of their role in their respective teams.

During our informal conversations and meetings, the themes related to the game mechanics, team composition, strategies, or other in-game practices were recurrently brought up. As a side note, the tone of these conversations acquired a certain level of

505 League of Legends (abbr. LoL) is a Multi-Player Online Battle Arena (MOBA), where two teams compete in order to destroy each other’s base. The players control a champion or hero, whom they use to beat the opponent. The mechanics of the games work similarly as a role-based game, meaning the players can improve their characters via gaining experience and purchasing in-game items. 506 ‘Nerfing’ refers to the weakening of an in-game feature of the game by the developers. 226

complexity. For example, the players did not use the actual name of the heroes’ skills, but only the key pressed to activate them (e.g. if [name of the hero] comes at you, then you ‘Q’507 it). Furthermore, even though the conversations were held in Spanish, selective vocabulary was ‘adapted’ to Spanish from its original English word. For example, ‘nerfing’ was turned in to ‘nerfear’ by using the particle ‘-ar’ commonly present in Spanish verbs in the infinitive form.

These informal conversations proved to be an adequate method to identify the dynamics and the frames relevant to the players. 508 Within the context of their daily practices, it was recognized that these normative settings were characterized by the player’s own capability to interact and navigate through them. In the end, the players had different positioning and attitudes toward the normative frameworks that affected their practices. Nevertheless, these were all localized based on where they were performing–in terms of tournament and team they participated- and the game they excelled at.

6.5. Other practices in the eSports ecosystem: the place of online betting Daisy noted, as will be elaborated below, that some publishers do not allow the logos of betting companies to be displayed in competition during their games. With

Normand, I discussed issues related to online betting practices in the context of eSports, together with the disparity between the development of regulatory frameworks for online and offline variants of the same practice. Normand indicated special concern

507 The example presented does not constitute a quote, but a reproduced example based on the data gathered from my ethnographical accounts. 508 (Hammersley, 2007) 227

about the problems that derived from the constant growth of eSports on a global scale and the lack of normative frames for the businesses that benefit from it. The reason of its inclusion is that the case shares clear similarities with the ones narrated by my other participants.

I think that regulations stop the ability to think freely […]. Society

is not used to that; it's going to take maybe a couple of generations

to understand and make it work properly [...] and the only time [...]

that we do need to be protected from the Internet [...] it's with

children. Because it's too easy, especially with games actually […];

it's too easy to use videogames as a gateway into something

especially […]; a good example would be skin betting in Counter

Strike […]. Like, why are young people allowed to do that? I mean

it's crazy. You are not allowed to do that in almost any country until

the age of 18 […]; but you can have a 12-year-old skin betting when

playing Counter Strike.

Ok—so you refer to skin betting as in betting for a match and then

it’s like normal betting?

Yes, […] so there is a famous weapon called The Dragon Lore in

Counter Strike, which is worth £1,500 in real-life currency […]. But

you can get it [free] if you are lucky in the game. [...] So if you get

it by luck […] you have £1,500 in your pocket, that you can then

bet on matches if you want to [...]; but you can use that skin as a bet,

so basically, you are making a bet from £1,500 on a match and

because [...] it's a child getting that item in the game […]; and a

child accessing the betting website and a child using that money.

They don't realize that this is a gateway to betting with real money

228

[...] for children that needs to be [policed] […]. It’s hard for them to

make their own decisions, right? They are too influenced by things.

[…] For example, the fact that they have access to a horrific pond-

size source.509 Stuff like that for kids—it's probably not a very good

idea. But I think that I don't care if adults do that, to have a horrific

pond-size [amount] to bet [...]. […] It's like [the children] don't

know any different, they don't make any decision [...] someone is

making [the decisions] for them [...] which shouldn't happen [...].

So, I think that children should be educated.

(Normand´s interview, June 13th, 2017)

The case that Normand shared goes in line with what, for example, Myra addressed as the streaming platform being the sole filter between the producer and consumer of content. In both situations, the lack of normative standards tackling the practices of a company subsequently falls into the abyss of private, peer-to-peer creation, and application of regulatory frames. In the context that Normand described, these set of agreements are only eventually affected by other third-party regulators. When this happens, the territorial criterion of a country is the one normally applicable.

Normand’s example was reaffirmed with data that I additionally collected after my fieldwork. These articles were related to reactionary measures that country or market based regulatory bodies are placing regarding online gambling in the sphere of videogames and eSports. These novel legal frameworks are considering certain practices of in-game transactions such as gambling, thus falling into the same

509 Normand here, refers to ‘pond-size source’ as the different resources that the player has to bet online. 229

regulatory taxonomy of its traditional counterpart. Examples include Mainland

China,510 or The Netherlands and Belgium.511

This last example reaffirms the notion of cultural variables reverting in the creation of regulatory frameworks. In this case, because of localized socio-cultural values, considered either by third regulatory agencies or by governmental institutions constituting a variant of “traditional forms of governance linked to public institutions and political territories”.512

6.6. Summary The main objective of this chapter has been to engage with the norms and regulations that characterize the eSports industry globally. This issue was tackled and exemplified via the contextualized practices of my participants, together with the regulatory principles that accounted to perform these. To do so, data was acquired via semi- structured interviews of current and former professionals of the global videogame and eSports industries. This set of data was complemented with my ethnographical fieldwork, where I engaged with professional eSports practitioners and their teams. In this context, the framework of Qualitative Network Analyst proved a solid framework for the study of the relation between the actors in their contextualized networks.513

Examples of that include professional eSports players, who, to develop their activities, are related to different networks where the norms emanate, such as the teams they play for or the leagues they join. Other examples include eSports companies, who, in order

510 (Gartenberg, 2017) 511 (Chalk, 2018) 512 (Mager, 2018, p. 10) 513 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 200, quoting Wasserman and Faust, 2008, p. 4) 230

to organize a tournament, have to engage with the publishers as a part of their network, thus abiding by the rules that they place if the first wishes to organize a competition with their games.

Through these strategies, I delved into my participants’ accounts and their practices, to disentangle the normative frames they interacted with in developing those practices.

My approach aimed to identify the habitus514 of my participants or the ones they narrated, which unveiled the normative situatedness of those. In the case of the ethnography conducted along with several professionals of the eSports ecosystems, the dialogical515 process of self-reflexivity was vital to develop to address516 my participants adequately.

The chapter introduced the circular relationship between the five relevant agents of the industry. From a normative perspective, I analyzed the practices of eSports companies, the eSports divisions of publishers and, finally, professional gamers, and their teams.

Communities of fans and external competition sponsors were mentioned in the background in terms of the interactions that my participants accounted. A final section addressed the practices derived from the global growth of the eSports industry, such as the ones related to betting on eSport matches. Generally speaking, the understating of the institutions social, political and economic is what is behind the creation of norms and regulations that determine Internet Governance in their specific contexts of operation.517

514 (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 53) 515 (Emerson, 1996, p. 2) 516 (Holquist & Emerson, 1986, p. 60) 517 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 37, paraphrasing North, 1990, pp. 3-7) 231

Like operational practices that global videogame companies follow to introduce and commercialize their products, eSports companies that operate in different countries guide themselves by two main legal frameworks. First, there is the normative frame that is developed by the companies to safeguard their interests and avoid any potential illegal activity through their regionalized practices. The eSports companies, initially, regulate aspects that they can be accountable for. These issues depend on the situated cultural practices of the market, region, or country in which the companies develop their activities. This first framework is comprised of legal agreements coming from the stakeholders who interact with the companies in order to broadcast their content, which is based on peer-to-peer agreements. In case there is a non-existing internal policy within the firm or no other agreement coming from external stakeholders, it is left to the criteria determined by the company’s staff to filter the content they produce.

Another common activity relatable to eSports companies is tournament organization.

To operationalize these, eSports companies have to consider a complex web of normative frames. This includes a co-development of their initial regulations, considering the peer-to-peer particularities coming from publishers, co-organizers, sponsors, and content broadcasters. The initial criteria to develop their own norms is based on the expertise of the staff that organizes the leagues. At the same time, this criterion attends to the cultural and social contexts in regard to the nature of similar practices where the tournament is held (e.g., societal perception of energy drink consumption in minors). Similar to the regulatory dynamics that affect content broadcasting, country or regional-based laws are applicable eventually (e.g., modifying streaming services because the competition is located in Shanghai). These particularities and the ones coming from other stakeholders are later negotiated on a

232

peer-to-peer basis, affecting both offline, and online aspects of the competition. Finally, these two activities are set in an environment of high competitiveness to become a major actor in the eSports industry. This is characterized by constant negotiations and power plays among the actors involved in the process.

The second major actor in the eSports ecosystem addressed was the publisher. Since the advent of the eSports globally, publishers have seen this industry as a way to increase the life span of their products and popularize their new games. Normatively speaking, their peculiarities rely on two points: their own goals regarding their eSports divisions, which differ from the ones of the corporative branch of the videogame itself, and the advantage of existing synergies between the fact of owning the game that it is the object of the competitions. This last point reverts into a major agency and eventual monopolization of rules regarding the tournaments that are organized with the publisher’s game. The criteria behind their normative framework rely on their self- developed rulebooks, following the same processes that the eSports companies adopt both when they broadcast content and organize a tournament.

The last stakeholder introduced in this chapter is professional eSport practitioners and their teams. Again, applying the normative lens, I identified content broadcasting, tournament participation, and the games they play as their main relevant practices in the context of the eSports ecosystem. Content broadcasting is commonly regulated according to peer-to-peer agreements that the players have privately with streaming platforms. The streaming company is, in this case, the sole actor filtering that content.

The principles that the company bases their scrutiny on, are the socio-cultural context of the market where the content is produced. In that sense, Habermas’ concept of the

233

‘public sphere’—modified by Castells518—is limited, thus the content that is produced or consumed is always filtered according to socio-cultural standards where it is produced or consumed.

In terms of tournament participation, the practices of players, and teams involve several normative layers that they consider according to the stakeholders they interact with. Like one sees in traditional sports, they have to sign up for a competing team and abide by the rules established by tournament organizers. These two normative frameworks are eventually made compatible with their own individual activities, such as content broadcasting. In most cases, these frameworks are subject to negotiations, reflecting the existing power play between the players and the rest of the stakeholders with whom they interact. These examples reflect the normative dynamics that are defined by an individual’s practices, or what Abarbanel, and Allen point to as a novel frontier in regulation.519 Finally, one last normative frame that is crucial for their activities comes from the continuous updates of the publisher’s game. The changes in the rules and norms that affect the game they play to compete, reverberates into different aspects of their practices, such as in-game mechanics, or their team strategies.

From a normative perspective, the importance of the interrelatedness between economy and institutions520 relies on analyzing how these relationships shape the governance dynamics that affect the eSports ecosystem.521 The regulatory frameworks that are created from the practices that my participants described, rely on, first, culturally defined variables (e.g., popular consideration of eSports as a profession) and,

518 (Howard, 2011) 519 (Allen, 2018) 520 (Just & Puppis, 2012, pp. 237-260) 521 (Conway, 2015) 234

second, territorial principles that are eventually applicable by third parties. Finally, there is negotiation between the parties directly involved. The eSports industry shares similarities with the global videogames industry in aspects such as the high presence of peer-to-peer agreements. Nevertheless, what constitutes a critical difference is that, nowadays, regulatory frames for this industry rely primarily on the negotiations and power plays between old and newly empowered stakeholders that characterize the industry through their organizational arrangements of production and consumption, which are set, and defined by and differentiated by their respective cultural idiosyncrasies.522 Finally, closely related to eSports, the example of online betting in the contexts of eSports industry follows the statements by McCaffrey and

Schwiddessen and Karius when considering practices as an entry point to develop a regulative framework for these.523 Similarly, my participants described through this chapter what Taylor puts as “international waters”524 that my participants navigate.

Nevertheless, the regulative side applies and affects actors depending on their nature— be it a company or individual—and the situatedness of their practices in question. The

Internet is therefore only a medium, while the practices are regulated taking as the frame of reference where these are produced and consumed. 525 In practice, the peculiarities, and challenges are social, not purely technological, in nature.526

522 (Castells, 2000; Conway, 2015) 523 (McCaffrey, 2019; Schwiddessen & Karius, 2018) 524 (Taylor, 2012, p. 174) 525 (Conway, 2015) 526 (Castronova, 2008) 235

7. Conclusions

The central aim of this dissertation is to offer a close analysis of the normative perspectives on the global videogame and eSport industries. This topic has been disentangled by unraveling the narratives of my participants concerning their current and past experiences in their respective industries, as well as by the ethnographic accounts conducted by the professional eSports practitioners and their teams. The main guiding criteria to establish the relational analysis of the data has been the normative side of my participants’ practices.

The primary purpose of presenting an in-depth view of the governing practices of both industries is to offer an alternative to current discourses surrounding Internet

Governance. The discourse led by the IGF, often criticized for being top-down, state- centric, and institutionally driven, has a clearly limited representation in terms of actors that do not engage with it. The reason for this is either a profound disagreement with the fundamental aspects of it or, as my participants portrayed, the lack of awareness about it or engagement with it. Nevertheless, their practices reveal an active awareness and knowledge of the rules and regulations that guide their interaction with the Internet.

For this reason, the analysis of governing practices for these two cases presented in this thesis seeks to expand the scope of the study of Internet Governance and highlight the importance of a practices approach of the actors included in this work

236

To accomplish this endeavor, I presented literature that emphasized the importance of accounting for individuals’ practices as a basis to determine how the governance of the Internet works Later on, I developed a theoretical framework to highlight the interrelatedness between the institutional and economic spheres as well to contextualize these relations in situated socio-cultural environments. I also made use of an approach based on the daily practices of my participants, together with an appraisal based on the dialogical comprehensions of both my own self-reflexive positioning but also the positioning toward my participants.

This work contributes to academia in several of the fields and disciplines where

Internet Governance is studied. By introducing two case analysis based on the daily practices both for videogame and eSports industries, I facilitate the comprehension of the frameworks used for the creation, applicability, and enforcement of the regulatory environments that characterize both industries. This research also materialized its contribution by delving into the suitability and importance of the sociological theories presented. This work does so by emphasizing the figure of the professional and his or her daily practices to investigate the regulative frameworks that affect them.

Even though this piece of work aims to widen the scopes of inclusion when it comes to the debates surrounding the governance of the Internet, it does not wish to deny the value of current approaches already in motion. It is worth mentioning that both the

ISOC and the IGF are still well-renowned representatives in this debate, together with the multiple functionalities that the forum has. These initiatives serve as an international platform for identifying key issues related to the application of and threats posed by the Internet on a global scale, as well as addressing other critical

237

issues related to development, such as the so-called digital divide.527 However, what this research unveils is that other actors that are very aware of the rules and regulations that govern the Internet are minimally represented in the discourses such as the one created by the IGF. This work also tackles the importance of the practices that are related to economically and socially relevant agents contained in the industries analyzed. As it has been presented, some of the issues addressed in the frame of the institutional debate on Internet Governance can also be identified through my participants'’ practices, such as content regulation, security, and online privacy.528

This thesis presents the practices of my participants and the normative frames with which they interact. Using semi-structured interviews, and ethnography as a core methodology, I delved into the narration of present and past perspectives within the setting of the global videogame and eSport industries. I also made use of autoethnographic accounts to better understand my participants’ settings. With this last method, I was able to grasp the utility of accessing my participants considering the figure of the professional who works in either industry as an entry node. Similarly, the fact of using my own experience of and personal enthusiasm for the world of videogames proved useful in gaining their trust. Although still useful, this blueprint was strongly marked by the institutional setting where it was set, proving to be very limited in various ways regarding the participant accessibility and the quality of the data collected.

527 (ISOC, 2016a) 528 (IGF, 2019; ISOC, 2019) 238

From the research objectives of this project and through the array of methods presented,

I could infer the following findings regarding research questions one (RQ1) and two

(RQ2):

RQ1: To what extent do the practices of stakeholders in the global videogame and eSport industries adapt to the regions they operate in, regarding culture, social norms, socio-political settings, etc.? In this process, what regulations do they account–and why–in their daily practices?

I. The situatedness of selective practices. The Internet has drastically

revolutionized the global videogame and eSports industries and created new

practices within them. Although the companies within these industries portray

a similar brand image globally, my participants accounted that companies’ and

professional eSport players adapt normatively at many levels. These normative

idiosyncrasies obey situated regional criteria based on cultural standards,

societal norms, and an ever-changing regulatory landscape coming from every

stakeholder that professionals interact with. For their part, companies are

pragmatic in accepting and navigating these various layers in order to

participate fully in a given market. Only some factors, such as a company’s

financial performance, its outward brand image, or certain aspects of its

corporate culture, are the same across the globe.

II. The importance of country-based norms. Neither of these industries bases

its activities considering politically defined normative and regulatory frames

only. The practices of the videogame and eSports industries co-live and co-

239

evolve with the compilation of regulations according to a pre-defined market

where they develop their activities, and the negotiation of the tradeoffs between

the stakeholders accounted for their activities. Examples are found in several

areas, such as the process of localization of a videogame for a given market

(i.e., language, or in design terms). Similarly, an eSports broadcaster moderates

the standards of the content it produces based on its own policies (i.e., content

that its sponsors might find detrimental), while accounting for the norms

coming from the service used to deliver the content (i.e., the third-party

streaming platform).

III. A company’s culture. The corporate settings where my participants describe

their practices are strongly marked by the enterprise’s country of origin. This

not only determines some of its inner dynamics, but also the normative

standards that the company establishes in some of its products, such as the

display of sensitive material in its games. These standards are later adapted

according to each market the company decides to operate in.

IV. The development of the regulatory framework. Companies develop their

own normative umbrella to safeguard their practices internationally. As in

company culture, as detailed above, these normative standards are adjusted

according to the regions in which a firm operates. In cases of conflict—but

only if there is a third party involved in its resolution (i.e., a national consumer

agency)—the location where the service or product is consumed/produced

determines which legal framework will apply. This mirrors the offline

situation, where the laws that apply concern the physical location of a player,

240

and in this case, the legal framework is based on politically defined boundaries

(i.e. Spain, France, Europe, or Mainland China).

RQ2: How does that explain how Internet Governance unfolds in practice?

I. Territorial laws and online presence. National regulatory frameworks are an

inherent part of Internet Governance practices for both the videogame and

eSports industries. Companies take advantage of and benefit from innovative

practices that challenge traditional forms of regulation. Where this occurs,

regulators typically respond by developing ‘catch up’ regulations, although

mostly without measures that apply retroactively. Even so, the country-based

normative frames are becoming pervasively present in some facets of the

industry. This progressive regularization considers the practices that are

derived from these-i.e. gambling–where the geographical location (e.g.,

gambling from an IP address located in the Netherlands), is the criteria to

determine what laws are ultimately applicable. In that sense, the geopolitical

location tends to become the criteria to regulate online presence and online

spaces. The lack of awareness of the actors presented in this work about the

grounds on which Internet Governance is debated, shows (at the very least) a

clear disconnect between the institutional debate and individual actors and their

practices.

II. Escaping the dichotomy. Internet Governance—or to be more precise, the

governance of the Internet—includes a variety of models that escape the

dichotomy of multi-stakeholder/governmental models that are present in the

241

discourses set it the context of the IGF. The governance for the Internet as it

relates to the global videogame and eSport industries, its practices entail a

mosaic of norms based on the regulations coming from the companies and the

physical locations where they perform their activities.

III. The Exclusion of Actors from the Debates. Linked to this previous point,

almost none of the participants in the present study are aware of the settings

where Internet Governance is currently discussed. This debate, therefore,

presumes a passive audience, which ignores actors, that actively engage with

issues included in the current GIF discourse. Professionals in both the

videogame and eSports industries proved unaware of current debates around

Internet Governance nor the institutions hosting and participating in those

debates. Nevertheless, these industries cope with the fact of operating globally

and facing a complex amalgam of normative and regulatory frames related to

their practices. Norms and regulations coming from actors that are protagonists

in their contexts, such as nation-states, represent, only eventually, a small part

of the background of their practices.

IV. The Salience of Individual Practices. Strictly linked to point 3, individual

practices must be foregrounded in any inquiry into how the governance of the

Internet is shaped globally. Individuals are aware of the regulative frames that

affect them. The action and reaction concerning contextualized norms and

regulations fully ascertaining that the role of individuals’ practices is essential

in any understanding of how the Internet is governed at a global scale.

242

The knowledge gap that this work contributes to, follows the path of authors backing up the notion that Internet Governance does not move away from power relationships that influence the production, distribution, and consumption of cultural products.529 In a similar line, the actors behind the power relations play a key role in determining which regulatory terms will be applied among all the stakeholders involved 530

7.1. Implications The historical foundations of the discourse surrounding Internet Governance were presented in chapter 1. During its international expansion, certain actors, such as representatives of nation-states and multinational companies, were one of the first groups be the most relevant representatives in it. As has been adequately justified, this thesis does not aim to position itself in relation to this debate nor to analyze the foundation of it or to defend a particular model of governance. Rather, it is a call for enlarging the scope of inclusion by addressing actors that use the Internet and face regulatory frameworks associated with their activities on a global scale.

Another important implication of this research is methodological. Specifically, the methodological approach adopted in the research—Qualitative Network Analysis— provides a solid frame to conceptualize and takes as a basic component the individual actors and their different levels of contextualized relations.531 An approach based on accessing my participants via institutional channels proved to be very limiting. This does not imply, by any means, that an approach based on analyzing the role of

529 (Conway, 2015) 530 (Mager, 2018) 531 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 206, quoting Wasserman and Faust, 2008, pp. 35-39) 243

individuals as representatives532 might work in contexts other than the ones set for this study. Nevertheless, my research has highlighted the value of considering the individuals and their situated current or past professional practices in the context of my participants’ habitus533 as the main source of data. Similarly, careful consideration of the study of contextualized interactions534 with my participants and the dialogical535 relationship between my participants and myself, proved to be vital in challenging my own perceptions of the field, gaining the trust of my participants, and increasing the quality of the information gathered during and after the fieldwork.

Lastly, the approach adopted for this work encompasses novel modes of inquiry concerning the consideration of Internet Governance as “joint modes of ordering.”536

This approach highlights the importance of disruptively tackling practices associated with the governance of the Internet from an interdisciplinary perspective. Similarly, my study also points toward the importance of considering localized practices for the governance of the Internet beyond the adaptation of products and services in the context of the industries described in this project. Nevertheless, it is by “focusing specifically on local perspectives [that I could] grasp the limits of the various governing modes that are deeply rooted not only in cultural specificities but also in practical dilemmas resulting from the global reach of the technology, its complex configurations, and its volatile character.” 537 Likewise, my work proves “the remarkable absence of governance in what is commonly called Internet

532 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 208) 533 (Bourdieu, 1990) 534 (Hobart, 2000) 535 (Holquist & Emerson, 1986) 536 (Mager, 2018, p. 17) 537 (Mager, 2018, p. 17) 244

Governance.”538 Thus, this work wishes to make a call for the reconsideration of the concept ‘Internet Governance’, even in its institutional context.

In a similar line, this work proves that ISOC and the IGF have deliberately, by non- acting, allowed a void to emerge, which has been filled by neo-liberal capitalism that moves in its usual haphazard ways considering only its own agenda. In that sense, online communities—and its eventual governance—are always built under the control supervision and adaptation of primarily “merchant-sovereign values,” 539 which configure their own set of regulative systems, ultimately controlling how the relationships ought to work under their watch. In turn, they are making strenuously harder for citizen-sovereignty to emerge disregarding any set of pre-established norms aligned with the sole interests of either governmental actors or corporations.540 The status of the non-active contributors to their discourse is left for a marginal role (if none) in their picture. In other words, being the current course of the course of events remained unchanged, the actual gap between IGF discourse, and the actual governance in practice will become more evident.

In the light of these claims, this work suggests a list of actionable points to consider, the primary purpose of which is to fill the above-mentioned void between IGF discourse and the actual practices of these companies. This list of actionable suggestions is by no means exhaustive and the recommendation are related directly to the findings of this work.

538 (Mager, 2018, p. 3, quoting Van Eeten and Mueller, 2012, p. 728) 539 (Castronova, 2008; Lessig, 2009) 540 (Ibid) 245

1. Fill the void. ISOC should engage actively with companies that do not

currently participate in its events. Some initiatives, such as the suggested ISOC

chapters, work as a meeting point of industry innovators, entrepreneurs, and

other stakeholders that do use the Internet for their businesses. Nevertheless,

actors that are neither aware of nor express an interest in joining fall directly

out of their scope. This line of engagement should change in order to active

approach these actors, being the ISOC a direct intermediary between

companies and the institutional discourse about governance issues derived

from the Internet. The results could be then brought up to a higher-level

discussion such as the yearly IGF, in order not only to bring up-to-date

dynamics on regulative aspects of the Internet but also to promote and maintain

a stable point of contact with those.

2. Point of contact. As my participants reported, the regulatory practices for both

the eSports and videogame industries are extremely dynamic. In the light of

this, it would be advisable to work side by side with them or, alternatively, to

work with the outsourcing companies these describe as responsible to manage

complex, day to day regulatory issues derived from their practices. As

established by my participant’s accounts and my autoethnographic data,

companies vary, and are divided according to functionalities and are

specialized regionally according to the tasks that they develop. It could be

therefore advisable to address the regional division (e.g., by making use of

existing ISOC chapters), that are of high relevance or interest in terms of

knowing the pulse of the ongoing regulatory aspects of these industries.

246

3. Approaching the professional. Several of my participants, especially former

employees of multinational companies, neither share any awareness of nor

participate in ISOC and IGF discourses. However, as has been detailed in the

present research, their accounts are extremely valuable in understanding

how—in the context of their professional practices—rules and regulations are

created, maintained, and enforced. This is of special importance in regards to

topics that are currently identified as key issues.541 Similar to recommendation

1, this participation—and ideally in future, collaboration—should also come

from well-established institutions such as the ISOC. This would most likely

create a more down-to-earth approach to regulatory aspects on the Internet but

also would identify which aspects are to be traced based on user’s practices.

This blueprint would, therefore, be an effective mechanism to identify a

common ground for institutions and companies alike.

4. Getting recognition. Companies and individuals that willingly collaborate

within the frame of the IGF and ISOC should therefore be recognized in the

institutional framework on Internet Governance Forum. For this to be feasible,

companies and individuals should perceive the intrinsic value of establishing a

relationship within the ISOC and the IGF frameworks. As an example, take a

former professional eSports player that might be asked to collaborate on ISOC

projects and within the IGF framework. He or she could be brought in to

promote the values under their mission or inform about the current practices

held inside the underregulated industry according to his or her own expertise.

541 (ISOC, 2019) 247

5. Becoming valuable. One way that ISOC and potentially the institutional

apparatus of the IGF could become of some value for the multinational

companies/individuals described in this work would be acquiring a similar

status as the sectoral independent bodies currently regulating the eSports and

videogame industries. This, in turn, would open a path for further engagement

and direct working with those institutions—including governmental bodies—

that are currently central to regulation and rule determination in these

industries.

6. Feasible goals. The mandate of the IGF should focus on the goals that define

the industries that have been created or revolutionized by the Internet. This is

by no means a critique of the other ongoing projects that are developed in the

framework of the IGF or the ISOC, nor a call for them to address the (virtually

futile) task of tackling every single interaction that happens nowadays on the

Internet. Nevertheless, a central finding of the present research is that many

practices in the multinational videogame and eSports industries remain only

subject to restraints by industry players themselves. It is therefore mandatory

to address current practices as a source of information that determines where

the current regulatory dynamics are heading. This would help analysts and

regulators better understand, define, and create concrete actions and outcomes

coming from events such as the IGF.

248

7.2. Limitations and scope of the research The last part of the chapter details the limitations in the scope of the present research and to suggest further lines of investigation on that basis.

The first limitation concerns the generalizability of the research findings. One of the core aspects of this dissertation has been the confirmation of a disconnection between the institutional discourses regarding Internet Governance and my participants’ awareness of them. This generalization is possible in the contexts that my participants described and that I observed. Similarly, findings are applicable to the industries and the markets where the practices narrated or lived by my participants are set. Without leaving the approach of practices, studies could potentially be undertaken in regions with strong cultural adaptation to their consumption practices, such as Japan, or where an actor in the normative ecosystem is much more relevant than the rest, such as

Mainland China. Other interesting studies could be undertaken in regions with strong cultural practices in society, such as religion. By doing so, the researcher could offer a transactional view on how normative frames are set according to the practices of the researcher’s participants and extrapolate the results in terms of awareness of the institutional debate as well.

In order to challenge the limits of the ethnography conducted in this study, another line of research could be undertaken by addressing the practices of eSport professionals in countries other than the ones included in this study. As is generally known, ethnographic studies are demanding in terms of the length of time spent in the field, with the gold standard being the researcher’s ability to answer any question and providing similar or the same information as their participants. Nevertheless, in my

249

case, I achieved “theoretical saturation” 542 by triangulating the data extracted via semi-structured interviews, ethnographic accounts, and documentary analysis. A similar procedure could be deployed in other contexts, where, for example, the professionalization of eSports is much more developed and socially recognized. An excellent example would be to study the governance practices in countries such as

South Korea. 543 In that sense, the researcher could inquire about the relationship between the level of institutionalization of these practices and the correlation with this factor in terms of awareness of institutions such as the ISOC.

In a similar vein, another line of research could be undertaken by filtering the findings with the main objective of comparing the differences, overlaps and, particularities for both industries. One starting point could potentially be logically, but not necessarily contextualized per region or country (i.e.., factors that complement each other and share synergies between eSport and videogame industries). I a second stage, these observations could be analyzed to which of these factors do revert into the development of rules and regulations affecting the industries directly and indirectly.

The third limitation concerns the accessibility to my participants. As detailed in chapter 4, several strategies were deployed during the fieldwork, with varied outcomes in terms of the degree of access to participants and the quality of information obtained from them. The tailored processes of negotiation that each of the strategies entailed, according to my position as a researcher, determined my access to the participants and the information that they provided. Nevertheless, an analysis in close collaboration

542 (Just & Puppis, 2012, p. 206, quoting Baumgarten and Lahusen, 2006, p. 190; Cresswell, 2007, p. 160) 543 (Jin, 2010) 250

with companies could potentially unveil the interests of these to engage with the international discourse set within the context of the IGF.

Finally, future contributions to the study of Internet Governance could be undertaken by considering the multiplicity of actors that are not included in the mainstream discourse. These actors, like the ones considered in the cases I have illustrated, do face particularities in terms of regulatory frames when developing their practices. The research inquiry should ideally be driven by questions engaging directly with the reasoning behind individuals’ actions and reactions to the regulations that are relevant for them. Despite that, this thesis has shown that studying the practices of the actors and their experiences when facing norms and regulations in their respective socio- localized contexts is an appropriate starting point. From there, the researcher can delve into a much more fruitful range of possibilities. In that sense, the examples posed for the global videogame and eSports industries are small pieces within the overarching puzzle of Internet Governance practices. It is only by combining the current approaches and the complexities of actors’ maneuvering, that Internet Governance, as a discipline, can reach a comprehensible—albeit most probably never complete— framework of understanding.

251

8. Bibliography

Aaronson, S. A. (2018). Data Is Different: Why the World Needs a New Approach to Governing Cross-border Data Flows. Abarbanel, B. (2018). Gambling vs. gaming: A commentary on the role of regulatory, industry, and community stakeholders in the loot box debate. Gaming Law Review, 22(4), 231-234. Abarbanel, B., & Johnson, M. R. (2018). Esports consumer perspectives on match- fixing: implications for gambling awareness and game integrity. International Gambling Studies, 1-16. ActivisionBlizzard. (2017a). Activision Blizzard; Company profile. Retrieved from http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/profile.html ActivisionBlizzard. (2017b). Activision Blizzard; Locations. Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Locations aDeSe (Producer). (2011, 21-10-2017). El videojugador español: perfil, hábitos e inquietudes de nuestros gamers [The Spanish gamer: profile, habits and concerns of our gamers]. sDeSe (Asociación Española de Distribuidores y Editores de Software de Entretenimiento) [Spanish Association of Software Distributors and Editors]. [Presentation, summary] Retrieved from http://www.aevi.org.es/pdf/EstilodeVidayvaloresdelosjugadoresdevideojuego s_resumenpresentacion.pdf AEVI. (2015). AEVI (Asociación Española de videojuegos). El videojuego en España [AEVI (Spanish videogame Association). The videogame in Spain]. Retrieved from http://www.aevi.org.es/la-industria-del-videojuego/en-espana/ Ahrens, P. (2018). Qualitative network analysis: A useful tool for investigating policy networks in transnational settings? Methodological Innovations, 11(1), 2059799118769816. Alha, K., Koskinen, E., Paavilainen, J., Hamari, J., & Kinnunen, J. (2014). Free-to- play games: Professionals’ perspectives. Proceedings of nordic DiGRA, 2014. Allen, T. (2018). What's in a Game: Collective Management Organizations and Video Game Copyright. UNLV Gaming Law Journal, 8(2), 8. Alston, L. J. (2008). New Institutional Economics. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics: Volume 1 – 8 (pp. 4544- 4551). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Altintas, E. B. (2014). Internet summit allowed, but Internet censored in'New Turkey'. Turkish Review, 4(5), 488. AM. (2016). Arena Media (AM) España; E-Sports Report: Primer observatorio de Deporte Electrónico [Arena Media (AM) Spain; E-Sports Report: First Observatory of Electronic Sports]. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/arena_es/esports-report-68173354 Aoyama, Y., & Izushi, H. (2003). Hardware gimmick or cultural innovation? Technological, cultural, and social foundations of the Japanese video game industry. Research Policy, 32(3), 423-444. Atkinson, P., Hammersley, M., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 248-261. Balleste, R. (2015). Internet Governance: Origins, Current Issues, and Future Possibilities: Rowman & Littlefield.

252

Bányai, F., Griffiths, M. D., Király, O., & Demetrovics, Z. (2018). The psychology of esports: A systematic literature review. Journal of gambling studies, 1-15. Bates, C., Droste, C., Cuba, L., & Swingle, J. (2007). One-on-one interviews: A qualitative assessment approach. Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts. Bayliss, H. A. (2016). Not Just a Game: the Employment Status and Collective Bargaining Rights of Professional ESports Players. Wash. & Lee J. Civ. Rts. & Soc. Just., 22, 359. BBC. (2008). China 'spying on Skype messages'. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7649761.stm Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches: Rowman Altamira. Bogost, I. (2006). Videogames and ideological frames. Popular Communication, 4(3), 165-183. Bogost, I. (2015). How to Talk about Videogames: University of Minnesota Press. Borowy, M. (2013). Pioneering eSport: The experience economy and the marketing of early 1980s arcade gaming contests. International Journal of Communication, 7, 21. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of Science and Reflexivity: Polity. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. Boyd, S. G., Pyne, B., & Kane, S. F. (2018). Video Game Law: Everything you need to know about Legal and Business Issues in the Game Industry: AK Peters/CRC Press. Breslau, R. (2016). ESL raises CS:GO ESL Pro League prize pool to $1.5 Million for 2016. Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/id/14596047/esl- raises-csgo-esl-proleague-prize-pool-15-million-2016-esports Britten, N. (1995). Qualitative Research: Qualitative interviews in medical research. Brousseau, E., Marzouki, M., & Méadel, C. (2012). Governance, regulation and powers on the Internet: Cambridge University Press. Campbell, A. J. (1998). Self-regulation and the media. Fed. Comm. LJ, 51, 711. Cassell, J., & Jenkins, H. (2000). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: gender and computer games: MIT press. Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 5-24. Castells, M. (2013). Communication power: OUP Oxford. Castronova, E. (2004). The right to play. NYL Sch. L. Rev., 49, 185. Castronova, E. (2008). Synthetic worlds: The business and culture of online games: University of Chicago press. CFR. (2014). Council on Foreign Relations; What Is Internet Governance?: Did the creation of the IGF resolve the debate? Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-internet-governance Chalk, A. (2018). CS:GO players in Belgium and the Netherlands can no longer open loot cases. Retrieved from https://www.pcgamer.com/csgo-players-in- belgium-and-the-netherlands-can-no-longer-open-loot- cases/?utm_content=bufferb9b72&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebo ok&utm_campaign=buffer_pcgamerfb Chao, L. L. (2017). You Must Construct Additional Pylons: Building a Better Framework for Esports Governance. Fordham L. Rev., 86, 737.

253

ChinaBiz. (2004). Censorship on imported online games strengthened. Retrieved from http://en.people.cn/200405/31/eng20040531_144921.html Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2003). Strip mining for gold: Research and policy in educational technology—A response to “Fool’s Gold”. AACE Journal, 11(1), 7-69. CNN. (2016). China eliminates all restrictions on gaming consoles. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/27/technology/china-video-game-ban-lifted/ Coban, F. (2016). The Role of the Media in International Relations: From the CNN Effect to the Al–Jazeere Effect. Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, 4(2), 45-61. Conway, S. (2015). Video Game Policy: Production, Distribution, and Consumption (Vol. 6): Routledge. Crawford, S. P., & Palfrey. (2004). The Accountable Internet: Peer Production of Internet Governance. Virginia Journal of Law and Technology. Vol. 9 No. 9. Creemers, R. (2016). Recognizing China’s Internet Governance Despite Its Foundational Opposition to Western Values. Cucuel, Q. (2011). The video game industry: Explaining the emergence of new markets. Otago Management Graduate Review, 9, 1-23. Curley, A. J., Nausha, M., Slocum, J., & Lombardi, D. (2017). What Motivates Esports Fans? A Data-Driven Approach to Business and Development Strategy. In. Custer, C. (2013). Video-gaming in China. Retrieved from http://chineseculture.about.com/od/Chinese-Pop-Culture/fl/Video-gaming-in- China.htm Custer, C. (2014). China doesn’t censor skeletons: the truth about game censorship in the Middle Kingdom. Retrieved from https://www.techinasia.com/china- doesnt-censor-skeletons-the-truth-about-game-censorship-in-the-middle- kingdom Delamont, S. (2004). Ethnography and participant observation. Qualitative Research Practice, 217-229. DeNardis, L. (2014). The global war for internet governance: Yale University Press. DeNardis, L., & Raymond, M. (2013). Thinking clearly about multistakeholder internet governance. Dépelteau, F., & Powell, C. (2013a). Applying relational sociology: relations, networks, and society: Springer. Dépelteau, F., & Powell, C. (2013b). Conceptualizing Relational Sociology: Ontological and Theoretical Issues: Palgrave Macmillan. Derevensky, J. L., Gupta, R., & Magoon, M. (2004). Adolescent problem gambling: Legislative and policy decisions. Gaming Law Review, 8(2), 107-117. Dibbell, J. (2006). Play Money, Meet Big Money. In: Dostopno na http://www. juliandibbell. com/playmoney (2. Dowd, N. E., Singer, D. G., & Wilson, R. F. (2006). Handbook of children, culture, and violence: Sage. Drotner, K., & Livingstone, S. (2008). International handbook of children, media and culture: Sage. Edge, N. (2013). Evolution of the gaming experience: live video streaming and the emergence of a new web community. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 4(2). Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., Smith, J. H., & Tosca, S. P. (2008). Understanding Video Games: The Essential Introduction: Routledge.

254

Emerson, C. (1996). Keeping the self intact during the culture wars: A centennial essay for Mikhail Bakhtin. New Literary History, 27(1), 107-126. Epstein, D., Katzenbach, C., & Musiani, F. (2016). Doing internet governance: practices, controversies, infrastructures, and institutions. Internet Policy Review, 5(3). Epstein, D., Roth, M. C., & Baumer, E. P. (2013). It's the Definition, Stupid! Framing of Online Privacy in the Internet Governance Forum Debates. Paper presented at the Framing of Online Privacy in the Internet Governance Forum Debates (March 30, 2013). TPRC. Erickson, M., & Dewey, P. (2011). EU media policy and/as cultural policy: economic and cultural tensions in MEDIA 2007. International journal of cultural policy, 17(5), 490-509. ESIC. (2018). eSports Intergrity Coalition (ESIC). Retrieved from http://esportsintegrity.com/ Fein, E. (2015). Strategy as emergence: Reviewing the practice turn in social, organizational, and leadership studies from an integral perspective. Integral Review, 11(3), 93-116. Ferguson, C. J. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects literature: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent behavior, 12(4), 470-482. Ferguson, W. J., & Candib, L. M. (2002). Culture, language, and the doctor-patient relationship. FMCH Publications and Presentations, 61. Flanagan, M. (2009). Critical Play_ Radical Game Design: The MIT Press. Flick, U. (2007). Designing Qualitative Research: SAGE Publications. Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Flick, U. (2013). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis: SAGE Publications. Freeman, G., & Wohn, D. Y. (2017). eSports as an emerging research context at CHI: Diverse perspectives on definitions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (MB Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum, 2007. Freudenberger, K. (2008). Rapid Rural Appraisal and Participatory Rural Appraisal: A Manual for Catholic Relief Services Field Workers and Partners. Retrieved from website: http://www. crsprogramquality. org/public ations/2011/1/17/rapid-rural-appraisaland participatory-rural-appraisal. html. Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Fuchs, C. (2009). Towards a critical theory of information. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 7(2), 243-292. Fuhse, J. A. (2013). Social relationships between communication, network structure, and culture. In Applying Relational Sociology (pp. 181-206): Springer. Furubotn, E. G., & Richter, R. (2008). The new institutional economics–a different approach to economic analysis. Economic Affairs, 28(3), 15-23. Gartenberg, C. (2017). China's new law forces Dota, League of Legends, and other games to reveal odds of scoring good loot. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/2/15517962/china-new-law-dota-league- of-legends-odds-loot-box-random

255

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration: Univ of California Press. Globalvoices. (2014). “We Don't Need No Governance”: Why the Internet Governance Forum Misses the Point. Retrieved from https://advox.globalvoices.org/2014/10/02/we-dont-need-no-governance- why-the-internet-governance-forum-misses-the-point/ Goldsmith, J., & Wu, T. (2006). Who controls the Internet?: illusions of a borderless world: Oxford University Press. Gray, G. C., & Nikolakakos, T. (2007). The self-regulation of virtual reality: Issues of voluntary compliance and enforcement in the video game industry. Canadian Journal of Law & Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société, 22(1), 93- 108. Hallmann, K., & Giel, T. (2018). eSports–Competitive sports or recreational activity? Sport management review, 21(1), 14-20. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P.. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in Practice (3rd ed.): Oxon: Routledge. Herold, D. (2000). Ethnographic quandries and everyday life puzzles-Bakhtin and the study of others. Anthropology Matters, 2(1). Herold, D. K., & de Seta, G. (2015). Through the looking glass: Twenty years of Chinese Internet research. The Information Society, 31(1), 68-82. Herweg, N. (2013). Clarifying the concept of policy communities in the multiple streams approach. Paper presented at the workshop „Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints“ at the 41st ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops. Hobart, M. (2000). After culture: anthropology as radical metaphysical critique. Hobart, M. (2001). Drunk on the screen: Balinese conversations about television and advertising. Hofmann, J., Katzenbach, C., & Gollatz, K. (2016). Between coordination and regulation: Finding the governance in Internet governance. New Media & Society, 1461444816639975. Holden, J. T., Rodenberg, R. M., & Kaburakis, A. (2017). Esports corruption: Gambling, doping, and global governance. Md. J. Int'l L., 32, 236. Holquist, M., & Emerson, C. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Speech Genres & Other Late Essays. Howard, P. N. (2011). Castells and the Media: Theory and Media (Vol. 2): Polity. I-TECH. (2008). Technical Implementaion Guide # 5. The International Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH). Retrieved from http://www.go2itech.org/resources/technical-implementation- guides/TIG%205.QualIviews.pdf/view IANA. (2016). Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA): Regional Registries (RIR's). Retrieved from https://www.iana.org/numbers ICANN. (2016). History of ICANN. Retrieved from http://www.icann.org/en/about/welcome IEEE/CIC. (2016). IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China. Retrieved from http://iccc2016.ieee-iccc.org/about/ IGF. (2016). Foro de la gobernanza de Internet en España: sobre el foro [Internet governance forum in Spain: about the forum]. Retrieved from http://www.igfspain.com/sobre-el-IGF IGF. (2019). Internet Governance Forum (IGF): About the IGF. Retrieved from https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/tags/about

256

IGN. (2005). Kiddies Banned From Peking In China. Retrieved from http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/08/04/kiddies-banned-from-pking-in-china ISOC. (2016a). Internet Society (ISOC): About the IGF. Retrieved from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/aboutigf ISOC. (2016b). Internet Society (ISOC): Chapter representatives. Retrieved from https://www.internetsociety.org/form/chapter-representatives ISOC. (2016c). Internet Society (ISOC): Who We Are. Retrieved from http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are ISOC. (2019). Internet Society (ISOC): What we are doing: other issues. Retrieved from https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/ Izushi, H., & Aoyama, Y. (2006). Industry evolution and cross-sectoral skill transfers: a comparative analysis of the video game industry in Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning A, 38(10), 1843-1861. Jenny, S. E., Manning, R. D., Keiper, M. C., & Olrich, T. W. (2017). Virtual (ly) athletes: where eSports fit within the definition of “Sport”. Quest, 69(1), 1-18. Jin, D. Y. (2010). Korea's online gaming empire: The MIT Press. Johns, J. (2006). Video games production networks: value capture, power relations, and embeddedness. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(2), 151-180. Johnson, J. (2015). The Rise of Women in eSports. Retrieved from https://iq.intel.com/the-rise-of-women-in-esports/ Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282. Jou, E. (2014). A Brief History of Chinese Game Consoles. Retrieved from http://kotaku.com/a-brief-history-of-chinese-game-consoles-1516392921 Just, N., & Puppis, M. (2012). Trends in Communication Policy Research: New Theories, Methods and Subjects: Intellect Books. Juul, J. (2010). A casual revolution: Reinventing video games and their players: MIT press. Kalekin-Fishman, D. (2013). Sociology of everyday life. Current Sociology, 0011392113482112. Karakus, E. C. (2015). Comparing Traditional Sports and Electronic Sports. Ke, F. (2011). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. In Gaming and Simulations: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 1619-1665): IGI Global. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1998). Power and interdependence in the information age. Foreign Affairs -New York-, 77, 81-94. Kerr, A. (2017). Global games: Production, circulation and policy in the networked era: Routledge. Knox, H., Savage, M., & Harvey, P. (2006). Social networks and the study of relations: networks as method, metaphor, and form. Economy and Society, 35(1), 113- 140. Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 104-111. Kurbalija, J. (2014). An Introduction to Internet Governance. Geneva, Switzerland: Diplo Foundation. Lee, D., & Schoenstedt, L. J. (2011). Comparison of eSports and traditional sports consumption motives. The ICHPER-SD Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport & Dance, 6(2), 39. Lessig, L. (2009). Code: And other laws of cyberspace: ReadHowYouWant. com. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1978). Myth and Meaning: Routledge.

257

Linscott, G. (2016). Esports, Sports Recognition, and Visas. Retrieved from https://esportsedition.com/dota-2/esports-sports-recognition-visas/ Loader, B. D., & Dutton, W. H. (2012). A decade in Internet time: the dynamics of the Internet and society. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 609-615. LVP. (2018). Liga de videojuegos profesional (LVP) [professional videogame league (LVP)]. Mac Síthigh, D. (2010). The regulation of video games: past, present, and future. Entertainment Law Review, 21(8), 298-303. Macey, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). eSports, skins and loot boxes: Participants, practices, and problematic behaviour associated with emergent forms of gambling. New Media & Society, 21(1), 20-41. Mager, A. (2018). Internet governance as joint effort:(Re) ordering search engines at the intersection of global and local cultures. New Media & Society, 1461444818757204. Malcolm, J. (2008). Multi-stakeholder governance and the Internet Governance Forum: Terminus Press. Markham, A. N., & Baym, N. K. (2008). Internet Inquiry: Conversations about Method: Sage Publications. Mathiason, J. (2008). Internet Governance: The new frontier of global institutions: Routledge. McCaffrey, M. (2019). The Macro Problem of Microtransactions: The Self-Regulatory Challenges of Video Game Loot Boxes. Business Horizons, forthcoming. McLeod, C. (2017). More Than Skin Deep: Why It's Time to Go'All-In'on Skin Gambling Regulation. Mewes, H. N. (1998). Memorandum of Understanding on the Generic Top-Level Domain Name Space of the Internet Domain Name System. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 235-247. Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of Case Study Research: L-Z; Index (Vol. 1): Sage. Moeller, R. M. (2016). Computer games and technical communication: Critical methods and applications at the intersection: Routledge. Moser, K. (2015). Tencent purchases remaining shares in Riot Games to hold 100% of equity [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.thescoreesports.com/lol/news/5378-tencent-purchases-remaining- shares-in-riot-games-to-hold-100-of-equity Mueller, M. (1999). ICANN and Internet Governance; sorting through the debris of ‘self-regulation'. Info, the Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information, and Media, Vol. 1, No. 6. Mueller, M. (2002). Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace: MIT Press. Mueller, M. (2010). Networks and states: The global politics of Internet governance: Mit Press. Mueller, M. (2013). ‘WTPF? WTPF! The continuing battle over internet governance principles. Retrieved from http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/04/23/wtf-wtpf-the-continuing- battle-over-internet-governance-principles/ MWC. (2016). Mobile World Congress (MWC): 2016 Highlights. Retrieved from https://www.mobileworldcongress.com/start-here/2016-highlights/ Myers, M. (2018). How Esports Gambling Works. Retrieved from https://compete.kotaku.com/how-esports-gambling-works-1823959797

258

Nakatsu, R., Rauterberg, M., & Ciancarini, P. (2017). Handbook of digital games and entertainment technologies. Singapore: Springer. Néron, P.-Y. (2010). Business and the polis: What does it mean to see corporations as political actors? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 333-352. Néron, P.-Y. (2013). Toward a political theory of the business firm? A comment on “political CSR”. Business Ethics Journal Review, 1(3), 14-21. NetEase. (2016). Blizzard Entertainment and NetEase Renew Operation Agreement in China [Press release]. Retrieved from http://ir.netease.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=122303&p=irol- newsArticle&id=2206075 Newzoo. (2014). Infographic: the Spanish Games Market. Retrieved from https://newzoo.com/insights/infographics/infographic-spanish-games-market/ Newzoo. (2015). Top 100 Countries by Game Revenues. Retrieved from https://newzoo.com/insights/rankings/top-100-countries-by-game-revenues/ Newzoo. (2016). The Global Games Market Reaches $99.6 Billion in 2016, Mobile Generating 37%. Retrieved from https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/global- games-market-reaches-99-6-billion-2016-mobile-generating-37/ Nocetti, J. (2015). Contest and conquest: Russia and global internet governance. International Affairs, 91(1), 111-130. North, D. C. (2016). Institutions and economic theory. The american economist, 61(1), 72-76. Oakley, K. (2006). Include us out—economic development and social policy in the creative industries. Cultural trends, 15(4), 255-273. Panoramaaudiovisual.com. (2017). Gamergy celebrates its most ambitious Edition with more than 24,000 m² dedicated to the e-sports. Retrieved from https://www.panoramaaudiovisual.com/en/2017/06/26/gamergy-celebra-su- edicion-mas-ambiciosa-con-mas-de-24-000-m%C2%B2-dedicados-a-los- deportes-electronicos/ Parshakov, P., & Zavertiaeva, M. (2015). Success in eSports: Does Country Matter? PEGI. (2016). About PEGI? The PEGI Code. Retrieved from http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/1185/ Pérez, J. (2016). Historia de los videojuegos en España [Spanish history of videogames]. Retrieved from http://www.elotrolado.net/wiki/Historia_de_los_videojuegos_en_Espa%C3% B1a Peter, Z., & Timothy, W. (2012). The Video Game Industry: Formation, Present State, and Future. In: Routledge. Petty, R. D., & Andrews, J. C. (2008). Covert marketing unmasked: A legal and regulatory guide for practices that mask marketing messages. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 7-18. Phillips, T. (2015). “Don't clone my indie game, bro”: Informal cultures of videogame regulation in the independent sector. Cultural trends, 24(2), 143-153. Picard, M. (2013). The Foundation of Geemu: A Brief History of Early Japanese video games. The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 13(2). Prakash, P. (2016). Jurisdiction: the taboo topic at ICANN. Retrieved from https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaLiberties/pranesh-prakash/jurisdiction- taboo-topic-at-icann Prandini, R. (2015). Relational sociology: a well-defined sociological paradigm or a challenging ‘relational turn’in sociology? International Review of Sociology, 25(1), 1-14.

259

Radu, R. (2019). Negotiating Internet Governance: Oxford University Press. Radu, R., & Chenu, J. (2014). The Evolution of Global Internet Governance: Springer. Rai, S. (2015). Mental Health, Stigma, and Media. Private Psychiatry. Readman, J., & Grantham, A. (2006). Shopping for Buyers of Product Development Expertise: How Video Games Developers Stay Ahead. European Management Journal, 24(4), 256-269. Rhodes, R. A. (2006). Policy network analysis. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, 423-445. Richardson, B. (2002). Narrative Dynamics: Essays on Time, Plot, Closure, and Frames: Ohio State University Press. Richter, T. (2015). Deutschlands beste Gamer treten in Duisburg gegeneinander an [Germany's best gamers compete against each other in Duisburg]. Retrieved from https://www.derwesten.de/staedte/duisburg/deutschlands-beste-gamer- treten-in-duisburg-gegeneinander-an-id10616731.html RiotGames. (2011). Tencent Holding Acquires Majority Stake in Game Publisher Riot Games [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.riotgames.com/sites/default/files/uploads/110204_NEWS_lol_ten centinvest.pdf RiotGames. (2017a). Riot Games; Research With Riot. Retrieved from https://www.riotgames.com/en/explore/research-with-riot RiotGames. (2017b). The Riot Manifesto. Retrieved from https://www.riotgames.com/en/who-we-are Ritzer, G. (2005). Encyclopedia of Social Theory, volume I, and II. In (pp. 652). New Delhi: Sage publications. Rosell Llorens, M. (2017). eSport gaming: the rise of a new sports practice. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 11(4), 464-476. Rutherford, M. (2001). Institutional economics: then and now. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 173-194. Samuelson, P., & Schultz, J. (2007). Should copyright owners have to give notice of their use of technical protection measures. J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L., 6, 41. Santo, A. (2011). Censura en los videojuegos [Censorship in videogames]. Retrieved from http://www.fsgamer.com/censura-en-los-videojuegos-101004.html Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of management review, 32(4), 1096-1120. Schwiddessen, S., & Karius, P. (2018). Watch your loot boxes!–Recent developments and legal assessment in selected key jurisdictions from a gambling law perspective. Interactive Entertainment Law Review, 1(1), 17-43. Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (2011). The SAGE handbook of social network analysis: SAGE publications. Seo, Y. (2013). Electronic sports: A new marketing landscape of the experience economy. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(13-14), 1542-1560. Seo, Y. (2016). Professionalized consumption and identity transformations in the field of eSports. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 264-272. Seo, Y., & Jung, S.-U. (2016). Beyond solitary play in computer games: The social practices of eSports. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(3), 635-655. SinaNet. (2007 ). Founder prosecuting Blizzard online game World of Warcraft Tort Claiming 100 million yuan [Press release]. Retrieved from http://ifont.foundertype.com/EN/news/20078151110301.html

260

Snider, M. (2013). 'League of Legends' makes big league moves [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2013/07/11/league-of-legends- at-staples-center/2504935/ Soler, L., Zwart, S., Lynch, M., & Israel-Jost, V. (2014). Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science: Routledge. Steiner, T. (2008). Advertising in online games and EC audiovisual media regulation. Stewart, J., & Misuraca, G. (2013). The industry and policy context for digital games for empowerment and inclusion. European Commision Joint Research Centr. IPTS'Scientific and Technical reports. Stivers, C. (2017). The First Competitive Video Gaming Anti-Doping Policy and Its Deficiencies Under European Union Law. San Diego International Law Journal, 18(2), 4. Taylor, T. (2012). Raising the Stakes: E-sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming: Mit Press. Techopedia. (2018). What does Free To Play (F2P) mean? Retrieved from https://www.techopedia.com/definition/27039/free-to-play-f2p Techterms. (2016). API Definition. Retrieved from https://techterms.com/definition/api Tews, S. (2016). China challenges multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. Retrieved from http://www.techpolicydaily.com/technology/china-internet- governance/ Timothy Coombs, W., & Holladay, S. J. (2011). Self-Regulatory Discourse: Corrective or Quiescent? Management Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 494- 510. Tsatsou, P. (2014). Internet Studies: Past, Present, and Future Directions: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Aims of critical discourse analysis. Japanese discourse, 1(1), 17-28. van Eeten, M. J., & Mueller, M. (2012). Where is the governance in Internet governance? New Media & Society, 1461444812462850. Van Rooij, A. J., Meerkerk, G.-J., Schoenmakers, T. M., Griffiths, M., & Van de Mheen, D. (2010). Video game addiction and social responsibility. In: Taylor & Francis. Verhulst, S., Noveck, B., Raines, J., & Declerq, A. (2014). Innovations in global governance: Toward a distributed Internet governance ecosystem. Vicsek, L. M., Kiraly, G., & Konya, H. (2016). Networks in the social sciences: Comparing actor-network theory and social network analysis. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 7(2), 77-102. Wagner, M. G. (2006). On the Scientific Relevance of eSports. Paper presented at the International conference on internet computing. Weber, R. H. (2010). Shaping internet governance: Regulatory challenges (Vol. 46): Springer Science & Business Media. Whelan, G. (2012). The political perspective of corporate social responsibility: A critical research agenda. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4), 709-737. Winn, J., & Jondet, N. (2009). A New Deal for End Users: Lessons from a French Innovation in the Regulation of Interoperability. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 51, 547. Yousafzai, S., Hussain, Z., & Griffiths, M. (2014). Social responsibility in online videogaming: What should the videogame industry do? In: Taylor & Francis.

261

Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., & Huston, A. C. (2013). Media, children, and the family: Social scientific, psychodynamic, and clinical perspectives: Routledge. Zorn, W. (1988). Wie China mit den internationalen Rechnernetzen verbunden wurde [How China was Connected to the International Computer Networks]. Praxis der Informationsverarbeitung und Kommunikation, 11(1), 21-29.

262