Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

[StormJH1]

TombSong, I knew that comeback about gang tackling was coming. Ian Cummings TOLD people that they were inspired to make people forget about 2k5 because they were personally tired of hearing 2k5 fanboys talk about how a 5-year old product was better than theirs.

That's NOT "competition". The "competition" theory says that EA is going to fear LOSING SALES to a rival game coming out in the same year, so they innovate (and borrow ideas) in ways that they wouldn't or couldn't in an exclusive license environment.

EA has no reason to keep chasing the ghosts of a football game that very few people cared about until (a) it was gone; and (b) they lowered the price of it by $30!!!

[RaychelSnr]

Jet Sufferer,

So your only response is to simply try to call me a Marxist? Is that really your refute?

I'm not saying competition doesn't create better games through the marketplace, I even said that it does in a post or two in this thread. But the point I'm making here is that direct-sport competition is not the biggest reason why a developer will create better games ultimately.

So if you want to try to belittle me and call me a Marxist on a Sports Video Games message board, I guess that's your prerogative. I'd submit to you my political beliefs are almost in direct contrast on the other side of that theory though.

[Jet Sufferer]

Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

Jet Sufferer,

So your only response is to simply try to call me a Marxist? Is that really your refute?

I'm not saying competition doesn't create better games through the marketplace, I even said that it does in a post or two in this thread. But the point I'm making here is that direct-sport competition is not the biggest reason why a developer will create better games ultimately.

So if you want to try to belittle me and call me a Marxist on a Sports Video Games message board, I guess that's your prerogative. I'd submit to you my political beliefs are almost in direct contrast on the other side of that theory though.

Try reading comprehension and not self pity, I didn't call you a Marxist.

Your premise has been proven wrong by history a milliion times over and the comparison between Capitalism and Communism is the perfect analogy.

The premise is so ridiculous that it's almost a joke/satire, or just meant to be argumentative/provacative.

If you're going to make a case AGAINST competition and use garbage data like video game "reviews" to prove your "point", you should expect a little criticism. Using game "review" scores is the equivalent of "Garbage In, Garbage Out".

Again, I didn't call you a Marxist, but if you're going to argue AGAINST COMPETITION, you shouldn't be shocked when the obvious comparison is made between the "success" of Communism vs. Capitalism.

[TracerBullet]

I just want to know where all this solid data people are talking about is... What is the solid data of showing that competition helps video games?

[Blitzburgh]

Agree!

[bigsmallwood]

Some people @apps80 & TreyIM2 have to understand that some of us are not let by a blind bias, but rather by common sense! You don't have to be a Fanboy to see the flaws in thinking competition would not influence games and their sales, promotions etc!

[RaychelSnr]

I'm simply arguing against direct-sport competition being the leading cause of why a game is either good or bad. I see nothing wrong with the conclusion that direct-sport competition isn't even close to the main reason why a game is good or bad. Given the data presented, I would say it's pretty clear that it isn't. If direct-sport competition is the reason why games succeed or fail quality wise, I simply have to ask for a more reliable and better way of measuring it?

Again: budget, time of development and talent developing the game. Those are most likely the factors which determine the games final quality and not direct sport competition. I've already said that the marketplace as a whole is competitive (football vs. basketball vs. FPS, etc.). On a massive scale, consumers are making the choices between Madden, NBA 2K or Call of Duty.

People at OS assume that more realism = better game. But at some point, a game becomes tedious and un-fun if realism gets too high. Plus there's the whole fact you will never come close to 100% realism in a sports game. Guys here are merely arguing they feel or think that this can't be true because they don't think Madden was realistic for a few years (for example). They are right, Madden wasn't the most realistic game for awhile, but from a pure fun factor standpoint in the wider gaming market, Madden was widely considered good but not awesome.

Realism is important to us here at OS, but in considering overall quality and competition, you have to consider the fact that not everyone thinks the same way.

[ChaseB]

I think at a base level, if I were to argue against this, I would argue against how Metacritic averages the final scores rather than the point about reviews being right or wrong. I think that's where I would disagree with Chris a bit because the accumulation of the final overall rating is sketchy at times.

[MeanMrMustard]

I guess I just don't see how a sample of 4 reviews per sport, given a bunch of unknown variables, necessarily disproves the basic premise "competition makes things better." (One such unknown variable is how brand name recognition affects sales, which may affect how much "better" a game would have to be to keep up with the competition.)

I don't fault the author for the lack of sample size - a necessary evil, given the content - I just don't think it tells us a whole lot. Maybe it takes a few years for game "quality" (as measured by reviews) to catch up to sales in sports. It's the sales, after all, that the companies care about with reference to competition.

Anyway, an interesting take, and it certainly sparked some good discussion. I just have a hard time swallowing the premise: "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."

That's a bit presumptuous, wouldn't you say?

[NavigatorD83]

This has to be one of the most poorly conceptualized write ups about sports video games. You're using biased information to make a point that is not even valid.

[tpaterniti]

Your argument is deeply flawed for two main reasons: first, while each competitor's quality improving is one argument for competition, it is not the only argument for it and not even the best one. The major argument for competition is not that each individual competitor improves it's quality but that the overall quality improves for the consumer. The point of competition is not for NBA Live to necessarily improve each year but for the quality of the basketball video game market to improve each year. NBA Live may always stink, but the consumer keeps his voice and can go a different direction if he wants.

Second, Your argument assumes that competition is the only factor that drives the improvement of ganes or lack theirof. It is not. In the case of NBA live, it may be an issue of EA's fundamental approach to the game which keeps it's ratings low, or they may have calculated that based on the money it brings in improvement is not worth it financially.

Third, your argument gives a lot of credit to the quality of ratings. First of all, ratings are not done in a vacuum and having something to compare one game to impacts it's ratings dramatically. For example, the Madden series would probably not rate so high if 2K were making a licensed game just as it did not in 2004. Next the ratings tend to be a little suspicious at times any way. They start off high then go down. In part this is due to the fact that people don't have a chance to see the problems in a game before it is rated. This tends to work in favor of graphically excellent but poorly programmed games which in fact is what we see to be the case. Next, since rating services and video game websites rely on the video game companies for advanced game copies and thus for their livelihood, the video game companies have all the leverage and in fact they have threatened to remove advance viewing privaleges from sites that rate them too low when the game is first released. Do a search and you can find several articles about this online.

Finally, your argument assumes that quality is the only benefit of competition. In fact price is typically the biggest benefit. When two companies compete it is true that quality goes up but price almost always goes down. This is not always used as it was with the $20 2K5 in 2004 but it is always an option whereas in a monopoly it is not.

I said two reasons but here are four why your argument doesn't hold water and why you have shown in my opinion a poor understanding of the issues you are trying to discuss. I mean that in the nicest possible way. I apologize for the typos. I hate them but I am on an iPhone at the moment.

[Logic Doctor]

I think you might have stepped out on a limb trying to make the arguement that competition in sports games does not create better quality games.

Its good to see you back track to a more logical talking point which is "competition is not the only thing that affects a games quality."

I agree with you that development dollars, time for a project and the talent developing that project are most definitely going to have more of an impact on quality rather than soley an environment of competition. That is an obvious point, considering that those are the pillars for creating any $60 worthy game.

Think of it like a race car...........

Development dollars - engine

Time for the project - # laps in the race

Development team - driver

Now lets just assign a letter grade of B- for the quality of my driver, the power of my engine and the length of the race.

If I send my car out on the track and I'm the only one racing, spectaters (reviewers & consumers) might view my car as extremely fast. It would be difficult for them to grade my racing product because the only thing to compare it with would be the slower cars I used in previous years. At that point it would be justified and reasonable for them to give me a B+, A or A+ considering the context of being the only one on the track. Hence unwarranted high review scores for games without competition.

Once you add other cars into the equation, it gives you a context to compare in. Without that context the slowest car in the race on the track by itself might look pretty fast to onlookers. There is no doubt that if you have an awesome engine (dev $,) an awesome driver (dev team) and are comfortable with the length of the race (time to dev) you will most definitley be at advantage.

However, what you are underestimating is what other cars on the track do for onlookers (reviewers & consumers) and the drivers (dev team) of the competing cars. Having that context allows onlookers to compare one racing product against an equal competitor, rather than comparing it to its predessesor. This context creates review scores that can be balanced on market relativity which allows one racing product to truly be # 1 rather than, the only one.

Also, the inclusion of other cars on the track gives the race car drivers (dev teams) new motivation and an actual competitor to compare themself with. At the end of the day you're engine, driver, and level of comfort with the race length will have the most impact on what place you finish, but if all things are equal (as far as the engine, driver, and comfortl level) it will always come down to the quality of the driver and the level of motivation they have to win the race.

Competition, while its not the only factor, definitely has a sizable impact on the outcome of a games development. Having competition creates a motivational push that would not otherwise be there and without it the only motivation these racing products have is money (and that motivation doesn't benefit sports gamers.)

So, while the # ratings you posted might not paint the same picture, competition does make a difference. It creates a different atmopshere for whoever is competiting and although you can't measure its impact with a number it is sorely missed when it is absent.

Unfortunately, we are seeing less and less competition as the years go on and if EA continues to purchase exclusive licenses we might lose the right to choose much like we lost the right to choose what NFL title we prefered. Choice is what allows for greatness. Without choice our sportsgaming dreams are in the hands of a corporation who's main proirity is money, not quality.

[matt8204]

Very shaky argument by the author. I don't think that review scores tell the whole story. Scores are extremely subjective. And who's to say that a particular reviewer truly understands all the nuances of a sport?

Why not go to sites such as Operation Sports to get a general idea of people's attitudes towards these games? Or check user reviews on the websites, which are far more honest and in-depth IMHO.

[speels]

Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

This thread is awesome!!!!!!!

When I first read this article I was like "Wow" there is going to be some crap flinging going on in this thread. And I was right.
I think that a different title may have helped, and I think that a different approach may also have helped, however, it made its point to me and I do agree that direct competition is not the largest contributing factor in determining af a game is good or bad.

The point that was made about how Ian said they were adding pro-tak because they were tired of hearing how awesome 2K5 was makes little sense to me. What Ian was really saying is that 'madden fans have spoken up and want pro-tak in the game, so we are adding it'. I don't think it was competition, because lets face it, 2k5 is not direct competition for Madden10.
Games are getting better because gamers are forcing them too. The biggest influence on any game is sales and if the sales slow you get 2 different things happen. 1) Games get better ie Tiger Woods vs Hot Shots golf--this drove Tiger to be more Sim and less arcade because Hot Shots was way more fun to play. 2) Games fold and we are left without an option, ie Eastside Hockey Manager.

The people involved in the developement of the game also have a lot to do with how a game improves. Just look at FM, there is zero competition for that game yet it developers keep making it better year after year. Also, look at some of EA's game--David Littman has made the NHL series one of the most popular through his approach of listening to consumers and doing things his way.

Direct competition is not the leading factor in determining if a game will improve, but I do believe it is a factor.

Also, until someone can show another way to compare sports games, then I will just have to accept that a random average of review scores is the best way, although as Chase stated there is some room for question with metacritics scores.

Rememer, as consumers we have the last say about if a sports game needs improvement. We can refuse to give moeny for a game that is below our expectations and force these companies to make games that are better. We could also just be happy with what we've got and let these companies have a 2 year developement cycle instead of forcing them to produce a new game year after year. I mean look at games like HALO or GTA, if those companies were forced to come up with a new game every year, do you think they would have the critical acclaim that they do.

[RaychelSnr]

tpaternitl,

Your post has nothing to do with the points at hand. Your points are good, but they aren't what was being argued in the article, not even close.

I wasn't arguing the case for the consumer, as I am a firm believer in more choices being better for the consumer. I'm not arguing the point of price, as that definitely was the case with more competition. There is no doubt the consumer wins on both of these options when direct sport competition is going on. What I was arguing was the notion that games are automatically made better if two games are made for the same sport. The stats don't back up that notion.

Your second point is right in line with my ultimate conclusion at the end of the article. Direct sport Competition ISN'T the only thing which drives game quality and it definitely isn't the most important.

Your third point is the same thing everyone else is saying. If you don't think aggregate review scores are the best way to measure game quality, then show me another method which is better and is quantifiable. Gut feelings and individual subjective opinions don't count.

The point of the article is discussing the simple fact direct-sport competition (NBA vs. NBA) isn't as big of a factor as many would have you believe in the end product rating. I believe that despite all of the people trying to say otherwise, no one has yet to come up with better evidence to the contrary that direct-sport competition doesn't effect game quality in the way people have assumed.