360 has MANY more matches, therefore making the players more experienced, and competition growing. Think about 10k Tribes teams on the ladder and how many teams would have competed for the top 10 at that point. Some 360 teams average 5 matches a day on one ladder. The most Ive ever played on PC is a match every week, maybe 2.
360 has had way larger payouts, however I can see the point of some of the old PC games having smaller payouts more consistently. Thats really a toss up to me.
I dont know if you can consider coverage an aspect of competition. Im fairly divided on that thought.
I think there could be several other things considered in competition. From qualitity to quantity, is there really any way to prove whos more competitive based on a few PC gamers that have sponsorships vs millions of people who play different games on different levels on different platforms? For instance, how do you even compare a CS or SC match vs a 360 MW2 or UFC match? You really dont. Thats why I think quantity supercedes quality in more aspects. The more teams you have, the more competition you will have at the top.I dont know if this last paragraph made sense, but I just kind of typed it while trying to listen to the wife at the same time.
coverage isn't important in judging the competitiveness of a game, I was referring to a game's success as an 'eSport,' which IMO entails the viewer experience.
definitely. My guess is that SC2 will quickly become the biggest eSport yet.
Last edited:
