“We Esports Now”? Cultural Differences Between the Fighting Games Community And

“We Esports Now”? Cultural Differences Between the Fighting Games Community and

Other Esports Communities

Helen Tang

Keywords

Esports, fighting games, GLOBE Project, culture, competitive gaming

Author Biography

Helen Tang is a Master’s student at SMU Guildhall, a game development school. She is studying video game production and has a strong interest in esports, having been involved in it since 2013.

Elizabeth Stringer, MEd is a faculty member with the Guildhall at Southern Methodist

University, Plano, TX 75024 USA ([email protected]).

Abstract

This study adapts the extensively used GLOBE cultural survey to compare different

esports community cultures. Because of their arcade origins, the fighting games community

(FGC) regards themselves as culturally unique and has many customs not found in other esports

communities. This study found that the FGC and other esports communities differ in the specific

cultural dimensions of Assertiveness, Humane Orientation, Institutional Collectivism, and Power

Distance. They were similar in the Performance Orientation dimension. 2

Introduction

Esports is defined as professional, competitive gaming, where players or teams compete against one another in organized competition for championship titles or money (Newzoo, 2019).

There are many different game genres within esports, such as battle royales, first-person shooters, card games, multiplayer online battle arenas (MOBAs), and fighting games (Hitt,

2019). The top four esports games of 2019, by prize money, were Fortnite, Dota 2, Counter-

Strike: Global Offensive, and PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds (Hitt, 2019). Global esports market revenue is significant, valued at $1.1 billion in 2019 (Pannekeet, 2019).

One of the least profitable esports genres is fighting games, played by a niche group called the fighting games community (FGC), which first emerged in arcades. Fighting games are traditionally characterized by gameplay involving two or more characters battling each other in an arena, with the goal of knocking out the opposing character(s) to win a match. Each character has unique attributes, as well as unique moves, which players execute using combinations of buttons (Hosch, 2009). Some popular fighting games are Street Fighter, Super Smash Brothers, and Tekken (Murray, 2018b).

The FGC claims that their arcade background has made them culturally unique within esports (Graham 2011; Cannon 2017), to the point where a frequent debate within the community is whether they should be considered a subsection of esports at all (IGN, 2019).

While the FGC could make more revenue if they adopt the business practices of the more profitable esports genres, the FGC is concerned about losing their unique culture by having to adhere to other esports’ norms and regulations of play. All esports games have their own communities, which consist of a competitive scene and the people and organizations involved in 3

that scene. Identifying the fundamental cultural practices of these communities may aid understanding of their similarities and differences in order to decide if and how the FGC should make the transition. At the time of writing, there is a lack of formal studies that examine the cultures of different esports communities relative to one another. This paper seeks to advance the study of esports cultures by identifying where cultural differences between the FGC and other esports communities lie on a set of cultural scales established by the GLOBE Project (House,

Javidan, & Dorfman, 2001).

Background

Esports games’ competitive scenes are often built and maintained directly by the games’ developers and publishers, who typically exercise complete control over elements such as tournaments, the competitive season timeline, and who qualifies to play at tournaments. In some cases, developers and publishers may allow external esports leagues to run competitions for their games. Other developers and publishers do not manage their games’ competitive scenes at all, leaving the games’ fans to organize their own competitions (The Esports Observer, 2020).

Generally, esports players participate in competitive scenes through ranked play modes in the games, where they compete against one another to rise in the rankings. The highest-ranked players may be recruited to play for esports teams professionally, a process referred to as becoming sponsored by a team (James, 2020).

Esports communities do not just include developers, publishers, and players. There are streamers, who livestream gameplay sessions as a career; content creators, who make videos, art, and other media about esports games; commentators and analysts, who provide insights into 4

matches; and tournament organizers and staff, who develop and oversee competitions (The

Esports Observer, 2020). Spectators play a role in esports communities as well. Millions of

people across the globe spectate esports matches by attending live events, watching on

television, or tuning in to livestreams on websites like Twitch and YouTube (Willingham, 2018).

This viewership allows the esports industry to make revenue from media rights, merchandise,

advertisements, and ticket sales. Spectators also attract the attention of brands, which sponsor

events, players, and teams in exchange for opportunities to promote their brand (Pannekeet,

2019).

During the development of modern esports communities in the 1990s, FGC members

played a variety of fighting games in the public spaces of arcades, where people could walk in

and declare that they wanted to play simply by placing a quarter on an arcade cabinet (Cannon,

2017). This high degree of public accessibility led the FGC to develop a mentality that anybody could be a competitor if they had the desire to compete (Cannon, 2017). Many members visited

their neighborhood arcades regularly so they could continuously hone their skills (Chin &

Vincent, 2015). Particularly strong players like Justin Wong and Sanford Kelly gained regional fame, becoming icons of their local competitive scenes (Hayes, 2012). Community members’ interest in competing against one another led to small, spontaneous, volunteer-run tournaments

(Learned, 2017). In line with the FGC philosophy that anyone can compete, anybody could enter these “open” tournaments (Murray, 2018a).

The FGC differed from other esports communities in the 1990s in four major ways. First,

in contrast to FGC players meeting in the public spaces of arcades, players in other esports

communities tended to play PC games, such as Quake and StarCraft, with each other remotely via internet connection from home (Graham, 2011). These players sometimes played in-person at 5

“LAN parties”, but such parties were usually still held in homes and other private spaces rather

than in public areas (Kuchera, 2015). Second, while the one-versus-one nature of fighting games

highlighted individual performance, many of the games played in other esports communities at

the time were team-based, like Halo and Counter-Strike (Larch, 2019). Other esports communities thus had a greater focus on appreciating strong team performance. Third, unlike the

FGC’s community-run, local tournaments, other esports communities had professional, competitive leagues run by companies like the Electronic Esports League and ClanBase, which

featured national and international levels of competition (Learned, 2017; Larch, 2019). Lastly,

while anyone could enter an FGC tournament, in other esports communities, only qualified

players and teams could compete in leagues (Murray, 2018a).

The FGC today has changed in some ways since the 1990s. It has moved out of arcades

and scaled up to include national and international level competitions (Learned, 2017). The FGC also has more overlap with other esports communities because teams from other esports

communities have started to sponsor more fighting game players (Shaw, 2016). Additionally,

more league-based fighting game events have arisen (Myers, 2017; Cannon, 2011). Despite these

changes, the FGC still maintains many of the differences they had from the rest of esports.

Although fighting games can be played online from home now, FGC members state that they

still prefer playing together in-person because they can bond with one another (Chin & Vincent,

2015). Community members continue to self-organize competitive scenes (Learned, 2017). Most

fighting game tournaments, including small, local events and the largest and most prestigious

tournament, Evo, remain open for anyone to enter. As a result, FGC tournaments offer

opportunities for professional and amateur players to compete and interact with each other. This 6

is a social environment rarely found in other esports communities, where most tournaments are

still invitationals restricted to qualifying competitors (Murray, 2018a).

In addition to lingering differences from the 1990s, there are other facets of the modern

FGC that are uncommon in other esports communities. The FGC is infamous for trash talk

between competitors while playing, even at a professional level (Murray, 2018a). In other

esports, trash talk may be regarded as unsportsmanlike, and codes of conduct discourage trash

talk in professional play. For instance, the League of Legends World Championship rules state

that players cannot direct insulting gestures or speech at opponents (LoL Esports Staff, 2019a).

FGC tournament formats also differ from tournament formats for other esports. The FGC prefers

double-elimination brackets, where players only need to play specific people and can lose twice

before being eliminated. Other esports usually use single-elimination brackets, which are like

double-elimination brackets except that players or teams are eliminated instantly upon losing, or

round-robin formats, where each competitor must play against every other competitor (Learned,

2017).

Given these differences between the FGC and other esports communities, the FGC’s self-

conception of being culturally distinct from other esports seems reasonable. Yet, the FGC has

found more common ground with other esports communities in terms of team sponsorships and

esports league assimilations (Myers, 2017; Shaw, 2016; Cannon, 2011). It is possible that the

cultural lines between the FGC and other esports communities are growing blurrier. This is a shift that troubles some FGC members, including community leaders like Evo co-founder Tom

Cannon and commentator David “UltraDavid” Graham, who have expressed resistance towards the idea of the FGC becoming more like other esports (Cannon 2011; Graham 2011). Resistance

comes not only from perceived cultural mismatches between the FGC and other esports 7

communities, but also from unsuccessful attempts at integrating with esports leagues in the past.

League events, like the 2005 World Cyber Games, MLG 2005, 2007 Championship Gaming

Series, and MLG 2010 have made various management mistakes. These include running unpopular fighting games, failing to consult FGC members on best practices, and utilizing non- standard rule sets (Cannon, 2011). ELEAGUE’s 2017 Street Fighter V invitational was criticized for aspects like its unconventional round-robin format and conspicuous absence of trash talk

(Myers, 2017). Because of these mismanaged league events, FGC members tend to mistrust and reject the league model.

There are potential financial benefits if the FGC assimilates more with esports leagues.

Other esports communities, such as those of Fortnite and Dota 2, have official events with millions of dollars in support from game developers and publishers (Nordmark & Heath, 2019).

In contrast, most FGC tournaments are organized by community members who must invest limited personal funds to run tournaments and pay winners. Thus, FGC tournaments often struggle financially. Rick Thiher, organizer of a major fighting game tournament called Combo

Breaker, states that Combo Breaker has never been profitable since it began in 2015. Thiher says the only way he could make a small amount of money from the tournament is by not paying the community members who make the event possible, which he does not see as an acceptable option (Vazquez, 2017).

When FGC tournaments do receive support from developers and publishers, the amount of support still pales in comparison to what developers and publishers provide in other esports communities. The single largest earning in fighting games is the $250,000 that Saul Leonardo

“MenaRD” Mena II won from Street Fighter developer Capcom for placing first in the 2017

Street Fighter V Pro Tour (Esports Earnings, 2020b). Meanwhile, the single largest earning in 8

other esports comes from Dota 2’s The International 2019. Dota 2’s developer and publisher,

Valve, awarded each player on the winning team $3.1 million (Fingas, 2019). It is worth noting that although MenaRD won a large amount of money from a single event, his winnings across all other tournaments he has played since 2017 amount to just $7989.52. He is only the 486th highest earning esports player in the world (Esports Earnings, 2020b).

As another point of comparison, the highest earning fighting game player at the time of writing, Dominique “SonicFox” McLean, does not earn as much as the average esports player.

McLean ranks 169th in the world for total esports income. In 2018, he earned $84,201.28 across

23 tournaments, for an average of about $3,661 per tournament (Esports Earnings, 2020a). This is $4,639 below the median player earnings per tournament for esports that year, which was

$8,300 (Influencer Marketing Hub, 2020).

If the FGC partners with esports leagues, some of these profitability issues could be resolved. Compared to independent FGC organizers, leagues, as corporate entities devoted to esports competitions, can more easily afford to build tournaments with large prize pools. To put the amount of money into perspective, Evo 2018 had $186,365 in prize money across eight different fighting games, including Street Fighter V. That same year, esports league and television show ELEAGUE held an invitational for just Street Fighter V with a $250,000 prize pool. Evo is more renowned in the FGC than ELEAGUE, and it had more viewers than

ELEAGUE did, but Street Fighter V players made more money participating in ELEAGUE’s event (Ring, 2019). If esports leagues can help FGC organizers build financially stable tournaments and provide larger prizes for tournament winners, more FGC members could make a living from competitive gaming (Vazquez, 2017; Cannon, 2011; Graham, 2011).

Situating the Case

As Graham and Cannon note, the FGC’s arcade origins have led to the community developing very different customs than other esports communities. Therefore, they cannot be treated identically to those communities and do not want to sacrifice their uniqueness while

striving for profitability and growth (Cannon, 2011; Graham, 2011). Unfortunately, the FGC is

not confident that outsiders, including esports leagues, will understand their values, culture, and

expectations enough to form beneficial relationships or create events that feel like FGC events

(Cannon, 2011; Graham, 2011). This lack of confidence is reflected in Steltenpohl, Reed, and

Keys’ (2018) research on FGC meta-stereotypes. They found that most FGC members feel their

community is misunderstood by non-FGC gamers, non-gamers, games media, and non-gaming

media.

To assess the FGC’s opinions on their community’s uniqueness within esports, as well as

gauge their opinions on FGC-esports assimilations, this study asked FGC members to rate three

statements about the FGC as it relates to esports. These statements were “I consider fighting

games to be esports”, “the FGC would lose some of its appeal if it became more like esports”,

and “the FGC would benefit from becoming more like esports”. Each statement was rated on a

seven-point Likert scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (7). Additionally,

respondents could opt to provide qualitative data by describing their perception of esports.

Ninety-five FGC members responded. 51.6% of them strongly agreed that they consider

fighting games to be esports, showing that they may acknowledge fighting games are shifting to

become more like other esports. The data also indicates that respondents do not agree on whether

this is a good or bad change. 31.6% somewhat agreed that the FGC would lose some appeal if it 10

became more like other esports, while 29.5% somewhat disagreed, disagreed, or strongly

disagreed with that notion. 49.5% of participants strongly agreed, agreed, or somewhat agreed that the FGC would benefit from becoming more like other esports, while 35.8% of participants

strongly disagreed, disagreed, or somewhat disagreed that the FGC would benefit from doing so.

The full range of responses to these statements are shown in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3.

The collected qualitative data supports this split opinion. Respondents commented on

both the perceived positives and negatives of esports assimilation. Some positives mentioned are

that esports is “providing financial support to players”, “funding the community”, and “bringing

games and their communities into the mainstream”, which affirm the notion that partnerships

with esports leagues could help the FGC profit and grow. Some negative descriptions of esports

were “hindering individual expression”, “corporate exploitation of players”, and “gentrification”,

which confirm the FGC’s hesitation to partner with esports leagues.

Research Purpose

Researchers should establish a better understanding of the cultural differences between

the FGC and other esports communities to help make future collaborations between the FGC and

esports leagues more successful. An improved understanding of FGC culture could also help

other parties interested in the FGC, such as brands or the media, interact more effectively with

the FGC, thus providing the community with more valuable sponsorships and exposure. At the

time of writing, there are no studies that have attempted to formally describe the cultures of the

FGC and other esports in relation to one another. Thus, this research’s goal is to identify the

specific cultural differences between the FGC and other esports communities. 11

For the sake of scope, other esports communities in this study are represented by the

community of one esports game, League of Legends. League of Legends is a team-based MOBA game. It was chosen for the researchers’ ease of access to participants and for its representativeness of non-fighting esports games. The team-based aspect of League of Legends is

shared among nine of the top ten esports titles of 2019 (Hitt, 2019). League of Legends attracts

over 100 million active players per month, making it the most played PC game in the world

(Cocke, 2018). Additionally, League of Legends was one of three MOBA genre games within the

ten largest esports games of 2019 (Hitt, 2019).

The researchers used the GLOBE culture scales to compare the cultures of the FGC and

the League of Legends community, as the scales are designed for comparing different

organizations or societies (House, Javidan, & Dorfman, 2001). Five GLOBE culture dimensions

were identified as useful for analyzing esports community cultures due to their applicability to a

gaming context and the ease of adapting their respective survey questions to said context.

• Assertiveness: The degree to which individuals in a group are (and should be)

“assertive, confrontational, and aggressive” with others. If a group’s

Assertiveness score is low, they act more assertive, confrontational, and

aggressive with others than if a group’s Assertiveness score is high (Globe

Project, 2004).

• Performance Orientation: How much a group encourages and rewards (and

should encourage and reward) its members for “performance improvement and

excellence”. If a group’s Performance Orientation score is low, they encourage 12

and reward performance improvement and excellence to a greater degree than if a

group’s Performance Orientation score is high (Globe Project, 2004).

• Humane Orientation: The degree to which a group encourages and rewards (and

should encourage and reward) its members for “being fair, altruistic, friendly,

generous, caring, and kind to others”. If a group’s Humane Orientation score is

low, they are fairer, more altruistic, friendlier, more generous, more caring, and

kinder to others than if a group’s Humane Orientation score is high (Globe

Project, 2004).

• Institutional Collectivism: How much a group encourages and rewards (and

should encourage and reward) its members for prioritizing group interests and

group loyalty. If a group’s Institutional Collectivism score is low, they value

prioritizing group interests and group loyalty over individuals’ wishes more than

if a group’s Institutional Collectivism score is high (Globe Project, 2004).

• Power Distance: The degree to which a group accepts differences in levels of

authority, power, and status within themselves. If a group’s Power Distance score

is low, they are more accepting of differences in levels of authority, power, and

status within themselves than if a group’s Power Distance score is high (Globe

Project, 2004).

With the selected GLOBE cultural scales as a basis, the researchers sought to answer three research questions. First, where does the FGC fall on the GLOBE cultural scales? Second, where does the League of Legends community fall on the GLOBE cultural scales? Third, how do the positions of the FGC and League of Legends community on the GLOBE cultural scales compare to one another? 13

The study aimed to accept or reject five different hypotheses, one for each GLOBE cultural dimension. The researchers formulated the following hypotheses based on their preliminary research into the cultures of the FGC and the League of Legends community.

Hypothesis 1

The FGC has a higher Assertiveness score than the League of Legends community.

This means the FGC is less assertive than the League of Legends community. The researchers formulated this hypothesis because assertiveness is important for winning matches in a team-based game like League of Legends (Kou & Gui, 2014). Since fighting games are generally not played in team formats, being assertive is not essential to winning a fighting game match.

Hypothesis 2

The FGC and League of Legends community both score low on the Performance

Orientation scale.

This means there is no significant difference between the FGC and the League of Legends community in Performance Orientation. The researchers formulated this hypothesis because all esports communities, by definition, involve competitive gaming (Newzoo, 2019). The drive to win and become better at a game is inherent to both the FGC and League of Legends community as esports communities. 14

Hypothesis 3

The FGC has a lower Humane Orientation score than the League of Legends community.

This means the FGC is more humanely oriented than the League of Legends community.

The researchers formulated this hypothesis because League of Legends players have a negative reputation for being toxic and aggressive to others while playing. (LeJacq, 2015). Contrastingly,

FGC members have self-described their community as family and often form friendships out of teaching one another how to play fighting games (Chin & Vincent, 2015).

Hypothesis 4

The FGC has a higher Institutional Collectivism score than the League of Legends community.

This means the FGC values Institutional Collectivism less than the League of Legends community does. The researchers formulated this hypothesis because the FGC focuses on one- versus-one games and thus emphasizes individual players (Hayes, 2012). Meanwhile, League of

Legends is a team-based game, so collectives and the ability to work together towards a shared cause are more important than they are in fighting games (Kou & Gui, 2014).

Hypothesis 5

The FGC has a higher Power Distance score than the League of Legends community.

This means the FGC has less Power Distance between its members than the League of

Legends community does. The researchers formulated this hypothesis because the FGC does not 15

separate professional players from amateurs (Murray, 2018a). Furthermore, FGC members often shape their own competitive scenes independently of fighting game developers and publishers

(Learned, 2017). This is the opposite of League of Legends’ invitational-style tournaments, which admit only professionals. Riot Games, League of Legends’ developer, controls the game’s entire competitive scene (Murray, 2018b).

Methodology

The research instruments were two quantitative, self-administered surveys that adapted questions from parts one and three of the GLOBE Research Survey: Form Beta (See Appendix

A) to the contexts of the fighting games and League of Legends communities. These surveys measured the communities on the scales of Assertiveness, Performance Orientation, Humane

Orientation, Institutional Collectivism, and Power Distance. The number of questions per scale varied. When possible, the GLOBE questions’ exact wording was used to maintain their original intent. The researchers needed to modify certain questions to better fit them to a gaming context and accurately reflect differences between fighting games and League of Legends. For instance, one question within the GLOBE survey’s Institutional Collectivism scale asks if people in the respondent’s society prefer to play “only individual sports” or “only team sports” (GLOBE

Project, 2004). In the FGC survey, this question was reworded to ask participants about preferences regarding one-versus-one and two-versus-two game modes. In the League of

Legends community survey, this question was reworded to ask participants about preferences regarding strong individual play and strong team play, as no one-versus-one or two-versus-two game modes are built into League of Legends. Like the GLOBE survey, all questions were rated 16

on seven-point Likert scales. For example, 1 might be “strongly agree” and 7 might be “strongly

disagree”, or 1 might be “very generous” while 7 might be “not at all generous”.

The researchers used the Discord chat service and social media websites, including

Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter, to distribute an FGC survey link (See Appendix B) to FGC

community members and a League of Legends survey link (See Appendix C) to League of

Legends community members. An unlimited number of people could take each survey. Access to

the surveys was limited to adult residents of the United States of America and Canada.

Respondents self-selected into the survey, and all responses were anonymous. In total, 121

participants returned the FGC survey, and 35 participants returned the League of Legends survey.

Reliability tests were performed on each cultural scale using the combined sample of 156 respondents. Although the GLOBE scales have historically proven psychometrically reliable in other contexts (Globe Project, 2006b), it was necessary to check their internal consistency when

applied to a gaming context. A Cronbach’s alpha of α = .70 and above was considered reliable.

Initially, only Humane Orientation and Institutional Collectivism met the reliability threshold

with scores of α = .81 and α = .77, respectively. Since the scores for Assertiveness, Performance

Orientation, and Power Distance were below α = .70, the researchers performed a varimax factor

analysis on these scales to determine what specific items did not load significantly on the factor.

Using SPSS, the researchers could determine how much a scale’s internal reliability would

increase by removing each item. Following this procedure, the internal reliabilities of the three

scales were improved, such that after item removal, Assertiveness, Performance Orientation, and

Power Distance yielded acceptable Cronbach’s alphas of α = .74, α = .70, and α = .70,

respectively. Since Humane Orientation and Institutional Collectivism already had acceptable 17

Cronbach’s alphas, they were not subjected to the varimax factor analysis. The reliability test and

factor analysis results are shown in Table 1.

One-way ANOVAs were then conducted to compare the FGC’s means on the five scales

to the League of Legends community’s means on those scales. Means were used to standardize

the data, show the relationship across variables that summed to different scales, and decrease the

impact of outliers on the data. A p-value of 0.05 or less indicated that the difference in means

between the two groups was statistically significant. The one-way ANOVAs results are shown in

Table 2.

Results and Discussions

Overall Results

The results demonstrate significant differences between the FGC and League of Legends

community cultures in the dimensions of Assertiveness, Humane Orientation, Institutional

Collectivism, and Power Distance. There are no significant differences in Performance

Orientation. Therefore, hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were accepted. The following sections

discuss potential reasons for differences and similarities between the two communities for each cultural dimension.

Hypothesis 1: Accepted

The League of Legends community was rated as more assertive than the FGC. One possible reason for this difference is that League of Legends requires assertiveness on the part of 18

players for them to win as a team. Kou and Gui (2014) in their study on temporary teams in

League of Legends interviewed several players who discussed the importance of various

assertive behaviors. Teammates need to maintain constant communication to handle changing

gameplay situations. Before matches even start, team members declare what role they wish to

play in the pre-game chat lobby, so the team can better organize who is taking on which roles.

Because there is no predetermined leadership structure in League of Legends matches, leaders

tend to emerge organically mid-game. These are typically players with a dominating

performance, players who make extraordinary “big plays” for the sake of securing advantages, or

players who shot call by requesting specific actions from the team. When dealing with

problematic teammates, active intervention is considered better at restoring order than remaining

passive (Kou & Gui, 2014).

Since fighting games are mostly played in a one-versus-one format, there is no need for the same kind of assertiveness encouraged by the team-based nature of League of Legends. The

FGC, however, does have its own kinds of assertive behaviors. Trash talking is a common practice (Murray, 2018a), as are “pop-offs” where players leap out of their seats in an intense emotional reaction to defeating an opponent (Wright, 2019). While outsiders might find trash talking and pop-offs aggressive, to the FGC player, these behaviors are acceptable and even celebrated as community norms (Wright, 2019). The FGC’s threshold for what is considered aggressive behavior may thus be higher than that of other esports, leading them to rate themselves as less assertive.

Hypothesis 2: Accepted 19

Both the FGC and League of Legends communities were rated as highly valuing

Performance Orientation. Since both fighting games and League of Legends are competitive

games, they naturally encourage and reward high performance, providing players with incentives

to improve their gameplay skills. Fighting game tournaments at all scales offer monetary payouts

to top placing players (Vazquez, 2017). Likewise, League of Legends developer Riot Games

pays millions of dollars to teams that win its international competitions (Nordmark & Heath,

2019). Additionally, Riot Games encourages its wider player base to participate in League of

Legends’ ranked mode by offering in-game cosmetics as rewards for achieving certain ranks

each year. Cosmetics include exclusive skins that change the appearances of characters in the game, emoticons, and icons that players can use as profile pictures (Tummers, 2019).

Players in all esports communities are also self-motivated to improve. A study by Yuri

Seo found that “mastery of skills, realizing one’s potential, and self-improvement” were virtues in all esports (Seo, 2015). The very fact that esports is becoming a larger, more legitimate industry is one reason why esports players may want to improve their abilities. Esports’ increasing viability as a career gives these players “a sense of self-esteem, [accomplishment], and social recognition” for their gaming skills (Seo, 2015).

Hypothesis 3: Accepted

The FGC was rated as more humanely oriented than the League of Legends community.

A factor that could contribute to this rating is that FGC members have public play spaces they attend regularly. These spaces afford them the opportunity to develop deep bonds with other community members (Chin & Vincent, 2015). These spaces may not be as much of a staple in 20

the League of Legends community since League of Legends can be played on a computer from

home. It is worth noting that in South Korea, League of Legends is the most popular game to

play at PC bangs, a type of public gaming center (Esguerra, 2019). This study, however, only

collected data from respondents living in the United States and Canada, where there are no direct

equivalents of PC bangs.

Chinatown Fair, a New York City arcade that was once a hotbed for FGC activity, is an

example of a space that facilitated relationships between FGC members. In documentaries about

the arcade, several community members describe each other as family and “brothers” (Chin &

Vincent, 2015; Hayes, 2012). Akuma Hokoru, a community member who escaped homelessness

through working at Chinatown Fair, explains that many friendships in the arcade began with

players teaching the game to one another (Chin & Vincent, 2015). Henry Cen, another regular,

opened his own arcade after Chinatown Fair closed because he wanted to maintain a space where

people could gather, make friends, and learn to play together (Hayes, 2012). Cen additionally

states that he dislikes playing fighting games from home since he cannot share the experience

with others like he could in the arcade (Chin & Vincent, 2015). From these accounts, it is evident

that human connection, friendliness, and a willingness to help one another are valued in the FGC,

contributing to its higher Humane Orientation.

Conversely, a factor that may contribute to the League of Legends community’s lower

Humane Orientation is its reputation for toxicity. This reputation exists even though only about

5% of the game’s player population has been penalized for poor behavior (LeJacq, 2015). It is

well-documented that internet anonymity, such as that of League of Legends’ in-game chat rooms, can increase rude and unfriendly behaviors (Dawson, 2018). “Flaming”, which is defined 21

as “aggressive, hostile, sometimes profanity-laced interaction” (Kou & Gui, 2014), is a common issue in these chat rooms. When a team loses their advantage, teammates may blame each other for mistakes and underperformance (LeJacq, 2015). New players may get paired with more experienced players, who then berate them for their lack of skill (LeJacq, 2015).

Toxicity is not entirely absent in the FGC. There have been occasions where players physically fight, scream at, or harass each other (Wright, 2019). Fighting games, however, do not necessarily have the same reputation for toxicity as League of Legends does. This could be because FGC tournaments are played in-person, and anonymity is not possible. As a result, when a player behaves negatively, tournament organizers can quickly identify and penalize the offender by banning them from competitions (Wright, 2019).

Hypothesis 4: Accepted

The League of Legends community was rated to have stronger Institutional Collectivism than the FGC. This may be because League of Legends is a team-based game, and winning requires group cohesion and cooperation (Kou & Gui, 2014). In contrast, the typical one-versus- one format of competitive fighting games means players are only playing for themselves. They do not need to fit in or cooperate with a group to achieve their results. This is a distinction that survey respondents acknowledged. A League of Legends community member described the FGC as “leaning towards the ‘individual’ respect rather than the ‘community’ respect”, while an FGC respondent stated, “I view esports as being more of a team based category of competitive gaming…while the FGC is more based on individuals and their performance/personality.” Yet another FGC respondent remarked that “esports is more about building a brand or 22

organization…that represents certain players and community figures”, indicating a focus on

promoting groups over promoting the individuals within those groups.

There is also the sense that the FGC allows for more individual expression, while League

of Legends and other esports require players to behave in certain ways for the sake of

professionalism and marketability. One FGC survey respondent stated that because esports is

“too corporate”, “players have to constantly worry about what advertisers will think of their

actions.” Another FGC respondent wrote, “Esports is heavily controlled by large

companies…who want a safe, sanitized, glitzy environment full of big sports stars they can

control and profit off.” Similar concerns have been raised about fighting game events run by esports leagues in the past. One criticism of ELEAGUE’s 2017 Street Fighter V invitational was that tension resulted from uncertainty over whether taunting, a commonly accepted FGC behavior, was permitted. FGC commentator Tasty Steve remarked that “somebody [should] check the rulebooks” after one competitor engaged in a type of taunting called “teabagging”

(Myers, 2017). This perceived control and censorship that esports exerts over individuals’ behavior is another reason why the League of Legends community may have been rated as having greater Institutional Collectivism than the FGC.

Hypothesis 5: Accepted

The FGC was rated as having lower Power Distance than the League of Legends community. There are three potential factors contributing to this difference. The first is that the

FGC is highly grassroots. Most events are organized and run by community volunteers rather than by developers, publishers, or esports leagues, as is the case for League of Legends and other 23

esports (Murray, 2018b). As described by one FGC respondent, esports is “centralized and top- down”, while the FGC “is decentralized and homegrown”.

The second factor is that FGC tournaments are largely open bracket with few exceptions, while other esports tournaments, including those of League of Legends, generally limit entry to pro players and teams (Murray, 2018b). This means all players are treated as equals at FGC tournaments regardless of experience level (Cannon, 2017). Anyone can play or mingle with top fighting game players (Graham, 2011). On the other hand, in other esports tournaments, anyone who is not a professional player or tournament staff can only view the event as a spectator. There is limited opportunity for interaction between spectators and professional players at these tournaments because of physical separation. Professionals are isolated from spectators during matches via soundproof booths, and between matches, they can rest in private lounges (Graham,

2011).

The third factor is that FGC tournaments have fewer skill level divisions than League of

Legends tournaments. Although players in an FGC tournament may need to win a certain number of matches to proceed to the next round, they are not separated by skill level in brackets.

Getting knocked out of one tournament generally does not disqualify a player from attending other tournaments later (Shoryuken, 2019). Competitive League of Legends, on the other hand, has multiple skill level divisions. To play the game’s ranked mode, players must first reach level thirty in-game and own at least twenty Champions, or characters. All players who qualify for ranked mode are then separated into nine skill tiers: Iron, Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum,

Diamond, Master, Grandmaster, and Challenger. Players who are too far apart in tier cannot play matches together. A Bronze player, for instance, would never be put in a ranked game with a 24

Diamond player. These tiers are split even further into five divisions that players must advance through by winning matches (Juras, 2019). League of Legends pro teams are separated by skill as well. Teams can only qualify for the League of Legends World Championships by first winning regional level competitions (LoL Esports Staff, 2019b).

Limitations and Future Research

The study faced a few limitations. One limitation was that the League of Legends community sample size of 35 was small compared to the FGC sample size of 121. A possible reason why the League of Legends sample size was smaller is because there were more places the researchers could send the FGC survey to than the League of Legends survey. Since the FGC consists of multiple fighting games, the researchers could send the FGC survey to online forums for all those games. It is also possible that the FGC is more culturally inclined to help researchers learn about their community than the League of Legends community is due to its higher Humane

Orientation, as having high Humane Orientation means a community is more generous and caring. A League of Legends community sample size equal to the FGC sample size may have led to different outcomes in the cultural comparison to the FGC. Future studies should attempt to sample an equal number of participants from each population involved.

A second limitation was that in terms of representing esports outside of fighting games,

League of Legends was the only game studied. It is possible that other non-fighting esports games may have different community cultures than League of Legends. Future studies should compare the cultures of multiple esports communities to verify the concept of an overarching esports culture. 25

A third limitation was that in this study, the GLOBE cultural scales were assumed to measure different elements, but it is possible that some of the cultural scales were measuring similar elements. A correlation matrix revealed significant correlations between some of the

GLOBE scales. Humane Orientation had significant negative correlations with Assertiveness,

Institutional Collectivism, and Power Distance. Humane Orientation had a significant positive correlation with Performance Orientation. Lastly, Institutional Collectivism had a significant positive correlation with Power Distance. The following are potential reasons for these correlations:

• Communities with high Assertiveness more often engage in aggressive behaviors,

which are the opposite of the kind behaviors found in communities with high

Humane Orientation, leading to a negative correlation between Assertiveness and

Humane Orientation.

• Communities with high Institutional Collectivism may seem uncaring by

prioritizing group interests over individual interests, leading to a negative

correlation between Institutional Collectivism and Humane Orientation.

• Communities with high Power Distance may have more social distance between

certain groups of people and thus a weaker sense of human bonds between those

groups, leading to a negative correlation between Power Distance and Humane

Orientation.

• Communities with high Humane Orientation may be more inclined to help their

members improve in performance, leading to a positive correlation between

Humane Orientation and Performance Orientation. 26

• Communities with high Institutional Collectivism may have more separation of

power between groups in order to better manage the group’s needs, leading to a

positive correlation between Institutional Collectivism and Power Distance.

Table 3 illustrates the correlations between the scales. Future studies should assess esports community cultures on the GLOBE scales using a larger sample size to see if the scales are truly measuring different elements.

A fourth limitation was that several survey questions were unreliable from a competitive gaming perspective. These questions had to be removed to achieve satisfactory psychometric reliability. It appeared that respondents did not understand the wording or intent of these questions within the context of esports communities. For example, respondents said that they did not understand what “FGC systems” meant in the question “FGC systems are designed to maximize individual interests/collective interests”. Additionally, the researchers attempted to use the Uncertainty Avoidance scale, but the scale was found to be entirely unreliable, perhaps

because of confusion over the questions within the scale. A solution could be to rethink how the

GLOBE survey questions are adapted or phrased for a gaming context. There may also be a more

context-appropriate culture survey than the GLOBE that future research could utilize. If no good

culture surveys for gaming communities exist, it may be helpful to develop a culture survey

specifically for gaming contexts.

The final limitation is that representation for both the FGC and League of Legends

communities was limited to respondents from the United States of America and Canada.

Previous esports research suggests that the nationality of an esports community member may

impact how that individual views their community’s culture (Wagner, 2006). For instance, South 27

Korea has PC bangs, a type of public gaming center, where League of Legends is the most

played game (Esguerra, 2019). Because PC bangs provide a space for community members to

bond with one another, South Korean League of Legends community members might rate their

community higher on Humane Orientation than members in the United States of America or

Canada would. Future studies may want to examine how nationality influences perceptions of

esports culture.

Conclusion

This study shows that while the FGC and other esports communities are similar in

Performance Orientation, there are indeed significant cultural differences between the two groups in Assertiveness, Humane Orientation, Institutional Collectivism, and Power Distance.

This may explain why the FGC is indecisive about taking on aspects of other esports communities’ practices and integrating with esports leagues, despite generally acknowledging fighting games to be a part of esports in the modern day. These differences should be accounted for when planning FGC-esports events. The FGC cannot be treated the exact same way as other

esports, and successful partnerships will require an understanding of the cultural differences outlined in this study.

For example, because the FGC has lower Power Distance and higher Humane Orientation than other esports communities, esports event planners could consider eliminating private and exclusive spaces. This would help facilitate free socialization between attendees by limiting the

amount of spaces that restrict interactions between groups like amateur and pro players. To

accommodate the FGC’s lower Institutional Collectivism, esports event planners could include 28

programming segments in tournaments that highlight the individual personalities of fighting game players.

It is important to note that this study simply serves as an initial investigation of cultural differences between the FGC and other esports communities. Sample and survey design limitations may restrict the robustness of certain data. The results do not account for possible nuances in the cultures of other esports communities beyond that of League of Legends, intercorrelations between the GLOBE cultural scales, or the potential impact of respondent nationality. Future studies should build upon this research and further develop the field of competitive gaming culture studies.

Figure 1. Responses to “I Consider Fighting Games to be Esports”.

Figure 2. Responses to “The FGC Would Lose Some of its Appeal if it Became More Like

Esports”.

Figure 3. Responses to “The FGC Would Benefit from Becoming More Like Esports”.

Table 1.

Cronbach’s Alphas of Culture Scales

Assertiveness Performance Humane Institutional Power Distance

Orientation Orientation Collectivism

Cronbach’s .63 .64 .81 .77 .64 alpha before item removal

Number of items 8 5 10 8 10 before item removal

Cronbach’s .74 .70 .81 .77 .70 alpha after item removal

Final number of 2 2 10 8 7 items 31

Table 2. Means and Results of One-way ANOVAs for Culture Scales

Assertiveness Performance Humane Institutional Power

Orientation Orientation Collectivism Distance

FGC 3.61 1.61 2.74 4.55 4.75

League of 2.71 1.96 3.91 3.19 4.02

Legends

Community

P-value p < .05* p > 0.05 p < .05* p < .05* p < .05*

*Statistically significant difference

Table 3. Interscale Correlation Matrix of GLOBE Cultural Scales

Assertiveness Performance Humane Institutional Power

Orientation Orientation Collectivism Distance

Assertiveness 1

Performance -0.02242089 1

Orientation

Humane -0.281868039* 0.333247441* 1

Orientation

Institutional 0.128883572 -0.056128649 -0.30110882* 1

Collectivism

Power 0.07416218 -0.142864121 -0.481679181* 0.344203612* 1

Distance

* Significant at p < .05

References

Cannon, T. (2011, December 4). Where eSports leagues go wrong with fighters. Retrieved July

16, 2019, from http://shoryuken.com/2011/12/04/where-esports-leagues-go-wrong-with-

fighters/

Cannon, T. (2017). eSports day: Arcade to eSports: How your competitive game influences

player culture and values. Retrieved July 16, 2019, from

https://gdcvault.com/play/1024333/eSports-Day-Arcade-to-eSports

Chin, I. (Producer) & Vincent, K. (Director). (2015). The lost arcade [Motion Picture]. United

States: 26 Aries.

Cocke, T. (2018, September 12). Esports essentials: League of Legends and the rise of MOBA

esports. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from https://esportsobserver.com/esports-

essentials-league-of-legends/#jeg_loginform

Dawson, J. (2018). Who is that? The study of anonymity and behavior. Retrieved December 8,

2019, from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/who-is-that-the-study-of-

anonymity-and-behavior

Esguerra, T. (2019, October 21). League of Legends is the most-played game at Korean PC

bangs. Retrieved December 9, 2019, from https://dotesports.com/league-of-

legends/news/league-of-legends-is-the-most-played-game-at-korean-pc-bangs

Esports Earnings. (2020a). Dominique "SonicFox" McLean - Fighting game player. Retrieved

February 27, 2020, from https://esportsinsider.com/2019/05/the-growth-of-the-fgc-

watering-the-grassroots/ 34

Esports Earnings. (2020b). Saul Leonardo "MenaRD" Mena Segundo - Fighting game player.

Retrieved February 27, 2020, from https://www.esportsearnings.com/players/41926-

menard-saul-leonardo-mena-segundo

Fingas, J. (2019, August 25). 'Dota 2' champions won more money than top Wimbledon players.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/08/25/dota-2-the-international-2019-win-sets-records/

Globe Project. (2004). GLOBE culture dimensions, definitions, and scale items. Retrieved

September 4, 2019, from https://globeproject.com/data/GLOBE-Dimensions-Definitions-

and-Scale-Items.pdf

Globe Project. (2006a). GLOBE research survey: Form beta. Retrieved September 4, 2019, from

https://globeproject.com/data/GLOBE-Phase-2-Beta-Questionnaire-2006.pdf

Globe Project. (2006b). Guidelines for the use of GLOBE culture and leadership scales.

Retrieved September 4, 2019, from https://globeproject.com/data/GLOBE-Culture-and-

Leadership-Scales-Guidelines-Aug-1-2006.pdf

Graham, D. P. (2011, December 12). Guest editorial - Momentum matters: A historical

perspective on the FGC and esports communities by UltraDavid. Retrieved July 6, 2019,

from http://shoryuken.com/2011/12/12/guest-editorial-momentum-matters-a-historical-

perspective-on-the-fgc-and-esports-communities-2/

Hayes, M. (2012, February 3). Chinatown Fair: A documentary [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://youtu.be/sM1goDcEepk

Hitt, K. (2019, December 27). The top 10 esports of 2019 by total prize pool. Retrieved January

29, 2020, from https://esportsobserver.com/biggest-esports-2019-prize-pool/ 35

Hosch, W. L. (2009). Electronic fighting game. Retrieved August 29, 2019 from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/electronic-fighting-game

House, R., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. (2001). Project GLOBE: An introduction. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 489–505.

IGN. "Smash Bros vs. FGC with Mike Ross and Tafokints (extended discussion) - esports

weekly." Youtube. September 18, 2019. https://youtu.be/7wrbLUq-nPc

Influencer Marketing Hub. (2020, January 6). The incredible growth of esports. Retrieved

February 23, 2020, from https://influencermarketinghub.com/growth-of-esports-stats/

James, F. (2020, February 12). What is esports? A beginner's guide to competitive gaming.

Retrieved February 23, 2020, from https://www.gamesradar.com/what-is-esports/

Juras, M. (2019, November 16). Explaining League of Legends' ranked system. Retrieved

December 10, 2019, from https://dotesports.com/league-of-legends/news/league-of-

legends-ranking-system-explained-17171

Kou, Y. & Gui, X. (2014). Playing with strangers: Understanding temporary teams in League of

Legends. CHI PLAY 2014 - In Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Symposium on

Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Toronto, Ontario, October 19 - 21, 2014

Kuchera, B. (2015). Gaming has left the LAN party behind. Retrieved March 19, 2020, from

https://www.polygon.com/2015/1/29/7944755/lan-party-gaming-call-of-duty

Larch, F. (2019). The history of the origin of esports. Retrieved August 29, 2019 from

https://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/esports-explainer-league-of-legends-heroes-of-

the-storm-hearthstone-cs-go-dreamhack-050616 36

Learned, J. (2017, July 17). The oral history of Evo: The story of the world's largest fighting

game tournament. Retrieved February 26, 2020, from

https://www.usgamer.net/articles/the-oral-history-of-evo

LeJacq, Y. (2015, March 25). How League of Legends enables toxicity. Retrieved December 8,

2019, from https://kotaku.com/how-league-of-legends-enables-toxicity-1693572469

LoL Esports Staff. (2019a). 2019 World Championship Rules. Retrieved December 7, 2019,

from https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2019/09/2019-world-championship-rules/

LoL Esports Staff (2019b). Worlds 2019 primer. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from

https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2019/09/worlds-2019-primer/

Murray, T. (2018a, February 26). An introduction to watching fighting games as esports.

Retrieved August 31, 2019, from https://esportsobserver.com/introduction-fighting-

games-esports/

Murray, T. (2018b, March 9). Fighting games: The next esports investment frontier. Retrieved

November 20, 2019, from https://esportsobserver.com/fighting-games-next-investment-

frontier/

Myers, M. (2017, March 28). TBS's Eleague takes the life out of fighting games. Retrieved

September 10, 2019, from https://compete.kotaku.com/tbss-eleague-takes-the-life-out-of-

fighting-games-1793743368

Newzoo. (2019). Global esports market report. Retrieved January 29, 2020, from

https://resources.newzoo.com/hubfs/Factsheets/Newzoo_Global_Esports_Market_Report

_Factsheet.pdf?hsCtaTracking=3a4cc3a4-5b97-46cd-89fb-e25a7f3fea2d%7C80a504c2-

6c7e-4198-acaa-de102e2e48cd 37

Nordmark, S. & Heath, J. (2019, August 28). The top 10 highest prize pools in esports. Retrieved

August 30, 2019, from https://dotesports.com/general/news/biggest-prize-pools-esports-

14605

Pannekeet, J. (2019, February 12). Newzoo: Global esports economy will top $1 billion for the

first time in 2019. Retrieved August 29, 2019 from

https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoo-global-esports-economy-will-top-1-billion-

for-the-first-time-in-2019/

Ring, O. (2019). Will the FGC and esports ever fully embrace? Hear the debate at #ESINYC.

Retrieved August 31, 2019, from https://esportsinsider.com/2019/02/will-the-fgc-and-

esports-ever-fully-embrace-hear-the-debate-at-esinyc/

Seo, Y. (2015). Professionalized consumption and identity transformations in the field of esports.

Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 264-272.

Shaw, M. (2016, October 5). There's a mad dash to sign fighting-game players to esports teams.

Retrieved September 18, 2019, from https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/av33p5/theres-

a-mad-dash-to-sign-fighting-game-players-to-esports-teams

Shoryuken. (2019). Evo tournament format. Retrieved March 2, 2020, from

http://shoryuken.com/evo-player-guide/evo-tournament-format/

Steltenpohl, C. N., Reed, J., & Keys, C.B. (2018). Do others understand us? Fighting game

community member perceptions of others’ views of the FGC. Global Journal of

Community Psychology Practice, 9(1), 1- 21. Retrieved November 20, 2019, from

http://www.gjcpp.org/ 38

The Esports Observer (2020). An Introduction to the Esports Ecosystem. Retrieved March 18,

2020, from https://esportsobserver.com/the-esports-eco-system/

Tummers. (2019). Be victorious - 2019 ranked rewards. Retrieved December 7, 2019, from

https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/news/community/

Vazquez, S. (2017, February 18). What it takes to run a fighting game tournament. Retrieved

December 7, 2019, from

https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2017/02/18/what-it-takes-to-run-a-

fighting-game-tournament.aspx

Wagner, M. G. (2006). On the scientific relevance of esports. In Proceedings of the 2006

International Conference on Internet Computing & Conference on Computer Games

Development, Las Vegas, Nevada, June 26-29, 2006.

Willingham, A. J. (2018, August 27). What is esports? A look at an explosive billion-dollar

industry. Retrieved January 29, 2020, from https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/27/us/esports-

what-is-video-game-professional-league-madden-trnd/index.html

Wright, S. T. (2019, August 16). How fighting game tournaments are dealing with toxic and

unruly players. Retrieved December 8, 2019, from

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/16/20807484/fighting-game-smash-bros-tournaments-

esports-ceo-bad-behavior-toxic-players

Appendix A:

GLOBE Research Survey Form Beta 40

Appendix B:

FGC Qualtrics Survey

FGC Survey

Start of Block: Demographics and Community Involvement

Please enter your email address. This may be used in case we need to send you any updates regarding the survey, or to send you the study results if the researchers decide to publicize the results to respondents.

______

How old are you? o 17 or younger (1) o 18-20 (2) o 21-25 (3) o 26-30 (4) o 31-35 (5) o 36-40 (6) o 41-45 (7) o 46-50 (8) o 50-55 (9) 56 or older (10) o

What gender do you identify as? o Male (1) o Female (2) o Non-binary (3) o Prefer to self-describe (4) ______Prefer not to say (5) o

What country do you live in? o United States (1) o Canada (2) Country outside of United States or Canada (3) o

What fighting game communities do you consider yourself a part of?

Street Fighter (1)

Tekken (2) ▢ Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (3) ▢ Super Smash Bros. Melee (4) ▢ Mortal Kombat (5) ▢ Soul Calibur (6) ▢ UNIST (7) ▢ Dragon Ball FighterZ (8) ▢ Samurai Shodown (10) ▢ Other games (16) ______▢ I do not consider myself part of a fighting game community. (17)

▢ ▢ 67

What roles do you play in the fighting game communities you are involved with?

Competitive Player (1)

Casual Player (2) ▢ Professional Player (write in your team/sponsor) (3) ▢______▢ Spectator/Enthusiast/Fan (4) Tournament Organizer (5) ▢ Commentator/Caster (6) ▢ Content Creator/Streamer (7) ▢ Fan Artist (8) ▢ Analyst/Coach (9) ▢ Team Owner/Manager (write in your team) (10) ▢______▢ Event Manager/Staff (11) Production/Broadcast Staff (12) ▢ Sponsor/Investor (13) ▢ Community/Social Media Manager (14) ▢ Reporter/Journalist (15) ▢ Other (16) ______▢ ▢ 68

End of Block: Demographics and Community Involvement

Start of Block: Uncertainty Avoidance

In the FGC, consistent gameplay strategies are stressed, even at the expense of experimentation and innovation.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

FGC members lead highly structured lives with few unexpected events.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

In the FGC, tournament requirements and instructions are spelled out in detail so players know what they are expected to do.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

The FGC has rules or regulations to cover...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Almost Very few all situations situations o o o o o o o

I believe that consistent gameplay strategies should be stressed in the FGC, even at the expense of experimentation and innovation.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

I believe FGC tournaments should have requirements and instructions spelled out in detail so players know what they are expected to do.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

I believe the FGC should have rules or regulations to cover...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Almost Very few all situations situations o o o o o o o

I believe that FGC leaders should...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Allow Provide community details members plans for freedom to the determine community o o o o o o o plans

End of Block: Uncertainty Avoidance

Start of Block: Assertiveness

In the FGC, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Non- Aggressive aggressive o o o o o o o

In the FGC, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Non- Assertive assertive o o o o o o o

In the FGC, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Non- Dominant dominant o o o o o o o

In the FGC, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)

Tough Tender

o o o o o o o

In the FGC, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Non- Aggressive aggressive o o o o o o o

In the FGC, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Non- Assertive assertive o o o o o o o

In the FGC, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Non- Dominant dominant o o o o o o o

In the FGC, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)

Tough Tender

o o o o o o o

End of Block: Assertiveness

Start of Block: Performance Orientation

In the FGC, players are encouraged to strive for continuously improved performance.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

In the FGC, major rewards are based on...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Other factors other than Only performance performance (e.g. o o o o o o o seniority or connections)

I believe that fighting game players should be encouraged to strive for continuously improved performance.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

I believe that major rewards in the FGC should be based on...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Other factors other than Only performance performance (e.g. o o o o o o o seniority or connections)

I believe that fighting game players should set challenging goals for themselves.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

End of Block: Performance Orientation

Start of Block: Humane Orientation

In the FGC, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Very Not at all concerned concerned about about others o o o o o o o others

In the FGC, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not at Very all sensitive sensitive toward toward others o o o o o o o others

In the FGC, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Very Very friendly unfriendly o o o o o o o

In the FGC, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not at Very all tolerant tolerant of of mistakes o o o o o o o mistakes

In the FGC, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not at Very all generous o o o o o o o generous

In the FGC, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Very Not at all concerned concerned about about others o o o o o o o others

In the FGC, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not at Very all sensitive sensitive toward toward others o o o o o o o others

In the FGC, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Very Very friendly unfriendly o o o o o o o

In the FGC, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not at Very all tolerant tolerant of of mistakes o o o o o o o mistakes

In the FGC, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not at Very all generous o o o o o o o generous

End of Block: Humane Orientation

Start of Block: Institutional Collectivism

In the FGC, leaders encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

FGC systems are designed to maximize...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Individual Collective interests interests o o o o o o o

In the FGC, being accepted by the other members of a group is very important.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

In the FGC...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Group Individualism cohesion is is valued valued more more than than group individualism o o o o o o o cohesion

In the FGC, most players prefer to play...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 2 v 2, or other 1 v 1 kind of formats team o o o o o o o formats

I believe that in general, FGC leaders should encourage group loyalty, even if individual goals suffer.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

I believe that FGC systems should be designed to maximize...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Individual Collective interests interests o o o o o o o

I believe that...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Group Individualism cohesion is is better than better than group individualism o o o o o o o cohesion

End of Block: Institutional Collectivism

Start of Block: Power Distance

In the FGC, a person's influence is based primarily on...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) One's The ability and authority contribution of one's to the FGC o o o o o o o position

In the FGC, community members are expected to...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Obey Question leaders their leaders without when in question o o o o o o o disagreement

In the FGC, people in positions of power try to...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Increase Decrease their social their social distance distance from less from less powerful o o o o o o o powerful individuals individuals

In the FGC, people of certain ranks and positions have special privileges.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

In the FGC, power is...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Shared Concentrated throughout at the top the o o o o o o o community

I believe that a person's influence in the FGC should be based primarily on...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) One's The ability and authority contribution of one's to the FGC o o o o o o o position

I believe that FGC community members should...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Obey Question leaders their leaders without when in question o o o o o o o disagreement

I believe people in positions of power in the FGC should try to...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Increase Decrease their social their social distance distance from less from less powerful o o o o o o o powerful individuals individuals

I believe younger members of the FGC should defer to older members.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

I believe in the FGC, power should be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Shared Concentrated throughout at the top the o o o o o o o community

End of Block: Power Distance

Start of Block: Block 8

Thank you for taking the survey! If you would like, you may choose to respond to a few additional questions regarding the FGC and esports. Would you like to respond to these questions? o Yes, show me the questions! (1) No, thank you! (2) o End of Block: Block 8

Start of Block: Additional Questions

Describe your perception of esports in a few sentences.

______84

______

I consider fighting games to be esports.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

The FGC would benefit from becoming more like esports.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

The FGC would lose some of its appeal if it became more like esports.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

End of Block: Additional Questions 85

Appendix C:

League of Legends Qualtrics Survey

League of Legends Survey

Start of Block: Demographics and Community Involvement

______

How old are you? o 17 or younger (1) o 18-20 (2) o 21-25 (3) o 26-30 (4) o 31-35 (5) o 36-40 (6) o 41-45 (7) o 46-50 (8) o 50-55 (9) 56 or older (10) o

What gender do you identify as? o Male (1) o Female (2) o Non-binary (3) o Prefer to self-describe (4) ______Prefer not to say (5) o

What country do you live in? o United States (1) o Canada (2) Country outside of United States or Canada (3) o

What roles do you play in the League of Legends community?

Competitive Player (1)

End of Block: Demographics and Community Involvement

Start of Block: Uncertainty Avoidance

In the League of Legends community, consistent gameplay strategies are stressed, even at the expense of experimentation and innovation.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

League of Legends community members lead highly structured lives with few unexpected events.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

In the League of Legends community, competition requirements and instructions are spelled out in detail so players know what they are expected to do.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

The League of Legends community has rules or regulations to cover...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Almost Very few all situations situations o o o o o o o

I believe that consistent gameplay strategies should be stressed in League of Legends, even at the expense of experimentation and innovation.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

I believe League of Legends competitions should have requirements and instructions spelled out in detail so players know what they are expected to do.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

I believe the League of Legends community should have rules or regulations to cover...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Almost Very few all situations situations o o o o o o o

I believe that League of Legends community leaders should...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Allow Provide community details members plans for freedom to the determine community o o o o o o o plans

End of Block: Uncertainty Avoidance

Start of Block: Assertiveness

In the League of Legends community, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Non- Aggressive aggressive o o o o o o o

In the League of Legends community, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Non- Assertive assertive o o o o o o o

In the League of Legends community, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Non- Dominant dominant o o o o o o o

In the League of Legends community, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)

Tough Tender

o o o o o o o

In the League of Legends community, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Non- Aggressive aggressive o o o o o o o

In the League of Legends community, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Non- Assertive assertive o o o o o o o

In the League of Legends community, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Non- Dominant dominant o o o o o o o

In the League of Legends community, people should be encouraged to be...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)

Tough Tender

o o o o o o o

End of Block: Assertiveness

Start of Block: Performance Orientation

In the League of Legends community, players are encouraged to strive for continuously improved performance.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

In the League of Legends community, major rewards are based on...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Other factors other than Only performance performance (e.g. o o o o o o o seniority or connections)

I believe that League of Legends players should be encouraged to strive for continuously improved performance.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

I believe that major rewards in the FGC should be based on...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Other factors other than Only performance performance (e.g. o o o o o o o seniority or connections)

I believe that League of Legends players should set challenging goals for themselves.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Strongly Strongly agree disagree o o o o o o o

End of Block: Performance Orientation

Start of Block: Humane Orientation

In the League of Legends community, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Very Not at all concerned concerned about about others o o o o o o o others

In the League of Legends community, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not at Very all sensitive sensitive toward toward others o o o o o o o others

In the League of Legends community, people are generally...

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Very Very friendly unfriendly o o o o o o o

In the League of Legends community people are generally...