Why did you select Quake 3? Did the decision hinge mainly on logistical concerns, developer support, or the game itself?

“Seasoned games” is the new axiom at CPL. Let me share a couple of reasons to use time-tested games:

1. Time-tested games help provide stability to esports and its competitors. Competitors should not have to relearn a new game every year, and spectators should have plenty of time to acclimate themselves to rules, strategies and formats. A good example is Counter-Strike 1.6, with arguably the highest following of any esports game in the western world, the game is actually quite complex and takes time to understand and appreciate.

2. Time-tested games offer familiarity to wider audiences. Quake 3 for example, was released in December 1999 and it created one of the largest PC online deathmatch communities we have ever seen. With hundreds of thousands of gamers playing it at one time or another, this huge audience will probably be interested in watching matches for a game they actually can understand.

Now a few reasons why we selected Quake 3 specifically:

Quake 3 has fantastic netcode and the demos work. The game’s physics, movement and sounds are pretty much flawless, and it has a large selection of maps with no major bugs. GTV is fully functional and now works with CPMA’s muti-view technology. The source code for Quake 3 was released under the GNU General Public License making it easier to implement changes and improvements. Finally, Quake 3 has great mod support from the community, especially from game modder extraordinaire arQon.

Proponents of CS, CS:Source, Quake 3, and Quake 4 have all arguing that their game should be the game, anything to say to the fans of the games that were not selected?

When a game is not selected by CPL, some of the game communities may feel like we are stating that their game is not good enough for CPL. This is not the case at all. Of course there are good reasons to use any of the games you’ve mentioned, but hopefully those that actually read this interview will somewhat understand the logic we applied to the selection process. Ultimately, to the CPL it’s all about which game can provide the purest form of competition without compromising any spectator options.

We then have to distill that with the logistical issues of a world tour, which lead us to feature one primary game on the tour, but also to support a few secondary games as part of our 2007 events.

Which games will be featured into the World Tour stops as side games?

Currently, only Counter-Strike 1.6 has been proposed as a side tournament game, but once we meet with our international partners next month we should have a complete list of games and locations.

Any final thoughts?

In my previous interview I forgot to mention how grateful I am to our staff that laboriously continues to push forward the CPL concepts and vision. A special thanks to our Commissioner, Chris Moncivalles, our Global Tournament Director, Mike Allen and our Programming Director, Andrew Waterman. Their enthusiasm and commitment to CPL’s success is unparalleled.

Also thanks to GotFrag (and you) for offering me this opportunity to speak directly to the community of gamers.