Operation Sports Forums - View Single Post - Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

tpaterniti · 08-28-2009, 03:49 PM

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.

08-28-2009, 03:49 PM	#41
tpaterniti Rookie OVR: 5 Join Date: Aug 2005	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.