Gaming Competition in Games

[Shinmaru]

Excuse me if this has been a thread before (I looked around and couldn't find anything like this that wasn't less than a few months old).

On nearly every message board you see, you can find fanboys (and sometimes fangirls) arguing over which system is "best" or which system will die first. But when you think about it, why do people want to see other companies fail?

Competition in gaming is a godsend. The more consoles that can successfully hold a place in the market, the better. In my humble opinion, the best time in gaming was when Sega and Nintendo were battling each other for market supremacy. They both knew that had to make better games then each other and that they had to get the major third parties on their side to remain on top. The extreme competition between these two companies led to some of the greatest games ever released in the history of gaming.

Without competition, gaming wouldn't be nearly as good as it is today. If Nintendo and Microsoft were to "die" so to speak, do you think that Sony's games would be as good as they are? Maybe I'm completely wrong, because I know that Sony would make good games regardless, but without Microsoft and Nintendo breathing down their necks, I doubt that the quality of games would be as good as it is.

Edit: Well, I'm finally back, so I can add more to this post. I think that Reaper of Souls raised a good point. If there was no competition would consoles that failed like the Atari Jaguar, or the 3DO, etc. have failed? Well, I think that the game quality of those two consoles more than anything had to do with their failures. Of course, competition can be a curse to the less talented companies. The companies that might not make games or consoles that are as good as the competition [i]will[/i] get buried. I think that this leads to another problem that I have with gaming and that is people sticking with the same publishers and refusing to play something a little new. I admit that I am a die-hard Nintendo fan, but I love the work of many developers in the industry (Konami, Neversoft, Capcom, Sega, Sony, EA, etc.). Sometimes, when the competition dies down a little, people get comfortable with the same types of games and they just keep buying. On a sort of related note, that's why I personally got a little tired of Rare and their constant rehashing of their platform style (Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, and Donkey Kong 64 were basically of the same mold, although BK and BT were better). But that's just the way I feel.

[Dragonballzman]

Now that I think about it, that actually makes alot of sense. If Nintendo were the only company, they wouldn't really have to make their games much better. So long as the people are satisfied with the current games, they could just keep bringing out games of the same quality, until they eventually decide to bump it up, but instead, with all the competition going on, they're trying to go further and further...Same with the other companies.

I don't actually think everyone "wants" to see another company die, but people get addicted to their consoles and end up thinking the one they own is so much better than everyone elses, and that it would be so much better if there was just that one. I suppose gaming is more than just "omgz nitendo r teh bssst tehy roXX0rs mcrosft n sny r crrpp!!!!!111!!1 i hpe thy DIE!!!11!1 lol", like most people I know think...

In short...I agree. ^.^;;

[XeEmO]

I think that competition as you said puts the pressure on companies to make better games. I don't really like the x-box very much but I guess it's here to stay for a while. From what i've heard Microsoft actually looses money on each one sold. I also know that around here x-boxs don't sell very well. I don't know how the number of x-boxs sold relates to GC or PS2 but I don't think it's as much. I'd like to see what they do to improve themselves. If they do something amazing that makes everyone want to drop there other consoles and get an x-box I think in some ways that would be good. Because if something like that happened i'm sure Nintendo for example would be willing to push themselves even more to make themselves better. I don't know if this is true but I think I remember hearing that Microsoft was going to add a bunch of new features to the x-box such as dvd recording. This would be kind of like an all-in-one set top box. Sony is planning on doing the same type of thing with the PS2, and I havn't heard of anything about Nintendo but who knows what there planning. All in all I think if there was only one game company out there the games would be 10 times worse than they are now. Sorry if i'm just rambling i'm a bit tired.

[GrimmFang]

Competition is good. If it wasn't for competition we would [b]probably[/b] still be playing Atari.

[XeEmO]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Reaper of souls [/i]
[B]Competition is good. If it wasn't for competition we would [b]probably[/b] still be playing Atari. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hmm actually I do play the Atari (well the 10 games in one thing there selling now). But I wouldn't go so far as to say that would be the only game console. Even if it was the same company i'm sure there would be a new console by them. Technology has advanced so much since then. I mean just look at pc games from then and now. btw I know you said probably i'm just saying what I think about the manner.

[GrimmFang]

It's all good I don't mind being corrected. You are right I did forget the fact that technology does advance. That got me thinking if they didn't have competition would Atari still have gone down the path of the ill fated Jaguar or have gone down a different path?

[hiachi]

Im sure Sega is like this as well, but I do know that Nintendo's passion is to make great games, I mean I understand what you are saying, but this theoretical scenario probably wouldnt cause Nintendo to have any less quality in their games.....Just my thoughts

[Shinmaru]

Well, I understand what you're saying, seeing as this is in the Nintendo forum, but I am by no means limiting this to Nintendo. There are plenty of companies (EA in particular, in my opinion) that tend to slack off a little when there's no competition.

Edit: Trying very hard not to flip out right now. As I've said before, just because I put this into the Nintendo forum, I'm not saying Nintendo is guilty of slacking off. Although, I do have to admit that they are guilty of rehashing (just look at Pokemon and some of the Kirby games if you don't believe me). I'm pretty much saying that this is a general theory (although, I will admit that it isn't always true, but it does hold some water more often than not).

[Guest SuperMaxSonic]

I fully agree with you. However, I would like to point out something. When the NES was out, Nintendo had hardly any competition. However, it was at this time they released Super Mario Bros. 3, the best selling game of all time, and considered by many to be the greatest game off all time. Don't you think that's kinda odd?

[James]

[color=#335062]mirai_torankusu, I have to applaud you. This is one of [i]the[/i] most intelligent and well-conceived gaming threads we've ever had. I'm so pleased that you've stuck around and added so much to the variety in these forums. You're now one of my favourite newbies. lol

Basically, yes, competition is good. Competition is what brought about the GameCube. It's what taught Nintendo a few valuable lessons -- not about making games, but about how the business of games is changing. And I think we're now seeing the benefits of that.

Competition is what killed Sega's hardware business, also. But perhaps they're in a better place now. More financially viable (though admittedly clawing their way back) and now making games on a broad array of consoles. Surely that's a win-win situation.

I could go on, but I have a fever right now...so I'll stop here. lol[/color]

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#335062]mirai_torankusu, I have to applaud you. This is one of [i]the[/i] most intelligent and well-conceived gaming threads we've ever had. I'm so pleased that you've stuck around and added so much to the variety in these forums. You're now one of my favourite newbies. lol[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Why do people insist on feeding my ego lol? That was the last thing I was expecting when I put this up.

Basically, most of the things have been said: competition is both a blessing and a curse (as demonstrated by Sega, who competiton has both helped and hurt). But I have to say one thing to James, and that is I don't deserve all of the credit for making this thread. I read way too much Electronic Gaming Monthly and they talk just about every month about how good things would be if every console could compete well in the market, because that would mean more games. So, I basically got the idea for this from my worship of EGM.

[James]

[color=#335062]Well, believe me, the credit is due. It's nice to see discussion that moves away from the traditional "is this game worth buying?" to a slightly deeper analysis of the industry.

Of course, there's room for the former...but it's nice to get a bit more of the latter. ~_^[/color]

[Shinmaru]

Hey, if you say so, James. I'm not gonna disagree with you. But I think that my ego is getting too big for my body lol.

Time to move this away from the spam that I have created.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#335062]
Competition is what killed Sega's hardware business, also. But perhaps they're in a better place now. More financially viable (though admittedly clawing their way back) and now making games on a broad array of consoles. Surely that's a win-win situation.
[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Yep, Sega is in a much better place now. They're making better games and getting their games spread out to a wider audience (which Sega really needed, because it's a crime that more people don't play their games). So, while initially harmed by competition, Sega is now more successful than they've been in years. Go Sega!