Oh yes, this post was inspired by a HackerNews discussion. Seeing a pattern yet? Seriously though, I can't recommend HN enough for an engaging random read.
There is one game I desperately crave(d) and will not get - ever. The reason is that it already exists, but not quite. I'm talking about Counter-Strike 1.6.
This craving has been slowly building as my 17-19 year-old self was racking up 5000+ hours in CS:GO trying to go "Pro". The years leading up to that I spent saving for a computer that would allow me to be competitive. My then-laptop with a 2-core pentium was not up to the task, unfortunately, and I couldn't ask my mortgage-stricken parents to get me something better to "play games". Can't blame them for that though.
The game I would've given my left nut for at the time is a CS1.6-like game, fully open-source and multi-platform, with updated graphics and on top of an engine that's tailor-made (read hyper-optimised) for it, resulting in a game that doesn't perform noticeably different on a 2GHz pentium and an overclocked i9 (obviously it would also run on ARM). Base benchmark would be 288fps on the former mentioned processor, meaning you don't really require high-end equipment to play. (Not exactly true, high-end headphones and a high-frequency monitor do still give an advantage, though I believe those are not as drastic as comparing 60fps to 300fps.)
Independently from the game would be a governing body deciding on the competitive aspects of the game (think FIFA). These would be the official map pool, official round-game-match-tournament format, allowed weapons, number of grenades, all the way to the maximum running speed of the player. Any event organizer may choose to use this config, but doesn't have to.
I believe the video-game and the sport should be separate. What we see again and again are developers making decisions about competition that are not aligned with professional players nor event organizers (nor the spectator), instead skewing towards the new player.