Partnership vs open system

Can we shut up with the threads about this shit. There’s advantages and disadvantages to each system, neither is inherently better than the other.

Partnership is good for orgs, as it offers them financial stability and the ability to look long-term at the esport rather than having to focus on short-term success. In a partnership system, you can be more risky with projects, and roster construction can be done for years in the future rather than only for the upcoming tournaments. This however comes at the cost of very limited spots for orgs, and Tier 2 getting semi-screwed over. Unless the organizers of the circuit take very good care of the Tier 2 ecosystem, the talent pool could significantly shrink and kill the game, like what happened in Overwatch.

Open systems are good for players, as there are opportunities for anybody to show they see good enough to play at the tier 1 level at any time. An F/A team could come together and win a major and become a dynasty. This however comes at the detriment of orgs being wary of long term projects. Roster construction in open systems is inherently risky, and so to limit this risk orgs will only look at short term success, buying up young talent from other orgs rather than building their own. Orgs that flop in one or two of their rosters could be out of the scene because their money flow ran out. We saw this with NA CS, where a small talent pool combined with diminishing results caused an entire region to basically implode, leaving only 1-2 orgs left. An open system also may lead to “super-orgs” popping up, as the teams with the most success get the most money and can buy out talent from smaller orgs, causing an oligopoly at the top where a few of the top teams win all the tournaments and everyone else gets screwed over.

A partnership system is (in my opinion) better for a AAA studio who wants to make a massive esport; encouraging long term development of the scene and and forward thinking may be massive in the future talent pool, while an open system is better for smaller studios who don’t have the finances to fund a partnership system.

An exception to this is CSGO, with their history and sticker money they can make an open system that, given you are successful or good enough to make majors, is decently profitable for orgs.

bro NO ONE is reading allat 💀💀💀💀💀

can someone tell me if it's worth reading or not?

If people want to debate let them debate it. Why tell people to shut up about a topic like open circuit vs partnership vs franchise? Thats is actually stupid

I like open circuit because you can grind to the top no bottlenecking.

NA CS didn't die because the open system, it died because NA Orgs made stupid and bad decisions, starting with CGS in 2006, which was literally the beginning of the end for NA in CS, moving away from CPL's open format is what established Europe as the top region for the next 20 years. Your reasoning makes no sense, it's completely wrong. There's tangible proof that open systems are way better in the long run for both players and the sport/esports itself, you have to be an idiot to ignore reality.

Out of all franchised formats, the only one that ever truly survived is league of legends, which proved itself as the exception to the rule (i.e.: franchised doesn't work) Sadly, if things continue on the current path, Valorant eSports will see its demise in the next 5-6 years, based on simple historical data.