The CGS officially declared that it is ceasing operations....And yet a few short hours later, here is an article about what it could have done differently. How is it up so quickly? The main reason is that it was practically written before the announcement. In September I had a little rant on a public forum. As I was traveling home from the World Cyber Games finals, I penned a few thoughts for this very article as during the finals it emerged that there were rumours as to the wellbeing of the European region in the CGS.

The official statement from the CGS reads that it was "an idea whose time came too early". But is that really the case? I, for one, think not. There are some very basic and glaring errors that were made in the running of the CGS. There are also things that were done right but unfortunately not enough to keep the league going for more than two seasons. So, in essence, what could the CGS have done differently in order to survive and reach its goals of being ahead in the world of eSports and forming a "true sports league"?

Firstly, and some would now say "obviously", the league should have started smaller. While it is a great idea in principle and of course, everyone wants to see eSports going global, there wasn't the demand and the team behind the concept did not have the experience. Some posters on the CGS forums had stated time and time again that certain regions were being marginalised. If you look at the setup and the way certain things were run Region 1 (i.e. the North American region) was the only one that was set up correctly, done right and developed over time. It had the most coverage, it had LIVE coverage, it had features and write-ups on the CGS site, it had a properly functioning draft BUT most importantly, it had an actual season. Other regions suffered from a lack of players turning up at the combines and drafts, little to no coverage and LAN finals rather than a structured sea

son.

The coverage aspect could also have been different. Honestly, I have no (well, few at least) problems with the way the league was structured for TV. It had eye candy, over the top effects and team dramatics. Perfect for TV. The problem I have is with how this was delivered to the consumer; i.e. the people who would keep this league running. I have covered the fact that Region 1 was the only one that had decent coverage. But I must elaborate further on this point because there are flaws to be uncovered here too. Season 2 ran for three weeks without being shown on its contracted television station in the United States (DirecTV).

For these three weeks, fans of the CGS could tune in from around the globe to see some of their favourite players compete. The prize was the same and the goals of all the players, teams and GMs remained the same. The presentation was quite different. Suddenly it looked as if the league had no financial backing and took place in an abandoned hall. The glitz and glamour was missing. But that is not the problem that I hold against the CGS. If you get the fundamentals right, the rest can follow. What I found irritating and unforgivable was that, despite the Season having started, DirecTV were able to pick up the coverage and suddenly, whether you were from the US or not, you were cast out into the cold. If you did not subscribe, you were not wanted as a viewer...

So where did this leave viewers worldwide? Well, they could catch up on their own region (i.e. a LAN weekend that decided everything) through a blog or catchup. Or if they waited until the World Championship finals were over and the confetti had been swept away, they could watch LIVE coverage of the World Championship finals......Wait, that doesn't make sense! And yet, that was how the CGS finals were advertised for Eurosport and Sky! So if people were genuinely interested, they could check out the website...and then see that everything was over and they were being fed recycled coverage (which was re-shoutcasted for some reason). Although considering how the CGS has fared, this doesn't seem to be something that they had to worry about.

When the CGS arrived on the scene I thought it was an idea that showed promise. The concept was good, it had financial backing, it was promoting itself strongly and had media coverage secured. One thing that I thought the CGS would bring to eSports would be stability. After all, it did want to be a true sports league for eSports. How do most leagues function (and even some eSports leagues at that!)? They pick a couple of games and stick with them! What did the CGS do? Changed Project Gotham 3 for Forza 2 after Season 1, picked up FIFA 08 after FIFA 07 (rather than commissioning someone to iron out a promod for a football game to perfect it) and was in the process of debating the fighting game (Dead or Alive had survived two seasons but was on the chopping block).

One of the reasons people love sport is because they can idolise or villainise people, can place people on pedastals or can form emotional bonds based on a teams location or results. How many people want to see the underdog provide an upset for example? How many people dislike the "favourite" simply because he wins too much? That is an element of sport that is irriplacable. Yet by changing games (especially after one season) you lose this. Dead or Alive produced this sporting spectacle all on it's own - the "undeafeatble" (Vanessa), the underdog (Phoenix), the titanic battle between the two and the upsets. This was lost with the racing game switched as the Chimera duo were left floundering while FIFA also provided some stories with the up-and-coming Eafra. But the difference between one FIFA and the next can be quite remarkable and can effectively act as a new game.

The CGS has been on a slippery slope since its conception. Initially many gamers were upset that the games they loved were being ruined with rulesets. Collisions were turned on for racing games, Counter-Strike players were given more money than they knew what to do with it but less time to do it in, FIFA players were not allowed to use certain glitches that had practically spawned careers and fighters were left a different set of conditions for victory. Instantly, the CGS lost some of its target audience. But this didn't seem to phase the powers that be as they were targeting the armchair individuals (just as well as I have already covered the lack of online coverage - where are you going to find gamers but online?!). After Season 1 details emerged of the protection strategy that would go along with the Season 2 draft. But a new wage structure was also unveiled. Only "franchised" players (i.e. the best players on each team) would receive a pay rise. Protected players were to have their wages cut but not as severely as players who had not been protected or were being drafted for the first time.

Then, a matter of weeks ago, the whispering started. Perhaps it was Chinese whispers through  the grapevine as it was reported that it was merely the European region in trouble. It is strange  that the true story was on a bigger scale as it is usually the opposite. But the rumour was that  Season 3 would be the make-or-break year. Who was to know that it would not make it that far.  The CGS appeared to be continuing as normal - the first ever CGS Pro-Am was drawing to a close,  people were talking about game choices for Season 3, GMs and players were still posting blogs and  a new Commissioner for the league had been installed (though the Commissioner for the first two seasons departed quite suddenly and with little fanfare).

It has been an interesting journey and I will have mixed memories of the CGS league. In principal it could have been so good, in practice it was lacking in times, in hindsight some things could have been done much better but in fact, the league itself is finished.