Innovation in the esports servicescape: a media business research agenda

Figures & data

Figure 1. The esports ecosystem with the servicescape as central.Source: adapted from Scholz (2019); Seo (2013); McCauley et al. (2020).

Figure 2. The intersection of concepts for the literature review.

Figure 3. Process of identifying the number of articles.

Table 1. Summary of research avenues.

Research avenues	Specific questions	Servicescape- and media-related questions
Online servicescapes and live streaming
The competitive and social nature of gaming.	In what ways do live streaming media permeate the service ecosystem in (e)sports? How do rivalry amongst games genres or professional teams (dis)engage consumers in esports?	How do online live servicescapes impact consumer engagement in the service ecosystem? What media facilitates and impacts player engagement? How can servicescapes facilitate rivalry- (dis)engagement?
The range of actors who stimulate interaction and co-mentorship.	How does innovation occur in competitive-oriented live streams between players and spectators? How and when do players implement innovative practices in live-streaming services?	What influence does cooperative and competitive servicescape have on innovation performance? How does instant (live) interaction in servicescapes influence innovation processes?
The investigation of cultural perceptions and communities that stimulate innovation through interaction and co-mentorship.	How do cultural perceptions stimulate innovation through interaction and co-mentorship in the various communities? How do communities (e.g. gaming communities) stimulate innovation through co-mentorship?	What cultural adaptations can be made to online servicescapes by communities? What adaptations do communities make to servicescapes to facilitate innovation?
New esports media such as Twitch can transform an industry that can be applied to traditional sports.	What factors are required for the success of using live-streaming services in non-computer game contexts? How can traditional sports employ live streaming similar to esports in their marketing strategies?	What elements of an online servicescape determine the success of innovation in different contexts? Which (dis)similar marketing strategies exist between esport- and traditional sports ecosystems?
Innovation by breaking rules in servicescapes
The freedom to change rules (mapmaking, modding, other), within the service context.	How can rule-breaking improve the rate of innovation in sports services? To what extent can rule-breaking be beneficial for service engagement?	What type of rules can be identified within a co-innovation servicescape? What is the relationship between rule-breaking and servicescapes?
Upscaling innovation activities within servicescapes.	How can innovation within the sports service ecosystem be upscaled? How are grassroots and community activities upscaled within (e)sports?	How does innovating practices within grassroots movements occur within service ecosystems?
Examining the impact of platformization on engagement, innovation and cultural production.	How are various platforms restricting innovation and engagement activities in (e)sports? What restrictive criteria hinder innovation on physical and digital platforms?	How can servicescapes restrict outcomes of innovation in service ecosystems? What is the optimal level of restrictions within a service ecosystem to foster innovation?
Innovation and the endemic and non-endemic actors within esports
The difference between endemic and non-endemic sponsors is unclear, requiring the definition and clarification of appropriate inclusive or exclusive criteria.	What would result in an endemic stakeholder (sponsor) being classified as such? What would result in a non-endemic stakeholder (sponsor) being classified as such?	What factors determine whether an actor/s or stakeholders would be described as endemic or non-endemic in a service ecosystem?
The congruence (i.e. fit) between events and sponsors.	How is the fit between the game (sport) genre and sponsor established?	What servicescape factors influence the fit between the brand and the game genres? What servicescape factors influence the fit between the brand and games?
Spillover effects exist between endemic and non-endemic actors and with game genres.	How are spillover effects of (un)successful congruence between actors seen in the (e)sport service ecosystem?	How does the servicescape moderate/mediate the spillover effects of (non)endemic actors?
Cross-cultural knowledge on technologically driven co-creation practices between digitally savvy audiences (Roy et al., 2019)	How does knowledge sharing occur in sports-oriented service ecosystems? How are digital and global services overcoming cultural obstacles for co-innovation amongst consumers?	How do cross-cultural audiences interact within the service ecosystem? Do these services provide culture-specific solutions to stimulate co-innovation in the servicescape?
The hybrid nature of esports and technology
Understanding hybridity within esports and LANs.	What can offline sporting events learn from LANs? How does a LAN and its stakeholders in the service ecosystem contribute to innovation?	How can offline sports develop an appropriate servicescape? What servicescape innovations can be produced through the interaction between the stakeholders in hybrid contexts?
Incorporating value co-creation through participation, besides spectating and betting (e.g. arena games).	How is co-creation of value facilitated in hybrid competitive events?	What servicescape aspects facilitate co-creation in hybrid settings? What types of value can be co-created within the servicescape in hybrid settings?
Insights and innovation drive hybridity i.e. the move from an online medium to the real world.	How can hybrid services engage actors and stakeholders in (e)sports?	How can online servicescape aspects be transferred offline? To what extent do the differences in offline and online servicescapes impact innovation?

Table

Author	1	2	3	4	5	Method	Aim/Purpose	Key findings
Abdolmaleki et al. (2023)		X			X	A two-phase, multimethod analysis	The purpose of the study is to identify business practices that are relevant to operations of LANs, in the context of Iran.	The findings show that relevant business factors are to offer variety of services, providing attractive facilities, monitoring competition, and developing multiple revenue streams.
Biggar et al. (2023)	X		X			Systematic review	The study documented the level of gambling sponsorship of the world’s top esports teams.	The findings showed that half of the esports teams were sponsored by gambling companies in popular esport titles such as Dota 2 and CS:GO during the world championship events in 2021 and more.
Byers et al. (2021)		X			X	Conceptual	The purpose is to discuss how innovation creates a legacy in mega sports events, specifically relating to the Paris 2024 Olympic/Paralympic Games.	A conceptual model is developed and proposed. It highlights the importance of innovation by suggesting new applications for VR technology as it can contribute to the development of social inclusion.
Chen et al. (2020)		X	X		X	Quantitative/Scale development/Testing	The purpose was to develop and test an online streaming perceived servicescape to help in the development of channel promotions.	A 35-item OLSPS scale with eight dimensions was developed and validated. OLSPS is shown to be positively correlated with the audiences’ cognition, behavioural intentions and continued use. Para-social relationships with broadcasters rather than platforms were highlighted.
Cranmer et al. (2021)	X	X				Conceptual	The purpose of this conceptual paper is to redefine esports and propose a unified framework to not only capitalise on esports business potential but also to provide a future research agenda.	The findings present a proposed esports Matrix with four distinct realms contrasting the technological and physical nature of sports. This is used to present a research agenda that includes physical activity, the esports environment and the role of technology.
Cuesta-Valiño et al. (2022)	X	X	X			Quantitative – Survey	The study’s purpose is to investigate how the sponsorship image and consumer involvement (in co-creation consumption activities) impact fans’ responses to sponsorship in e-sports.	The findings show that sponsor antecedents are crucial factors for a sponsor changing their image and sponsorship response. It is also possible to use the participation to increase responses.
DiPietro et al. (2018)		X			X	Qualitative – case study focused on Eataly and KidZania	The purpose is to explore the key drivers of the scaling-up process associated with service innovations. They use 2 innovative ecosystems as illustrative cases.	Four drivers of scaling up are identified namely effectuation, sensing and adapting, reconfiguration and the alignment of resources and forms of collaboration between actors and the resonance with values.
Diwanji et al. (2020)	X				X	Mixed methods using chat logs and thematic analysis	The purpose is to theorise on information behaviour and copresence, specifically on Twitch.	Copresence is the sense of being and acting with others and the study includes information behaviour such as production, reception, reaction and reward behaviour which impact copresence.
Faas, et al. (2018)	X				X	Qualitative – participant observer method	The purpose of the study was to study how streamers mentor and learn in live streaming contexts.	They found that live streams support learning-focused communities that mentor both the streams and each other during and after the streams, which implies that it provides a space for learning and motivation learners.
Flegr and Schmidt (2022)	X	X	X			Systematic review	The aim of the review is to synthesise and reflect on the literature from multiple academic fields to advance an understanding of strategic management in eSports.	They found that a large portion of research are interested in the socio-cultural aspects, more specifically the motives and preferences of consuming eSports. However more research is needed on the economic, political, legal, and environmental aspects of strategic management.
Foxman (2019)	X		X		X	Qualitative – interviews	The purpose is to investigate how Unity game engine sets (platforms) use emerging technology.	Platforms are understudied, yet they use existing tools when applying new technology to create content. These platforms disrupt cultural production and the economy.
Freeman et al. (2020)		X	X			Collected self-reports posted on a variety of forums followed by interviews among these indie game developers	The purpose is to expand the understanding of user-driven technological practices and how they impact the future design within collaborative systems, specifically indie games.	They highlight the importance of small teams and their democratic form of participation, the various socio-technological challenges and how game designers can address these challenges.
Gasparetto and Safronov (2023)		X				Quantitative – Multiple Linear Regressions	The study aims to analyse the streaming demand of the CS: GO.	The findings indicate that quality of tournament, match quality, and individual skill of the athletes when watching matches are valued by eSports enthusiasts. Moreover, high competitiveness and uncertainty of outcomes were also important.
Goebeler et al. (2021)	X	X			X	Conceptual (Inductive)	The purpose of this paper is to explore how sports activities are influenced by technology by focusing on sports that have both physical and online components.	The study finds four clusters of physical-digital hybrid sport configurations. The study identified the effect of technology on these configurations.
Hayduk (2021)	X	X				Secondary data, quantitative analysis.	The purpose of this article is to assess the market dynamics in the video game market and identify critical success factors.	The findings suggest that crowdfunding an esport project is more difficult than crowdfunding projects in other industries. A reason for this can be the founder-funder information asymmetries and the lost opportunity costs and the number of esports projects on these platforms.
Hilvert-Bruce et al. (2018)			X		X	Quantitative	This study explores the motivations of viewer engagement from a Uses and Gratification perspective.	Six motivations were identified in this context. Those engaging in live streaming have a stronger social and community basis, and smaller channels had more motivated viewers.
Huang et al. (2024)		X			X	Quantitative – Latent moderated structural equations	The purpose of the study was to explore how livestreaming media attributes and viewer characteristics influence experience and media loyalty	The study shows that informativeness and convenience influence flow experience and viewer satisfaction, which subsequently influence media loyalty. Interactivity was also found to be a more important for viewer satisfaction and flow experience for viewers that very highly involved. Informativeness was important for viewers that are less involved.
Huettermann et al. (2020)			X	X		Quantitative – model testing	The purpose was to determine the perceptions of gamers to non-endemic game sponsors using a scale developed for sports marketing.	Non-endemic sponsors can benefit from sponsoring an esports team sponsorship through improving attitudes, perceived goodwill, and product purchase intentions among the audience. There is an effect on perceived goodwill and product purchase intentions, which makes this form of sponsorship attractive.
Jenny et al. (2018)	X		X			Review/Descriptive	The paper examines how facilities are adapted or created to attract esports events. These events need to generate revenue to survive, and this requires spectators.	Esports events need to be held in suitable facilities. Watching may even be more important than playing in the case of these events, making it important to develop suitable facilities. Organisers need to consider venue equipment and personnel, adapting existing venues and developing esport- specific venues.
Ji and Hanna (2020)	X	X				Survey	The purpose of this research is to understand the needs of consumers and their impact on esports innovation.	Esports consumers perceive value based on their levels of engagement i.e. low and heavy. More engaged gamers are more aware of the value of personal data, which can be a valuable resource for esports organisations. This could involve giving customers different incentives to obtain this data.
Johnson and Woodcock (2019a)	X		X		X	Qualitative – interview data	This paper examines monetisation that takes place in live streaming. Various monetisation strategies on the platform are examined.	Various monetisation strategies are identified, including subscribing, donating, advertising, sponsorships, competitions, unpredictable rewards and channel games. All seven strategies impact the cultural production on platforms.
Johnson and Woodcock (2019b)		X	X		X	Empirical – qualitative interviews with primary and secondary stakeholders.	The study investigates how streaming, specifically Twitch is changing the games industry, including when launching new games and how it is critical in the game ecosystem.	Findings show that live streaming is a major force in the games industry. It links a range of stakeholders including developers and influences. Streaming impacts expectations of gameplay and game design.
Klaß (2020)	X		X			Review	This is a literature review of open innovation (54 articles) to suggest implications for media management.	Three processes and six key practices are identified and discussed in the literature. The motivation for open innovation is mainly motivated by market-related outcomes through a range of media-specific conditions. This is obtained through technology, the audience, or other media companies. Cultural uniqueness is the most relevant media-specific condition.
Kordyaka et al. (2020)		X	X			Quasi-experimental approach	The purpose of this research is to obtain a better understanding of diversification as a competitive advantage for organisations in eSports.	Franchises using a strategy of medium diversification seem to attain the most beneficial positions. Franchise identification can also potentially explain media engagement. Consumption and contribution aspects of media engagement positively affect franchise loyalty.
Kunz et al. (2022)	X	X				Qualitative case study	The paper aims to identify similarities and differences and to understand the different roles, relationships and multiple interactions of actors involved in value co-creation processes among selected cases of the eSports service ecosystems.	The study reveals how actors interact and co-create value during events. Interactions are illustrated where actors are connected within the ecosystems.
Lopez et al. (2021)	X		X			Network analysis	The purpose of this paper is to identify which corporate growth strategy is being used by the NBA within the 2K League by comparing their sponsorship portfolios.	The NBA is using an innovative hybrid corporate growth strategy by incorporating sponsors from the NBA and LCS. This means the league has sponsors from both traditional and esports. By using a range of sponsors, they can appeal to a younger audience, and convey the legitimacy of esports.
McCauley et al. (2020)	X	X				Qualitative	This paper investigates the cultural relevance of an esports event in a regional city to determine the benefits for a range of stakeholders.	The local esports scene is viewed as a market and identified four key actions of local actors that enable the development of esports, namely building culture and values, advocating and legitimising, institutional development and co-creation of value through socialising and practice.
Mühlbacher et al. (2022)	X	X	X			Netnographic study and Qualitative interviews	The study examines how the introduction of esports sport simulation games by a sport club influences the identity formation process among fans, and whether it reinforces or destabilises the club’s brand identity.	The findings show that brand identity is neither reinforced nor destabilised by the introduction of a new offer, but only if the fans of the brand are not interested in the new sport nor feel disturbed by the new fans.
Ningning, et al. (2023)		X			X	Quantitative – Survey	The purpose is to provide guidance to young people staying away from negative, sedentary, addictive, and other behaviours, as well as to promote healthy behaviours	The study shows that e-gaming scenes, virtual sports experience, and social presence had a positive impact on young peoples’ intention to participate in sports and fitness. Virtual sports experience was a mediator on the intention.
Parshakov et al. (2020)	X		X			Quantitative – data from 20 years is analysed	The purpose is to determine whether there are spillover effects from promotion into sales. The video game industry and eSports tournaments as events for the period of 1997–2015 serve as the context for the study.	Marketing through events does give positive impacts with an optimal number of 80 esports tournaments being organised per year. Examples of positive spillover effects include cross-product, cross-region and cross-firm affect both game popularity and sales.
Partin (2020)			X	X	X	Critical review	The study focuses on donations in live stream, including its development and how platform capture is used as a strategy in Twitch e.g. Twitch Bits	It presents the development of platform capture – and how Twitch Bits have been able to challenge the dominance of other third-party tools. Platform owners, it is argued, do leverage power asymmetries to contribute to the technical development of their platforms.
Pizzo et al. (2022)	X		X			Qualitative – semi-structured interviews with the esport industry	The purpose of this research is to examine how mature organisations (specifically mature professional sports organisations) generate a competitive advantage when diversifying beyond their native industry i.e. affiliating with esports – organised video game competitions.	Prior resources can be used when diversifying into a new industry. Specifically, experience-based tacit knowledge within a firm (and its human capital) can generate a competitive advantage yet they need to be versatile if they are to be valuable. The versatility of resources and knowledge create a competitive advantage, making the identification of versatile resources and their combination with knowledge-based competencies important.
Pizzo et al. (2022)	X	X			X	Qualitative – Interviews – Case study methodology	The study examines the deliberate strategies of a professional sport franchise to integrate an esports team, specifically on how practitioners influence the integration of novel practices through micro strategies.	Sensemaking strategies was used to initially foster a progressive culture, create a shared understanding, and endorse operational synergies. Managerial and operational changes required addressing gender stigma and brand decoupling that limited the promotion between the franchise and the esports team.
Pu et al. (2022)		X			X	Mixed method research – Scale development	The purpose was threefold. First to identify motivational factors attending the event. Second, to develop and validate the esports events attendance motivation scale (EEAMS). Lastly, to assess motives between male and female participants.	By developing the scale, the study shows several different motivations on attendance. The study also showed the importance of context, such as that socialisation may bear different weight being online or offline for different people.
Roy et al. (2019)	X	X		X		Quantitative – develop and test a model	In this paper, smart servicescapes are studied, in addition to how customers co-create experiences, based on the SOR model.	The technological environmental cues influence the creation of the smart experience. In turn, they influence consumers’ service brand equity and word-of-mouth intentions.
Ruiz and Gandia (2023)						Case study – Secondary data and interviews	The study aimed to address the following research question: “How does an event combine business and community-based logics to manage an ecosystem?”	In summary the study that events provides space for combining business and community logics, that community logic allows the emergence of business logic, lastly, both the business and community logics are enabled by digital and spatial mechanisms
Sjöblom et al. (2019)		X	X			Qualitative- digital ethnography	The purpose is to investigate why and how streamers get involved in Twitch.tv and what tools they have to be successful. 100 streamers serve as the focus of the study.	Social affordance such as webcams and microphones create a two-way communication flow, creating social interaction. This in turn provides income and the ability to create a personal profile (brand) which also generates revenue.
Turkay et al. (2021)		X			X	Pre-post interview design	The purpose was to understand gamer attitudes towards VR esports and their experiences thereof, specifically Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.	The players had largely positive emotional experiences of the game. They also had positive attitudes and perceptions towards aspects of it yet barriers such as accessibility and a lack of knowledge were also identified.
Ward and Harmon (2019)	X		X			Quantitative – evaluating income levels – Secondary data	The paper examines the careers of esports professional players and their earnings.	Not all players earn enough to play professionally. Some are superstars, able to earn substantial amounts – a superstar effect. The age and experience affect the players’ success, but this is also difficult to determine. There are also career exits of those playing no longer. Esports may develop the features of other superstar markets.
Yue et al. (2022)	X				X	Quantitative – Questionnaire	The study examines the ability of and relationship between members, knowledge alliances, and whether it affects the innovation performance through knowledge sharing.	Firstly, member ability, member relationships, and member knowledge sharing significantly impact the innovation performance. Moreover, knowledge sharing mediated the relationship between [member ability] + [membership relationship] and [innovation performance].

1. Serv+Inv+ProffEsport.

2. Serv+Inv+Consumer.

3. Serv+Inv+Endemic.

4. Serv+Inv+Non-endemic.

5. Serv+Inv.

Table

Codes	Illustrations and examples from articles	Aggregated codes	Emerging Themes
Advertising Affordances Broadcasting Content Copresence Donations (big)Demand Interaction Media engagement (Loyalty) Online live streaming servicescape Platforms Power asymmetries Prosumtion Revenue models Social commerce Streaming Subscription Twitch	Online live streaming (OLSTR), Important for promoting games. Streaming tournaments OLSTR as a major new force in the video game industry Form of reviewing, entertaining and marketing OLSTR offering new revenue (e.g. donations) and business models. New type of content production and consumption Imperative for broadcasting esports Various mediators and moderators for the motivation to view OLSTR	The impact of streaming on different parts of esports and servicescapes New consumption patterns and user behaviours New practices and expectations Disrupting old channels Streaming platforms as servicescapes	Online service-scapes and live streaming
Bottom-up innovation Co-creation Creativity Diffusion of innovation Innovation (Individual) Lock-in Mods Platform Rule-bound set of tools Sensebreaking	Established rules or practices are changed (in games or platforms Limitation of innovation in platforms (e.g. lock-in by software) Creativity is not hindered, but shaped by frameworks of the platform Many indie game developers use participatory technologies that facilitate bottom-up innovation. Diverging from existing norms may be beneficial.	Innovation outside traditional boundaries Innovation shaped (e.g, limited) by servicescapes Scaling up bottom-up innovation in servicescapes Co-creation of value in servicescapes Breaking norms and associations as innovation	Innovation by breaking rules in service-scapes
Brand (Image/Identity) Co-creation Digitalization Diversification Endemic Gambling Legitimization Non-endemic Portfolios Spillover effects Sponsorship Strategic selection for collaboration	Sponsorship is a large revenue stream in esports. Non-endemic can also see benefits from sponsoring esports. Spillover effects requires examination. Esports being digitalised uses channels with plenty of data. Digitalisation requires firms to collaborate more (hence questions of [non]endemic fit)	Understanding the scale from endemic to non-endemic The variety of channels and servicescapes offers variety of sponsors and new innovative ways of sponsorship. Spillover effects are still unexplored in esports. Data provides opportunity to innovate marketing	Innovation and the endemic and non-endemic actors within esports
Augmented Changing technology Crowdsourcing Community Digital Digital distruption Hybridity In game platforms LANs Micro/Meso/Macro Online/Offline Physical (activity) Replicated Supported Virtual reality	Virtual reality as a solution for inclusion in esports New ways of monetising and conducting business are enabled. Physical-Digital hybridity consists of several different configurations. LANs offer a physical meeting place (community), as well as playing games digitally. Physical settings offer innovation in digital spaces. Competition against digital opponents remain interesting feature for physical contexts	Esport, subjected to rapid technological change. New monetisation and business models are enabled. Esport is inherently hybrid, occurring offline and online. Hybridity is complex and requires more inquiry. LANs are central in esports and offer innovating hybrid contexts.	The hybrid nature of esports and technology

Scholz, T. M. (2019). eSports is business. Springer.

 Google Scholar

Seo, Y. (2013). Electronic sports: A new marketing landscape of the experience economy. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(13–14), 1542–1560. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.822906

 Google Scholar

Parshakov, P., Naidenova, I., & Barajas, A. (2020). Spillover effect in promotion: Evidence from video game publishers and eSports tournaments. Journal of Business Research, 118, 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.036

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roy, S. K., Singh, G., Hope, M., Nguyen, B., & Harrigan, P. (2019). The rise of smart consumers: Role of smart servicescape and smart consumer experience co-creation. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(15–16), 1480–1513. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1680569

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abdolmaleki, H., Pizzo, A. D., Baker, B. J., Mahmoudi, A., & Ghahfarokhi, E. A. (2023). Esports in emerging markets: A balanced scorecard approach to LAN gaming centers in Iran. Journal of Global Sport Management, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2023.2261444

 Google Scholar

Biggar, B., Zendle, D., & Wardle, H. (2023). Targeting the next generation of gamblers? Gambling sponsorship of esports teams. Journal of Public Health, 45(3), 636–644. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdac167

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Byers, T., Hayday, E. J., Mason, F., Lunga, P., & Headley, D. (2021). Innovation for positive sustainable legacy from mega sports events: Virtual reality as a tool for social inclusion legacy for Paris 2024 paralympic games. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.625677

 Google Scholar

Chen, Y.-H., Chen, M.-C., & Keng, C.-J. (2020). Measuring online live streaming of perceived servicescape. Internet Research, 30(3), 737–762. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-11-2018-0487

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cranmer, E. E., Han, D.-I. D., van Gisbergen, M., & Jungt, T. (2021). Esports matrix: Structuring the esports research agenda. Computers in Human Behavior, 117, 106671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106671

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cuesta-Valiño, P., Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, P., & Loranca-Valle, C. (2022). Sponsorship image and value creation in E-sports. Journal of Business Research, 145, 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.084

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DiPietro, L., Edvardsson, B., Reynoso, J., Renzi, M. F., Toni, M., & Mugion, R. G. (2018). A scaling up framework for innovative service ecosystems: Lessons from Eataly and KidZania. Journal of Service Management, 29(1), 146–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-02-2017-0054

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Diwanji, V., Reed, A., Ferchaud, A., Seibert, J., Weinbrecht, V., & Sellers, N. (2020). Don’t just watch, join in: Exploring information behavior and copresence on twitch. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106221

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Faas, T., Dombrowski, L., Young, A., & Miller, A. D. (2018). Watch me code: Programming mentorship communities on twitch tv. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (Vol. 2. No. CSCW. pp. 1–18). https://doi.org/10.1145/3274319

 Google Scholar

Flegr, S., & Schmidt, S. L. (2022). Strategic management in eSports–a systematic review of the literature. Sport Management Review, 25(4), 631–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/14413523.2021.1974222

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Foxman, M. (2019). United we stand: Platforms, tools and innovation with the unity game engine. Social Media+ Society, 5(4), 2056305119880177. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119880177

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Freeman, G., McNeese, N., Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. (2020). “Pro-amateur”-driven technological innovation: Participation and challenges in indie game development. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(GROUP), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375184

 Google Scholar

Gasparetto, T., & Safronov, A. (2023). Streaming demand for eSports: Analysis of counter-strike: Global offensive. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 29(5), 1369–1388. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565231187359

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Goebeler, L., Standaert, W., & Xiao, X. (2021, January 4–8). Hybrid sport configurations: The intertwining of the physical and the digital. Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.

 Google Scholar

Hayduk, T. M. (2021). Kickstart my market: Exploring an alternative method of raising capital in a new media sector. Journal of Media Business Studies, 18(3), 155–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2020.1800310

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hilvert-Bruce, Z., Neill, J. T., Sjöblom, M., & Hamari, J. (2018). Social motivations of live-streaming viewer engagement on twitch. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huang, T.-L., Liao, G.-Y., Cheng, T. C. E., Chen, W.-X., & Teng, C.-I. (2024). Tomorrow will be better: Gamers’ expectation and game usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 151, 108021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huettermann, M., Trail, G. T., Pizzo, A. D., & Stallone, V. (2020). Esports sponsorship: An empirical examination of esports consumers’ perceptions of non-endemic sponsors. Journal of Global Sport Management, 8(2), 524–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2020.1846906

 Google Scholar

Jenny, S. E., Keiper, M. C., Taylor, B. J., Williams, D. P., Gawrysiak, J., Manning, R. D., & Tutka, P. M. (2018). eSports venues: A new sport business opportunity. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 10(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.18666/JASM-2018-V10-I1-8469

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ji, Z., & Hanna, R. C. (2020). Gamers first–how consumer preferences impact eSports media offerings. The International Journal on Media Management, 22(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/14241277.2020.1731514

 Google Scholar

Johnson, M. R., & Woodcock, J. (2019a). “And today’s top donator is”: How live streamers on twitch. tv monetize and gamify their broadcasts. Social Media+ Society, 5(4), 2056305119881694. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119881694

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Johnson, M. R., & Woodcock, J. (2019b). The impacts of live streaming and twitch. tv on the video game industry. Media Culture & Society, 41(5), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718818363

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Klaß, N. (2020). Open innovation in media innovation research–a systematic literature review. Journal of Media Business Studies, 17(2), 190–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2020.1724498

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kordyaka, B., Jahn, K., & Niehaves, B. (2020). To diversify or not? Uncovering the effects of identification and media engagement on franchise loyalty in eSports. The International Journal on Media Management, 22(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/14241277.2020.1732982

 Google Scholar

Kunz, R. E., Roth, A., & Santomier, J. P. (2022). A perspective on value co-creation processes in eSports service ecosystems. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 12(1), 29–53.

 Google Scholar

Lopez, C., Pizzo, A. D., Gupta, K., Kennedy, H., & Funk, D. C. (2021). Corporate growth strategies in an era of digitalization: A network analysis of the national basketball association’s 2K league sponsors. Journal of Business Research, 133, 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.068

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McCauley, B., Tierney, K., & Tokbaeva, D. (2020). Building a regional offline eSports market: Understanding how jönköping the ‘city of DreamHack’ takes URL to IRL. International Journal of Media Management, 22(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/14241277.2020.1731513

 Google Scholar

Mühlbacher, H., Bertschy, M., & Desbordes, M. (2022). Brand identity dynamics–reinforcement or destabilisation of a sport brand identity through the introduction of esports?. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 30(4), 421–442.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ningning, W., Wenguang, C., & Vega-Muñoz, A. (2023). The effect of playing e-sports games on young people’s desire to engage in physical activity: Mediating effects of social presence perception and virtual sports experience. PLOS ONE, 18(7), e0288608. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288608

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Partin, W. C. (2020). Bit by (twitch) bit: “platform capture” and the evolution of digital platforms. Social Media+ Society, 6(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120933981

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pizzo, A. D., Kunkel, T., Jones, G. J., Baker, B. J., & Funk, D. C. (2022). The strategic advantage of mature-stage firms: Digitalization and the diversification of professional sport into esports. Journal of Business Research, 139, 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.057

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pizzo, A. D., Su, Y., Scholz, T., Baker, B. J., Hamari, J., & Ndanga, L. (2022). Esports scholarship review: Synthesis, contributions, and future research. Journal of Sport Management, 36(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2021-0228

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pu, H., Xiao, S., & Kota, R. W. (2022). Virtual games meet physical playground: Exploring and measuring motivations for live esports event attendance. Sport in Society, 25(10), 1886–1908. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2021.1890037

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ruiz, É., & Gandia, R. (2023). The key role of the event in combining business and community-based logics for managing an ecosystem: Empirical evidence from Lyon e-sport. European Management Journal, 41(4), 560–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.07.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sjöblom, M., Törhönen, M., Hamari, J., & Macey, J. (2019). The ingredients of twitch streaming: Affordances of game streams. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Turkay, S., Formosa, J., Cuthbert, R., Adinolf, S., & Brown, R. A. (2021, May). Virtual reality esports-understanding competitive players’ perceptions of location based VR esports. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Online Virtual Conference (pp. 8–13). Yokahama, Japan.

 Google Scholar

Ward, M. R., & Harmon, A. D. (2019). ESport superstars. Journal of Sports Economics, 20(8), 987–1013. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002519859417

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yue, L., Zheng, Y., & Ye, M. (2022). The impact of esports industry knowledge alliances on innovation performance: A mediation model based on knowledge sharing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 902473. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.902473

 PubMedGoogle Scholar