Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

[RaychelSnr]

Everything you have been told about competition in the sports-gaming industry is a lie.

There is something that happens when someone tells you that everything you believe in isn't true. It shakes you at your foundations. You tend to want to resist the change. You sometimes want to brush aside any information that could radically change your way of thinking, instead opting for the normal and ordinary.

However, the change has arrived today. The information you are about to read will change your perceptions of the sports videogame industry forever. The information below is going to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the theory that competition creates better games for the consumer is pure baloney.

Read More - Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

[bigjake62505]

I am NEVER going to accept that competition makes no difference on a games quality especially based on a study of ratings from IGN, gamespot, ect...

[Hova57]

i understand all of your points and are well taken, but you just opened up a huge can of worms .

[the croz 1027]

Good article, but for us to compare apples to apples we should be looking at the rating of the better sports game prior to getting their own license and then how ratings changed after eliminating competition.

[The GIGGAS]

Quote:

Well, if you believe in review scores -- the only measurable game-quality tool you can dig up to compare games -- we have learned that the competition-creates-better-games theory is simply not true.

That's a big if. I certainly don't believe in review scores for sports games.

[MeanMrMustard]

The logic in this is ridiculous.

Example 1, comparing Live to 2K:

Live has improved (Because of competition? Maybe so, though the author dismisses this.)

2K has stayed the same - IN REVIEW SCORES - which means that it is, in fact improving. Reviewers, generally, take into account the fact that we expect some level of improvement from year to year. So the same product that produces an 80 in 2K6 might get a 70 in 2K7. To get a B year after year means the 2K crew is doing a good job of putting out a quality new product year after year; i.e. not a carbon copy of the prior version.

Example 2, The Show vs. 2K:

The fact that 2K is slipping proves the opposite point the reviewer is making. There is no competition (on 360, which holds a much higher market share than PS3), so a lack of improvement would be we'd all expect from the ordinary competition theory.

The fact that The Show is improving also corroborates this point. The Show, unlike 2K, has a competitor in 2K on the only system it appears on.

Example 3, Name brands skew competition:

The reviewer fails to note that EA Sports has to do comparatively less than the competition to sell games because of its brand appeal. A 59 in NBA Live will always outsell an 80 in NBA2K.

... And let's not pretend Madden was worthy of an 80+ in 07, 08 or 09.

[JerseySuave4]

Great Article. I get so sick of reading on the NCAA & Madden boards about how not having competition allows them to create mediocre games and if there were competition we'd have these amazing games. Ive said its b.s. but i always get flammed for that.

Its nice to read an article that is not afraid to go against what the mass may think and does a nice job of proving that theory is wrong.

[bigjake62505]

Quote: Originally Posted by MeanMrMustard

The logic in this is ridiculous. Example 1, comparing Live to 2K: Live has improved (Because of competition? Maybe so, though the author dismisses this.) 2K has stayed the same - IN REVIEW SCORES - which means that it is, in fact improving. Reviewers, generally, take into account the fact that we expect some level of improvement from year to year. So the same product that produces an 80 in 2K6 might get a 70 in 2K7. To get a B year after year means the 2K crew is doing a good job of putting out a quality new product year after year; i.e. not a carbon copy of the prior version. Example 2, The Show vs. 2K: The fact that 2K is slipping proves the opposite point the reviewer is making. There is no competition (on 360, which holds a much higher market share than PS3), so a lack of improvement would be we'd all expect from the ordinary competition theory. The fact that The Show is improving also corroborates this point. The Show, unlike 2K, has a competitor in 2K on the only system it appears on. Example 3, Name brands skew competition: The reviewer fails to note that EA Sports has to do comparatively less than the competition to sell games because of its brand appeal. A 59 in NBA Live will always outsell an 80 in NBA2K. ... And let's not pretend Madden was worthy of an 80+ in 07, 08 or 09.

my point exactly