Two paths: 2019 Tech syllabus

So I’ve been working on the solution to 2019 Tech syllabus.

When I say working, I mean trying to wrestle with the wicked problem around what it means by ‘quality solutions’. I guess it means, a different kind of quality solution from the current one – which is long past its use-by date. Aside from that, I figure there are two paths.


One path leads to using out of the box software solutions which will spew out content and come up with some algorithmic determination: probably a score, number or another icon to represent the student’s understanding. This is seductive as I could block code, pump it into Minecraft and say how well I’ve met the new benchmark.

We know kids love Minecraft (unless you offer them an alternative, which most schools are not about to do). In my standardised biome with my standardised test, I’m gonna tick all those boxes for sure. The downside is that kids arrive at high school from iseveral dimensions: lack of teacher effort; no teacher interest; basic skills, limited resources, little time for this;  through to celebrities and minted budgets where they’ve been using tech at a high level for a long time.

There is no single solution for each student’s context – but the assumption is – higher levels of coding and applied technology is not needed than ever before. Gee, that’s what it’s called Technology and Applied Studies – not STEM. All this is going to mean lots of back-filling of missed skills, concepts and knowledge they will need to tackle something like Unity … or simply settle for code-hour and block programming. The problem with this is that we’re dealing with complex ideas which Scratch etc., goes someway to introduce … it’s still hard for a wide range of reasons including the fact that it’s not entirely the TAS teacher’s responsibility – just like other literacies are not the sole domain of the English Department.

On the other hand … I could take more responsibility for my own learning and address the increasingly problematic ‘user only’ culture that has been pushed onto kids at school and at home. I could settle for “they have gaps” and dumb it down for everyone – or not. But is this going to be authentic, or me just buying software and running online tests?

Not being seduced by the commercial (and popular) easy track means even more work. More time and resources are also needed in differentiation (which I can’t buy or be gifted) as well as trying to encourage students to follow their own interests (should they go beyond Fornite and Rainbow Six) – which I’m up for – always have been.

TAS generally is facing a much bigger elephant in the room than ever before – what is the new level of ‘quality’ and is home-made-stuff better (or perceived to be worse) than the commercial stuff. This helps explain the mad rush to try and work out how this now fits into the super competitive world of STEM –  by TAS world, which has often chosen to sit out the digital debate entirely. The old mentality was “I do wood, she does metal and they do Hospo. You’re in the wrong staff room”. But this new syllabus puts TAS into everyone’s staffroom. It will be a head-spin – as people jostle for position, try to ignore or enthusiastically race off into their own world of ‘cool’. It’s going to be even harder for school leaders who have to find a sustainable and relevant path in all this.

On one hand, the STEM trend clouds what TAS has supposed to have done for decades in technology, but in recent years, I suspect some TAS departments have hid behind the band-saw and avoided digital technology – leaving it to ‘the computing teacher’ in their department. That’s about the change radically. As 50 hours at least lead to digital technologies.

In the last ten years, the technological boundaries kept expanding, but the social and cultural decreased – resulting in lazy-ICT, post-truth denial, media panics about screen-time and the quest to further commercialise children’s learning. Easer, faster, more reliable? … sure, if you think weighing a pig will help you know how happy it is.

So no, I choose not to do block programming, I choose not to accept that everything beyond Office and Google Docs is too hard, or that I can find a software provider to do my job for me.

What does that look like – Hello World, making mistakes … all that stuff that we used to do. It still works.


Digital classrooms and the quest for core-knowledge – but I can’t read it.

Children, or adolescents at least are routinely given text to de-code in order to ‘learn’. Off the shelf material is generally written to a targeted reading level, and therefore those using it are assumed to have attained that level in order to access the content.

This is largely based on the belief that students can acquire ‘core knowledge’ in a subject from this text- and powers the ‘learn about’ and ‘learn to’ approach in many schools. Core-knowledge is based upon E D Hirsch’s thesis that, once students have mastered decoding (turning printed letters on the page into imagined sounds), reading comprehension largely depends upon background or general knowledge. Thus, students are often presented with identical printed texts (books and worksheets) while digital text is often ‘tarted up’ to appear more exciting: meaning extraneous words, pictures, and media are not eliminated but added; important information is not highlighted but lost in a soup of digital content, video and images. Who hasn’t been subjected to a Prezi which leaves the viewer dazed and confused? And don’t get me started on Canva hipster text.

There are several problems with the idea that students can acquire core-knowledge in any subject using this approach. Firstly, research has shown it to have zero effect on comprehension. The key issue is that this approach assumes children are largely identical; that the teacher has sufficient personal core-knowledge to teach it – and beyond; and the standardised text is revealing a true picture of the student.

In digital contexts, using the Internet to search for text to apply to an online course, or being able to operate MS Office like word-processors isn’t sufficient. Some understanding of eLearning principles and methods is needed. For example: is the text being given to students too complex to decode.

By the end of middle school the curriculum is expecting students can read:

  • elements that require interpretation, such as complex plots, sophisticated themes and abstract ideas
  • complex layers of meaning, and/or information that is irrelevant to the identified purpose for reading (that is, competing information), requiring students to infer meanings or make judgments
  • non-continuous text structures and mixed text types
  • sentences that vary in length, including long, complex sentences that contain a lot of information
  • adverbial clauses or connectives that require students to make links across the whole text
  • academic and content-specific vocabulary
  • words and phrases with multiple meanings that require students to know and use effective word-solving strategies to retain their focus on meaning
  • metaphor, analogy, and connotative language that is open to interpretation
  • illustrations, photographs, text boxes, diagrams, maps, charts, and graphs, containing main ideas that relate to the text’s content.

Hirsch’s point is that, beyond decoding text, reading comprehension skills are not transferable. So how come children appear to have little difficulty comprehending complex video games – which are largely designed for adults?

Here’s another example of the problem in just using things found online as a class text.


Screen Shot 2018-08-07 at 7.16.29 pm.png

Here’s an example from the ABC’s history website of digital text – pasted into the free Hemmingway app. Yes, it meets a Grade 8 (good readability), but it also shows a number of sentences will be hard to read for some students – yet all students will be given it.

Screen Shot 2018-08-07 at 7.18.55 pm.png

In a digital book on the website, the above is from the first page of a multi-page digital book. It’s twice as hard to ‘read’. I guess my point is that it’s all too easy to create digital text and place it in front of students as they get older and assumes that the core-knowledge approach has been successful. In contrast, we are constantly being told that children’s reading ability is falling – and an increase in using standardised tests to ‘check’ their reading ability both online and on paper. There are some obvious issues here: digital texts are not the same as printed text, people process digital information differently to print; digital text comes with an array of sensory and accessibility issues and the ease at which we can ‘throw a doc up’ – doesn’t mean the text is easily read by any given set of individuals who happen to be in a room.

The two biggest factors to consider (IMO) when creating digital texts is their modality and how they are segmented. The goal is to allow more able students to read beyond what is being shown, but for the least able to be able to at least de-code the key information, through the use of formatting and layout. We know that better background knowledge causes better reading comprehension. I cannot express enough how much I dislike the practice of ‘providing students with content’.  Piles of text issued on paper (see Will Richardson’s view on paper piles) and digital dumpsters of documents. From this we attempt to determine comprehension through some standardised test. Yes you handed out all the text that applied to the dot point and then gave the kids a test. Well done, but what did they actually read – and what did they comprehend.

Great teachers think carefully about the text they give out. They craft it to be readable and are well prepared to segment it with their own background knowledge. They use the digital to scaffold the modality of the text – with video, graphics and other images. They are conscious of the need for teachers to provide a natural voice in their practice. I think that those who use the digital well (but often unseen by external observers) are also likely to change the physical space to suit their objectives. These teachers are likely to also be the ones who are very interested in classroom design – for the digital age. I do like this infographic from USC on the topic.




Laptops present and increasingly wicked problem. It’s not that they are still here, but that they grow increasingly more capable as some teachers skills and understanding of media and media cultures is stuck in 2008.
On the one hand students need to use them: ICT skills are widely considered valuable in the future of work; many schools rely on ICTs to access information and process it; paper worksheets, copying into books is well known to be the least useful way to teach etc.,
On the other hand, screen-culture provides an array of entertaining distractions. Where ICT skills are low (students are not taught in a well organised and articulated program over time) screens present a new challenge, as between the teacher and task is an infinite wall of entertainment which can often be preferenced over using the device for scholarship. It would be easy to assert that removing the device will remove the distraction and thereby improve learning. In effect, at the surface level, it may improve the rate of completion of worksheets and note taking — but completely fail to deliver students with the necessary ICT and Digital Citizenship facets which is widely seen as necessary for modern learning and the future of work.
Recent NSW research has shown that in many cases, students who are behaviourally disengaged do not display disruptive or non-compliant behaviour, but rather, display passive or internally focused behaviours such as withdrawal from class activities and discussion, and moving off-task (Grattan Institute 2017). The ‘Matthew effect’, coined by the sociologist Robert Merton, describes the tendency for ‘those who are successful … to be given the opportunities that lead to further success, and [for] those who aren’t … to be deprived of them’. In education, the ‘Matthew effect’ has been used by Reschly (2010) to describe the cycle of increasing reading competence and engagement on one hand, and the contrasting cycle of inadequate progress/ decreasing motivation and disengagement.
I suppose there are situations where the Internet, Social Media, Games, Smart Phones and Laptops are not part of the societal make-up. Where students can live out their days in a no-technological oasis, free of distractions and enveloped in a pure environment which can be replicated using an academic theory immune to culture and other sociological axes. For the majority of students, technology cannot be reduced to a point that teachers and students use it as a flash drive, or something to help arrange documents to photocopy. Printed information is useful – reading is very useful – but the balance between this and technology is an unavoidable problem, which can’t be solved by any other means that building out effective blended environments to avoid the Matthew effect or to simply blame media entertainment for disengagement and try to remove it in some puritanical and idealistic manner.
For most students, technology is part of their daily routine but it seems for many teachers, the wicked problem still presents a personal challenge to engage with information technology as a level above that of ‘basic’ – but engaging in the digital realms beyond their personal belief zone. The necessity of digital literacy, skill and access cannot be removed by burying it under reams and reams of worksheets. It’s still there – and it’s growing.
With the current media panic over Fortnite – this post merely re-states what we know about media education, student engagement and technology: society is increasingly distant from children’s media cultures and interests. If for example, we want to give students a project of their choice – and that choice is to spend a fortnight in fortnite – it seems unlikely that this would be allowed in most schools. So when we say, let students have a choice – let them engage in their own interest-based research – I suspect that this is still centred around adult-belief and the pursuit of a non-digital solution in the majority of situations.
Wicked problems don’t get buried under worksheets … no matter how high you pile them – and engagement is not a binary choice or a matter of normalising routines. If it was, adults wouldn’t have picked up their smartphone today or flicked through Netflix – so why is Fornite freaking you out?

Blogger Problems

I’d write a blog post, but I’m worried I might be wasting my time as someone else is writing a different one – right now and that this one will become redundant. That would make me really sad and disconnected from my artificial-reality I’ve created.


Fortnite, Smart Phones in Schools and Gaming Addiction – the once in a decade perfect storm for a media panic.


There has been no lack of fuss recently about two things: the inclusion of ‘gaming disorder’ (IGD) in the DSM-5 and the media-frenzy around whether or not the game Fortnite is enslaving kids to hours of toxic experiences – through some sort of magical-compulsion.

There have been calls for ‘gaming addiction’ since the late 1990s. The loudest voices emerged from clinical psychology. To put this in context, those calling for it, have achieved only a secondary win. The primary goal has been to get a much broader “Internet disorder” classified. You can imagine the revenue that this would bring the field – if now you could seek treatment (for a fee) for being addicted to the Internet. The DSM-5 has caused more confusion than clarity regarding the disorder, reflected by researchers in the field contesting a supposedly reached consensus for IGD diagnosis. In addition, the DSM-5 remains vague regarding whether or not games need to be engaged in online, stating that IGD typically involves specific Internet games, but can also include offline games, adding to the lack of clarity. Much of this confusion surrounds the primary goal – Internet Addition – and an inability to be specific about what exactly happens on the Internet that creates ‘addiction’. If we take the ‘screen time’ measure — more than 2 hours a day online might well mean addiction – so just about every office worker would be eligible for a prize.

Attempts this week to draw a line between IGD and Fornite have been numerous. I won’t waste your time showing you the primitive (and doctored) ‘news’ that Channel Nine and the Seven Network we’re trying to pass off as fact. Suffice to say, Twitter was awash with academics and experts in media, psychology and gaming posting “WTF” in response to much of it. At one point, one of the ‘experts’ on TV resorted to claiming ‘seniority’ over EVERYONE that railed against the claims being made – choosing to place correctness on status rather than evidence. And that is the problem, there is far too much ‘status’ and money surrounding IGD, that we are seeing highly selective and often exaggerated claims – a return to moral panics about kids and games we haven’t seen in over a decade.

While IGD is not in the DSM-5, it is worth pointing out that there is no evidence to suggest that playing Fornite will make kids addicted in the way injecting chemicals into your arm might.  In fact, the DSM-5 sets out that IGD is (like many habitual behaviours) a condition that emerges from and with numerous other conditions – it becomes part of the cocktail of psychological issues and variable reactions some people have.

Nope, Fortnite is not going to addict anyone, despite the ‘experts’ who jumped onto the moral panic bandwagon, the added sound effects and editing of ‘clips’ shown to the TV masses waiting for bogans to argue on My House Rules – and obviously, people are now paid to give their opinion on the matter – which they quickly try to attach to ‘problems with smartphones is schools’ and ‘screentime’ as though no one is going to pick them up on it.

What makes Fortnite a massive hit? Well, it’s not that it has magical addicting pixels. It’s not that it’s played online with others as some sort of innovation.

If she’s now into Fornite – and the parent previously loved Minecraft, or their teacher made a big deal about how ‘cool’ Minecraft is for learning … then you’ve kind of missed the important point – this has never been about content. Minecraft gave her a way to experience and re-tell personal, often very vivid stories. This is exactly what Fornite does – but Fortnite has used the ‘building’ joy with the shooting other people joy – and kids who play Minecraft see a clear line between it and Fortnite – it’s a remediation of several designs which are in children’s media culture.

In addition, Fornite is a clever design. The entire industry is saying that while elements of the design are derivative – its weapons and gadgets invite experimentation and specialisation  — hardly a stone’s throw away from Minecraft. But we’re not about to see teachers play Fornite – because teachers avoided games with ‘content’ until they found a game which was so un-challenging socially — they declared it ‘the best’ and ‘new’ – and suddenly all the cool-teachers are into it — almost exclusively.

Lastly, Fornite is easy to play for beginners. I’m not saying you’ll win easily, but unlike many MOBAs, players don’t need to grind for days to get sufficient stuff to be competitive. The culture of Fornite is super-easy to engage with. For kids using Insta and other networks to share, create and find memes – Fornite has fast become the cultural icon for this generation – a post-COD, post-Lol=L, post DOTA2, post-Minecraft audience. Kids in into Minecraft are GOING TO GROW UP AND GET INTO MOBAs, just as sure as they’ll enter puberty. Sure it’s a cartoon chop-job of PubG – but PubG missed the landing point in comparison to Fornite’s multi-platform success.

Adding all this up, Fornite is not more addictive or dangerous – it’s just the latest leap in kid-game-culture. It’s allowed a return to media panics about ‘content’ and Internet trolls (as though they don’t exist in other online spaces their parents use). TV and newsprint love this stuff – it sells advertising and is an IV line into parental fears.

Fornite is the game we needed, a post-Minecraft entry point for FPS and casual games which allows for a massive kid to kid social connections at school as well as online at home. Every game giving kids the opportunity to tell and re-tell cultural-stories creating a new level of agency in their close-social-groups and re-writing the narrative of social-gaming. Of course some folk are not going to like this, Fornite has been a huge shock to the system.

It just so happens that the DSM-5, banning smart phones and Fornite media and moral panics happened in a short space of time – creating confusion – and for some – an opportunity that everyone’s lost their minds about it.

Personally, I love Fornite. I don’t play it much or well, but it has reduced the squeaker population in Overwatch, and for that, I am truly grateful.

In 2013, The USA officially recognised E-Sports tournament and battle royale players as ‘pro-athletes’ giving them entry to the country with a P-1 professional player visa as an ‘individual athlete’. This goes to show that E-Sports players are both professional and athletes in their game. Like other sports, E-Sports players train 10-12 hours a day while fans were already watching Twitch streams for an average of 3 hours.

There are a number of things needed to understand the development of skills to reach this level.

  1. Know the jargon
  2. Practising with AI and Bots daily.
  3. Play and Learn Together – winning and losing together generates a dialogue
  4. Watch the professionals, analyse their play styles not their revenue streams
  5. Find the best tricks and tips – know the pressure points, know the plays, know the hero
  6. Learn the map, know the right positioning and punish teams who don’t.
  7. Tune your settings for better performance with the gear you have – not whine about what you don’t have
  8. Play the game you enjoy and play best – be open to other games, but master your own
  9. Be a mindful, pleasant player people want to play with – toxic players don’t win enough to become professional.
  10. Get enough rest, put fuel in the tank – a healthy screen-time and lifestyle needs a new routine and to taken as seriously as the game you’re playing.

There is no doubt that professional players have a skill set that allows them to react, preduct and move in the game better than casual players. However, natural skill in any sport isn’t enough to access the top – even if the game is an all consuming passion. Most players are there to have fun and the game mechanic is working all the time to keep them in the game – just at the edge of what they can do. Professional players break out of this game-induced ‘fun’ cycle and allocate their time to a far more pragmatic and analytic approach, taking in this list of facets and reflecting on which they need to focus on to find that performance boost. Whether they are playing in a team or solo, there is a goal-driven purpose to the time they are spending in the game.

This seems the major challenge in shifting from casual player (which some talent) to professional – managing time and keeping note of any factor which has improved their game. This is hard when playing casual, as the motivation of other team members is perhaps not to become a professional player. At times people in games are there to have fun – or even find that fun – throwing the match – or playing a smurf account just for their own entertainment. This is a big problem in online games – it is hard to know what is motivating other players as the match-making is made by the system. On the other hand two or three ‘stack’ parties might have one good player who is carrying or coaching the others – so in effect, you’re left playing in a team of 2 or 3, while the stack is off in it’s on party-chat, doing what it wants with no thought about the goals of the rest of the team.

This all means that the pathway to professional player requires a rhobust, performance based approach wherein players can develop their skills in a controlled environment which limits the randomness of home-solo play. Playing with friends is great, but there’s no guarantee that the friends are good players. Because we like our friends, we will be more focused on fun than performance – as we don’t want to be harsh and lose social capital with people we spend time with regularly. On the other hand, we don’t have any relationship with match-making. We might, over time, play with the same ‘randoms’, but have no personal relationship with them. This means the overall game-play experience is  one of a surface-level, temporary engagement, which doesn’t allow players to have those deeper conversations about improvement. We know that most of the learning (in anything) happens after the event – in the conversations and reflections we have about what just happened. Even in a school-lesson, it’s those lessons that kids talk about after, which will have the most benefit and impact – regardless of the teacher’s intention for the class.

It’s not possible (or desirable) to play 10-12 hours of E-Sports in High School. The key word there is play. The majority of after school play is geared towards socialising with friends (the digital-connections which have happened along side the digital-society) and having fun – at you own point of interest.

74% of teens in Australia access their media content via a tablet and about the same own a mobile phone. This means we have  generation which doesn’t want to watch programmed TV and believes that rich-media content is primarly an ‘on demand’ experience. Kids spend 12 hours a week doing this according to recent research.  If we then add the 1:1 school experience, many kids are spending over 60 hours a week – consuming content on demand. It’s hardly a shock that kids are double-tabbing classes, pretending to be accessing the LMS for school work, while watching videos in the other.

E-Sports becomes a way to meet the students at their point of interest, create a career pathway but also to use thier ‘on demand’ media time to something more than personal-media-consumption. In a way, the routines needed to be a pro-player can also be seen as a manifesto for all digital-demand media experiences – whether learning History or Maths. It’ just needs a small amount of context-shift to re-write this 10 point list to apply to anything kids are trying to be professional at.

Next stop! Cloud9?

For those die-hards that still read this blog, you may have gathered by now that my advocacy for video games is not primarily about taking what’s good about games and trying to squeeze the essence into educational agendas. For those who took (and may well be still taking) the Master’s course at CSU, I was always keen to provoke the idea that video games are an entirely valid media (text) in their own right — and that this has a place in the world of education, especially for children.

E-Sports is a very real phenomenon which is growing quickly and appeals to a global audience. For example, more than 360 million unique viewers watched this year’s League of Legends Mid-Season Invitational. It’s an extremely strategic game which is perhaps a frenetic form of Chess. During the event, fans contributed $2.6 million to the prize pool, totaling it to $4,946,970. The idea that a prize pool can be added to by fans is yet another remediation of the very idea of a competitive tournament. To put that in perspective, this audience was bigger than the Super Bowl or NBA. It’s almost pointless to compare any Australian sports viewing figures. Over 4 million Australians watch E-Sports which is pretty impressive. So why are schools not interested in competitive E-Sports? Why are they content to build forts in Minecraft or simply ignore this massive opportunity.

Someone said on a clip I watched recently …

“unlike the Javelin, which isn’t going to change much, E-Sports players are faced with not only playing at the highest, super competitive level but must also master the ever-changing technology that powers it”

Game developers are forever changing ‘meta’. Unlike traditional sport, this ensures no player can afford to develop a narrow skill set, nor can a team such as Cloud9 keep winning if the team doesn’t adapt. Of course, the audience loves this. As players, they also have to change their own play style and look to pro-gamers and streamers for the best insights in how to do it. With limited hours, most teens become very adept at finding the best sources to give them tips — which makes pro-players international celebrities.

Just like any traditional sport, opinions and arguments about who is the best player at any game stack out the various community forums. Some players are ‘flex’ and will play a number of heroes while others main just one. Again, this means is a departure from much of the singlemindedness associated with the professional sports arena. Pro-gamers make and generate a lot of money. With 5 or 6 player team configurations, getting a place in a pro-team is ultra-competitive, as there are literally millions of gamers who want their place. Compare this to traditional sport for a second. As players get older, the number who can ‘make it’ tapers off significantly. Unless they are top-tier, they can’t make the big dollars. In a bedroom near me, I have a Top 500 Overwatch player who can stream and gather a few hundred viewers willing to ‘tip’ or subscribe. Not all players stream, but even if you’re not in Cloud9, there is a very real potential to make significant money at an early age, simply being good at the game and knowing how to use the kind of media that schools spend vast amounts of energy banning and pretending are ‘bad’.

I’ve always though how utterly rediculous it is that Australian schools do nothing to help kids be the best gamer they can. While me moan that they are not doing homework or watching Fornite videos – what many teacher fail to understand is that they are watching kids – just like them.

So while schools have droned on about Minecraft, I’m going to argue few of these Minecraft Teachers understand the next level – Fortnite. The point is that millions of kids have been building Minecraft and Unturned servers for years. I know my kids had one almost ten years ago. I watched my Top 500 kid drop into Fortnite to play with his brother. I think it took only a handful of games before he was building. He’s already a dead-shot Widowmaker and while he (at 17) thinks Fortnite is for squeekers, he will occasionally play with his sister and brother in a 4 man. All the time, he’s outplaying them – while carrying them they are learning from him, just by watching his strategies.

Last year, I took him to the Overwatch Word Cup in Sydney. Of course it was amazing and of course he knew everything about the players and streamers that were knocking about. It’s a vast knowledge of gaming and gaming culture, which is simply ignored by his school. After all, wasting time playing video games means you’ll fail school. I think that is the saddest thing any teacher can believe. It’s also the push-back I’ve had from teachers when I ask them to talk about gaming beyond Minecraft. But there are some teachers and schools playing E-Sports, but it’s very few and as usual, an additional class outside of school. Interestingly, those who are advocating E-Sports are not concerned about meshing League of Legends with History class. They are see games for what they are – a genuine career path that requires kids to develop extra-ordinary skill and understanding – which academics such as James Gee has been telling us for decades – can happen.

I don’t get it. The facts are obvious, the growth is exponential – and Australia doesn’t suck at gaming or game development. So why are we not encouraging 13 year olds to be amazing at Fortnite?

Well, for one thing, the pathway to pro-gamer mostly happens after they have left school, so there’s little ‘cudos’ for the teacher who’s busy building forts in Minecraft in year 6. Teachers also lack the language needed to have a conversation about games with kids. Terms such as flex, DPS, skrim, SR are deeply encoded in world of gaming. They don’t watch Twitch, they don’t follow pro-gamers on Twitter or make the effort to reach out to Shout Casters to find out what is actually happening. I asked @ubershouts a few things about turning pro, as Mr Top 500 was killing it on the Xbox. “Get a PC and make the leap” he said “then get him playing skrims”. It too him almost a year to re-learn how to be as good as he was on the Xbox – on PC. He also had to ditch most the people he’d been playing with on console to focus on improving. He still plays console for fun, but is mooching about in the PC realms looking for games and making connections – aka – wasting time on video games.

So there here we are: at the edge of building an E-Sport reality. I’m sure the ‘education’ needed is not about games, but about the career pathways that games lead to. The kids know it, but it’s the adults we have to still win over I guess.