Plenty of enormously popular games never develop a real competitive scene, while some far smaller games build passionate, long-running esports around them — which means raw player count, on its own, clearly isn't what decides whether a game becomes an esport. A handful of more specific properties turn out to matter far more.

Spectator legibility comes first: a viewer who isn't currently playing needs to be able to watch a match and understand, in real time, who's winning and why, without needing to have played the game themselves to follow along. A game that's deeply fun to play but genuinely hard to watch and understand from the outside struggles to build an audience beyond its own player base, no matter how large that player base is.

Depth and skill ceiling matter just as much: a competitive scene needs a game to keep rewarding mastery for years, with enough strategic and mechanical complexity that a professional player is meaningfully, visibly better than an average one — a game that gets fully "solved" quickly, with little separating a skilled player from a beginner past some early point, doesn't sustain years of competitive interest.

Competitive integrity is the third piece, and the easiest to overlook: a game needs low enough randomness at the top level that skill, not luck, reliably decides outcomes, and it needs the publisher actively willing to keep tuning balance and investing in tournament infrastructure over years, not just at launch. A game can satisfy the first two properties and still never become a real esport if its publisher never builds the ranked systems, patch cadence, and event support a competitive scene actually needs to sustain itself — which is why "will this become an esport" is as much a question about publisher commitment as it is about the game's own design.