Last week, buddy Zechs wrote a piece on how paying to play model could be beneficial for gaming. I agree to some extent, but all the way through. I believe it would not be enough because much of the problem is elsewhere.

The life of a competitive game has a few phases but as happy an ending as a kiss of latex at the end of the tunnel. In the first phase, thousands of new players begin to play the game. With time, those players get bored, find a new game to play, get girlfriends and boyfriends, grow old and find a job. They do not magically multiply - they die out.

If the game is successful, then the first wave gets reinforced by a few more. But each new wave will be smaller than the previous one until there will be no fresh blood coming in. New gamers are attracted to new games and so are sponsors of esports. The old titles quickly lose their appeal.

Look at Counter-Strike. It is doing fine, but is it really still on the rise?

Here lies a problem. Most esports games will keep withering in the foreseeable future. What this means for the tournament organisers is that they have to start over, get a new player base, create a new community of spectators and essentially build a new esport from the ground up after they replace a game with a new one.

Moreover, this is confusing for the general audience, if a league is actually attempting to push a game to the mainstream. Once it drops one game, the viewer has to be taught everything from scratch.

Consequently, there is no stability in the long run. No way to build your future on a very shaky present.

What could be done? Continuously fixing the game does not do the trick - preventing people from leaving can only go so far. Try getting a wife and a kid while playing your game all day. Try getting your parents to pay for your bills when you're 25 and still living on BattleNet.

The key, it seems, is making sure that there is a constant stream of players coming into the game's community. Those to replace the ones that leave and those to grow the numbers further.

There are a couple of answers in the world of gaming, but the most fitting example is Magic: The Gathering, the trading card game. What if every two years you got a new version of the same game, with better features, nicer graphics, new maps, new mods and the same gameplay, only evolved and improved?

Wouldn't that help? Isn't that helping Call of Duty already? The tricky part is that the sequel actually needs to be an advancement compared to the original.

But in how many cases was it so?