Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

Feature Article

Submitted on: 08/28/2009 by Chris Sanner

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.

A myth. A tall tale. An urban legend.

People believe that the consumer gets two high-quality games when two companies compete against each other in the same sport. Not only is that not true, it is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

But the argument that competition creates better games does sound good on paper. Two companies, competing against each other for sales, will end up producing better products in order to vie for the consumers' almighty dollar. The sports-gaming marketplace is a crowded place after all, and there are only a limited amount of dollars to spend on games.

It sounds good. But so does the concept of saving a cow's life by eating a soybean burger. Then you take a bite.

If the theory that competition creates better games is true, we will see a few very important indicators in our study below. First, we will see meaningful increases in review scores for both games over time, because both companies are competing against each other to produce better products. Second, we will also see the overall quality of these particular games outranking the games without competition. If they don't, the theory simply does not hold weight.

The methods for this experiment are simple. We will take the average review scores from the Xbox 360 versions of each game (sans MLB: The Show, which we will use PS3) from Metacritic. I feel that this is probably the most unbiased and easy way to average the scores for each game. From there we will simply analyze the data and see what the numbers say to us.

So why don't we start with a sport where there is competition, basketball. People like to claim that the competition has made NBA Live rise up to try and compete with NBA 2K, which is in turn trying to fend off the competition. But in reality, the stats show a different story. Remember the conditions for the theory to be true as we look at these numbers from the last four years:

NBA Live - 64, 59, 73, 77
NBA 2K - 81, 84, 81, 84

Neither the first or the second conditions of the theory are true here. While NBA Live has risen in quality the last two years (an impressive +18 low-score to high-score difference), the series did falter during its second year. Beyond that, NBA 2K has meandered around in the same area the past four years. Competition hasn't created better games in basketball, yet.

Next up is hockey:

EA's NHL - 79, 85, 88
2K's NHL - 75, 78, 71, 69

Nope. The theory would hold weight with EA's NHL series, which has been rising in quality year over year -- it has a big jump from beginning to end (+9). However, NHL 2K not only declined in quality after the second year, it finished a full six points below its initial quality, and nine points below its peak score.

Will our trend be apparent in baseball?

MLB: The Show - 77, 85, 90
MLB 2K - 66, 79, 70, 64

It's not even close, and this one is uglier than the rest. Again, The Show does meet the qualifications, but MLB 2K not only fails, but it fails miserably. The game is a full 15 points below its peak score. If competition created better games, wouldn't both game show improvements?

And now for a sport that was full of competition, but then dropped to a single game, college basketball:

College Hoops 2K - 71, 80, 82
March Madness- 67, 69

These scores represent the time before 2K folded its college basketball franchise and March Madness was renamed NCAA Basketball. Keep in mind the license was bought by EA after 2K folded the franchise, so NCAA Basketball is a single player by default. Its latest outing had an overall score of 70 last year.

Before the competition faded away, college basketball did seem like it might meet both criteria. Nevertheless, the data is now inconclusive at best since the competition was cut short. The results are open for consideration, but keep in mind that the other 2K games all declined at some point, and the rate of ascension for College Hoops 2K slowed considerably after the first year.

At this point we leave the realm of hard numbers and start speculating as to whether college hoops would have continued to improve, which is not evidence enough.

Next up are the sports that lack competition. If the theory that competition creates better games is true, none of these games will see meaningful increases in game quality, nor will they see consistent year-over-year improvements since the developers are resting on their laurels, right?

First, Madden:

Madden - 74, 80, 85, 84, 88

Not only has Madden improved every year except for one, it has also registered the highest front-end to back-end improvement ratio (+14) out of all of the sports games on the list. But what about NCAA Football? It has caught a lot of flak for not improving as much over the years, so is the theory that competition creates better games true in this department?

NCAA Football - 79, 81, 83, 84

What? Not only has NCAA Football not recorded a decline in quality since arriving on current-generation consoles, it has also outperformed many other sports games that have competition.

Another game to consider is EA's Tiger Woods series. While it's not an outright no-competition game -- there are several golf spin-offs out there -- not many games try to emulate golf like the Tiger series. So let's just look at it:

Tiger Woods - 71, 80, 80, 84, 80

Tiger is what we would probably expect from a game that doesn't have competition. It stays relatively even through the years and kind of meanders around the 80-84 range for four years. But Tiger does have an impressive low score to high score difference of +13.

So it seems like review scores indicate that game quality does not increase year over year when there is competition. But they also indicate that overall game quality is not necessarily better in the sports with competition. Consider the fact that NCAA Football, Tiger Woods and Madden were similarly scored in reviews when compared to the yearly leader in basketball, hockey and baseball this last release season.

Another popular theory, at least in the pro-football camp, is that Madden is denying NFL 2K5 a chance to compete -- this part is true by default because of the exclusive NFL license -- and that 2K5 was a superior game. In addition, the other belief is that NFL 2K would have been a far-superior product to Madden today. But let's test that theory.

First, both Madden 2005 (91 rating) and NFL 2K5 (92 rating) were similarly scored. So in reality, we're arguing about personal preference when it comes to either game because the critical acclaim for the titles was similar.

Secondly, the only current-generation 2K football title that we have seen was only so-so -- All-Pro Football 2K8 received a 75 rating. While the game didn't have the budget an NFL title might have otherwise had, 2K basically stripped down NFL 2K5 and delivered it onto current-generation consoles. Basically, 2K did exactly what EA did with Madden 06, and 2K's title scored worse than every Madden title but Madden 06.

Thirdly, given the realities of the industry today, the assumption that NFL 2K would have continued to be a successful franchise is making a logical assumption that holds no weight. None of 2K's games have seen year-over-year increases in quality since the current-generation consoles launched. Only one title (NBA 2K) is getting better review scores today than it did when the first current-generation version was launched years ago.

Sure, NFL 2K10 might have been a great game, but the trends within 2K's company point towards steady quality at best, but declining quality on average.

But just to test this theory out with one more sport, let's look at the competition in the soccer realm.

PES - 80, 76, 74
FIFA - 80, 73, 82, 87

Not only is one game (PES) declining in quality year after year, but the other game (FIFA) witnessed a sharp decline before rising again. Neither one of the characteristics that we established to prove that competition creates quality is present.

So what have we learned here today? 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.

If anything, competition might be a hindrance to overall game quality. Consider this stat again: When it comes to review scores, Madden owns the largest low-end to high-end quality jump (+14). When it comes to sports with competition, the biggest increase belongs to MLB: The Show (+13).

So the question then becomes what does impact game quality, assuming you now believe it's not competition? I personally believe that the amount of money available for development, the amount of time given to develop a game, and the actual talent making the game all play far bigger roles than competition.

The age-old myth that competition creates better games is not the reason why games ultimately succeed or fail. The stats show plain as day that competition is not the biggest factor when it comes to quality.

So it's time to stop letting myths rule our sports-gaming minds. It's time we decide there is a better way, a way paved with logic and sound reasoning.

And it's time we put the competition-creates-better-games theory to bed once and forever because the theory is baloney.

Member Comments

# 1 Hova57 @ 08/28/09 02:15 PM

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

# 2 the croz 1027 @ 08/28/09 02:16 PM

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.

# 3 The GIGGAS @ 08/28/09 02:16 PM

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.

# 4 MeanMrMustard @ 08/28/09 02:17 PM

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.

# 5 RaychelSnr @ 08/28/09 02:28 PM

I think some of the folks are making gigantic leaps in logic here...

All I hear to refute my points is simply that people don't believe review scores are reliable methods of measuring game quality. If review scores aren't, what is? The answer is nothing.

And if it's not review scores, it's stuff that makes conspiracy theorists gush with enthusiasm.

As for 2K vs. The Show, both games are competing on the PS3, so there is still competition there. That is just an excuse to try to disprove the scores both games are getting.

And as for a game staying the same in review scores equating to improvement, that's not a bad assumption to make, but it simply means that a game is barely improving at all. Would two games which are competing heavily against each other just barely improve year over year? If the theory was true, that would make no sense. Plus, using that logic would simply show that the review scores for the games which aren't in competition with each other are simply improving more and more in the reviewers eyes would it not? Thus the theory would be equally false.

The fact remains the three things I list at the end of the article play much bigger roles in a game's quality: budget, time given for development and actual talent making the game. Could those be affected by competition from other companies? Yeah, but it hasn't hurt Madden or NCAA review scores wise so far if competition was the thing that primarily drove those decisions.

What drives those decisions is a desire to make a greater profit, which could sometimes be affected by competition, but not always.

# 6 bigsmallwood @ 08/28/09 02:35 PM

I like your logic, but I disagree. With Madden, reviews on Metacritic are not accurately scoring the game. They are almost afraid to give Madden a lower score because they feel as if they would be disrespecting John himself. Fact is, Madden has not progressed well enough on next-gen to even warrant those scores. Why else do you have people still comparing it to 2K5? Playing the game and having to tweak sliders to make the game they PAID for work properly. Poor patches that do nothing for the game? So we as football gamers know for a fact that only so much faith can be put into those reviews.

Competition forces innovation. Its kind of hard to present the same features 4years in a row, if you have competition and they not only mastered what you are doing, but have created some other features that may have been a strong innovation in the genre.

Look @ NCAA 10, the game is a far cry from where it was from NCAA 03-07 (last-gen). It should be leaps and bounds ahead of where it is currently, and fact is, Metacritic is not going to show you the REAL reviews of the game. Or how its a glossed up version of the last two or three. What if NCAA CFB had competition, think EA would be scratching their heads asking us what Presentation is? I don't think so.

NBA Live used to be better than NBA 2K...but competition made 2K step up to the plate and hang Live out to dry. Now it is NBA Live that is trying to restore its former reputation. Why? Because 2K has been beating it for so long, they recruited new talent to improve their prospects of taking the crown.

PES is actually a very very good soccer game. But the bias in reviews from mainstream sites/mags tend to favor FIFA. Could it be those advertising dollars??? IDK, FIFA is good as well, however BOTH games are outstanding and the scores make it seem lopsided.

Heck outside of sports gaming, If I go into a GAMESTOP, they all try to tell you how wonderful XBOX 360 is...and how bad the PS3 is. Yet 360 has an almost 60% failure rate, and PS3 is actually the better system!

People have bias and it affects how competition is viewed, but please understand that competition definitely breeds a better product. EA nor 2K want to be known as the company with a terrible rep for making sports games.

# 7 RaychelSnr @ 08/28/09 02:41 PM

Again, the only refute is to simply discredit review scores? That's a gigantic assumption that the business is incredibly corrupted and EA (or other companies for that matter) is paying off reviewers to score their games better. Remember the scores I use are taken from a few dozen review sites, so you would have to assume EA is paying off all of those sites for the average to be higher, which makes no sense.

Perhaps the reason why reviewers as a whole score a game higher (any game) is because that game is simply better at reaching the buying audience -- who the reviewers represent -- than another?

You listed a bunch of the assumptions I just showed aren't true as well, which makes no sense.

Again: budget, time of development and talent developing the game. They're all much bigger in determining the final quality of a game. Competition MAY play a role in those three factors, but I would submit the drive to make a bigger profit no matter what the competition is drives those decisions even more.

# 8 bigsmallwood @ 08/28/09 02:56 PM

But MMCHRIS S, the reviews cannnot be playing the same games we are playing and giving out the scores they do. You are telling me Madden 07-10 all were worthy of an 80+ score? Not even. And AP2K8 was a generic mess because it was pretty limited in appeal and what it could do.

And of course companies like EA want to make a bigger profit, thus hardcore gamers (esp. sportsgamers) suffer. Imagine if EA, 2K, SCEA, and everybody made football games....you can't honestly say that EA would have created a half-baked Extra Point show? Its not logical.

Look at the Wii. If the Wii had 360's game catalogue they would rule the gaming world. But because they had no competition, they created a bunch of shovelware and now that 360 is presenting NATAL.....don't you think they are getting a little uneasy? Thats what happens when you have competition. You HAVE to step your game up and keep it that way.

And I really would like to know the people who are reviewing these sports games, because I am pretty sure they A) don't know much about the genre, B) Don't look at the fine line over a number of years (read:the game has not innovated nor changed, and C) They are not very good at these games.

People need to know what REAL football looks and plays like...same with the NBA and Soccer etc. Fight Night 4 is a QUALITY game and deserves an almost 10 score, but I bet you it has the same score as Madden on Metacritic. And if you read some of those reviews....they do not have a clue as to what they are talking about.

# 9 red butler @ 08/28/09 03:02 PM

I don't think this article disproves competition between companies leads to better games . All these ratings are too subjective from year to year. Madden 10 scored worse than 09 because expectations were higher, even though it's a much better game. Some years games just come out with a roster updates and still get a higher rating.

The other thing is the rating scale probably isn't linear. Only great games score in the 90s, but there are many average games that score in the high 80s. There may be a huge difference between an 85 and 90, but the difference between 75 to 85 may be minimal. The bottom line is, numbers can be used to tell whatever story you want. If you did a comparison of how many features were added during competitve years vs. non-competitive years, the story may be different.

In this case, if your gut tells you games were better when there was competition.... I'd go with your gut.

# 10 apps80 @ 08/28/09 03:04 PM

The people who still compare Madden to 2K5 are the people who were never big fans of Madden.
I played the 2K football games on Dreamcast and PS2, and what really gets me is that not only is 2K5 not as good as the Madddens today, it wasn't as good as Madden 05.
If 2K had gotten the exclusive deal. The same people would be complaining how 2K10 isn't as good as any of the maddens.
People like to bitch.

# 11 RaychelSnr @ 08/28/09 03:06 PM

Again, you are simply making a lot of assumptions about dozens (if not hundreds) of reviewers in order to disprove the stats. Some people would beg to differ on your thoughts on Fight Night, and others would agree with you. You are simply trying to make the same logical assumptions and leaps which this article shows don't hold weight.

You have to think outside of the box and realize that direct competition within a sport isn't the only competition a game goes through. Madden is competing with every game on a store shelf for the consumers dollar. In the end, every game is under some sort of competition in reality because the business simply makes it that way. But to say that direct competition within your own sport is the biggest reason why a game is good or bad is simply false.

Once again: budget, time of development and talent developing the game are bigger factors and they are influenced by a companies will to make a profit in a crowded video game marketplace moreso than what the other company is doing with their NBA game or what-have-you.

I suppose I should have entitled the article "Direct Sport Competition Doesn't Create Better Games" as it's more in line with the point I'm trying to make. But the point is very valid in today's marketplace and stands on it's own.

# 12 thmst30 @ 08/28/09 03:09 PM

No matter what it still doesn't help anything when we don't have a damn choice. Competition IS better if only for at least having that extra choice every year.

# 13 JohnDoh @ 08/28/09 03:10 PM

No disrespect intended but this write up is as subjective as the review scores that were used to form this rationale.

I don't believe for a minute that if the 2K football series still split the NFL license that EA would not have stepped up their game years earlier.

As for the NHL 2K series... it was on top a few years back because of the gameplay and the NHL 0x series stepped it up big time and took the crown back.

D you really think the MLB 0x series did not do their best to make the absolute best baseball game possible in order to beat out the 2K baseball series. Please...

Again, no disrespect intended, but I believe this article is about as left as you can go and was just written to get a debate started. Let's keep it real and OBJECTIVE guys.

# 14 sambowie @ 08/28/09 03:16 PM

Way to go Chris! You figured it out!! You set up your own criteria to determine whether competition helps make better games, applied that criteria to unscientific numerical data, and then you DISCOVERED competition makes no difference. Period. No more discussion.

The fact that you set a few arbitrary parameters and found them not to be met in answering a question does not equal, as you say, "truth." It wouldn't have mattered if you used different factors or even more factors. At the end of the day, the answer you arrived at is only an opinion supported by data and nothing more. To pass this article off as debunking an "urban myth" and putting the "theory to bed once and forever" is not only WRONG but extremely arrogant.

The only data you use to arrive at your answer are metacritic scores - that's it. But we all know the flaws of not only that site, but of reviews in general. Most game reviewers spend only a limited amount of time with these games and they are usually susceptible to hype and a gaming company's influence. And nobody does this better than EA. For Madden, the story was "This is the best one ever" and "this is a true next-gen experience." So after months of buildup and hype, and with the game looking reasonably polished from a distance, of course the reviews were positive.

But what reviews don't account for is how the game is perceived after an extended period of time, which is when the true merit of a game is realized. So let's look at Madden now - more and more you are hearing complaints about the game and it's gradually building into a chorus that this is the same broke-*** football game with a couple of new features. Does anyone here after spending almost a month with the game really believe that the game deserves an almost 9 rating? I don't think so. But this is the problem with reviews and Metacritic - reviews do not reflect the true merit of the game - only the gaming community.

The only thing I know is that the last good Madden game in my opinion, and in a lot of other people's opinions, was 2005, the same year NFL 2K5 came out. So there is a valid argument that will survive your your article despite your belief that you put the theory to rest. Maybe Madden would have be the same even if 2K was making NFL games. Maybe it would be better, who knows? It's all SPECULATION.

The only thing that is not speculation is the fact that this article does nothing to dispel the notion that competition in sports gaming makes games better.

# 15 sambowie @ 08/28/09 03:21 PM

So in other words, you say "reviews are the only data available. Because my position is based on reviews, it is correct. You cannot argue with my point because there is no other data."

Seriously?

# 16 spursfan @ 08/28/09 03:26 PM

+ bigsmallwood. My thoughts exactly. It seems most of these reviewers give the devs a break number 1. Number 2: You hit the nail on the head. Some of these reviewers don't seem to know much about the sport or game their playing. Same people who complain about missed layups, complain about interceptions in madden. They don't know sports, and don't really know what to critize about the game. Madden and apf are good games, but you have to know what you're doing, and what to expect. All pro was a great game, too bad most people never gave it the time of day because they didn't have the license. Competion breeds EXCELLENCE. It gives consumers a CHOICE. Even if you didn't like 2k football, it seemed to push madden devs to innovate more. This whole arugment boils down to two things, money and shareholders. Im done.

# 17 StormJH1 @ 08/28/09 03:33 PM

Wow, where to begin. First off, I actually am coming to agree with your main premise, which is that sports game developers respond to direct competition and make better games, whereas they don't improve their games with exclusive titles. But your efforts to convince me of that point leave much to be desired.

Don't look at review scores. There are SO many other factors that go into a review score. Probably the main one is where we are in the life span of a console. It's pretty obvious that Madden 10 is better than Madden 2006 (on 360) for reasons that have nothing to do with competition from 2k or anyone else. But the main reason for that improvement is that people had no idea how to develop for these consoles when they first came out, and they've had several versions to work on it since.

All that said, I don't think that competition necessarily would make Madden a better game. Without question, it gives the consumer more choices, and consumers like choices. But the idea that Madden stopped innovating becuase 2k5 was no longer around is simply false. Madden 2005 was a good game b/c EA knew what they were doing and made a good game. It had nothing to do with being "pushed" by 2k5's sales (and by the way, 2k5's sales never came CLOSE to pushing Madden)

Competition breeds imitation, not innovation. What that means is that if you have an interesting concept, such as the pitching meter, throwing mechanisms, and R stick sliding from MVP Baseball, a rival title may discover that people like that and copy it into their game. So, you end up with multiple titles that are becoming more like one another, while trying to maintain some part of their identity that they think will give them an edge.

But Madden 10 competes with Madden 09 every bit as much as Madden 2005 competed with NFL 2k5. The only question that matters, from EA's standpoint, is "Why would a consumer buy this?" If you don't continue to innovate and improve your product, people won't see the reason to pick up a new version.

I think that Madden 10 is very good, and it disproves the idea that Madden is incapable of improving in an era of exclusivity. People who work on Madden have said that Ian Cummings has been around for years begging them to try something like Pro-Tak, and it's only now that they put people like him and his team in a position where they could act on their creative ideas. Pro-Tak isn't perfect, but neither was NHL's Shot Stick in NHL 07. It took a few years of refining a new idea to build up that terrific franchise, and I would argue that there are more revolutionary changes in Madden 10 (vs. 09) than there were in Madden 2005 (vs. 2004), or NFL 2k5 (vs. ESPN NFL Football) for that matter.

# 18 TreyIM2 @ 08/28/09 03:33 PM

Good article, Chris. I don't know if the comp can be completely discredited but I did state something about resources and dev time, among other things, in that poll about competition making games better. I chose the "somewhat" answer then explained in the comments section. I actually didn't think about the reviews side of things but that is a great point you brouight up.

Many heads on this site only see so much and it's usually only what they WANT to see. It's very narrow and emotional thinking more times than not a broader perspective. I know that also comes with what people are exposed to whether it be because of age or lack of corporate and/gaming dev understanding.
It's a bigger ball of wax than most even know and it's funny how when I pose a more logical and understanding perspective on things, people wanna flame me with a ton of emotion as if I don't know what I'm talking about. You just cleared up a bunch but it's still funny how some are flaming at you in these comments as if they really know what's going on. Again, narrow minded thinking.
Again, great article.

# 19 RaychelSnr @ 08/28/09 03:41 PM

JohnDoh,

You pretty much are making the same assumptions that were the point of making this article. SURE it sounds good on paper, but when the assumption is tested with the only numbers you can come up with to compare games it doesn't hold weight. Those numbers are also the ones which are what the companies themselves use internally to judge game quality outside of profits.

If the industry standard of just plain game quality measurement is good enough for them, it's good enough for me for this quick little study

# 20 Jet Sufferer @ 08/28/09 03:42 PM

Wow, so many flaws here I don't know where to start.

Using video game "review" scores....

There's a saying: There's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's "statistics".

The whole premise is ridiculous and not even worth arguing, anyone who understands reality as it relates to economics and knows history knows the premise is fatally flawed.

The "invisible hand" of capitalism works, has worked, and will always work to benefit the consumer.

It's like trying to argue that Communism is a better economic system than Capitalism and produces better goods and services, just a joke.

If you actually believe this tripe, I suggest picking up some books on Economics, not written by Marxists.

« Previous12 3 4 5 Next »

More Links