NLSC Your source for basketball video games.
We’re at midcourt, and the ball is about to go up…it’s Monday Tip-Off! Join me as I begin the week here at the NLSC with my opinions and commentary on basketball gaming topics, as well as tales of the fun I’ve been having on the virtual hardwood. This week, I’m tipping things off with my thoughts on how there’s too much zero-sum thinking in the basketball gaming community.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the concept, zero-sum thinking involves perceiving situations as a zero-sum game; in other words, a scenario where a gain for one side means a loss for the other. Needless to say, this leads to a belief that mutual gain and benefits are impossible. Our success must come at the expense of someone else’s failure, and every situation involves a winner and a loser. Obviously there are zero-sum games and scenarios where this is true, but a bias towards zero-sum thinking does result in fallacious assertions.
Needless to say, zero-sum thinking occurs in a number of matters, many of which are more serious than basketball gaming. However, since that’s what we cover here at the NLSC, that’s the context I’m discussing here today. If you’ve observed or partaken in the discourse in the wider basketball gaming community, you’ll have encountered zero-sum thinking, even if you didn’t recognise or label it as such. Again, it’s hardly unique to basketball gaming, and is inevitable when passionate people have different ideas about their hobby. That doesn’t mean we can’t call it out though, because it does foster toxicity, and doesn’t help in the development of better basketball video games.
Now, in basketball itself, and therefore also its virtual equivalent, there must be a winner and a loser. The nature of competition means that the result of winning or losing will carry its own rewards or consequences: being higher or lower in the standings, elimination, a championship victory, etc. On the virtual hardwood, it may also mean a higher or lower amount of in-game currency, experience points, and so on. That is an inherent part of competition, and the prizes at stake. The problem is that there’s a tendency to see improvements and additions as a zero-sum game. In other words, a benefit for a mode or feature must come at the expense of something else.
This zero-sum thinking leads to selfishness, and unnecessary competitiveness. Instead of supporting one another and wanting basketball video games to be as good as they can be, there’s a tendency to focus on one’s favourite mode, and personal preference as to what it should be like. It’s only natural that we focus on what we care about the most, but with zero-sum thinking, we do so in an antagonistic way that sees getting what we want as needing to come at the expense of other gamers’ desires. Again, our gain must be someone else’s loss. It makes us weirdly and unnecessarily hostile to the idea of solutions that could benefit everyone, without anyone being inconvenienced.
Take the use of AI Players in the online team play modes, for example. Despite what elitists sneeringly say, few online gamers believe that having AI Players is preferable, or results in the optimal experience. However, there are team Pro-Am gamers who would prefer the option of AI Players filling in on both sides, as opposed to the Park-like 3v3 Pro-Am, or dealing with the toxicity in The Rec. Of course, some gamers would prefer all players to be user-controlled, and that’s understandable too. This is a stalemate that could be resolved by adding deeper matchmaking, with the choice of whether or not to partake in games with AI Players. This way, everyone is catered to.
Disappointingly, not everyone sees it that way. In that example in particular, it seems that team Pro-Am players who are against the use of AI Players want the mode to solely reflect their vision for it. Never mind that such an option would allow them to play the way they want, and never have to deal with AI Players. People who have a different vision to the mode would be getting their way as well, which means neither group would be catered to at the expense of the other. There’d be no winner and loser in that scenario; only winners. This should be desirable, but it doesn’t jive with the elitism and gatekeeping that runs rampant in the online scene, so it gets balked at.
That kind of meta competition is bewildering, and childish. On the virtual hardwood and blacktop themselves, there will naturally be a winner and loser in every game. That’s the nature of the sport. There’s no good reason to object to additions that would allow everyone to enjoy the game the way they want, without encroaching on anyone else’s fun. The same goes for fans of different modes. If you prefer MyTEAM, then you’ll understandably be primarily interested in improvements to that mode. It doesn’t mean that MyCAREER gamers should go without, or vice versa. We can champion our mode of choice, while still supporting our fellow gamers and their interests.
It doesn’t help that we often lack understanding of how games are developed. All too often, gamers will assume that a lack of improvement in one aspect or mode was the result of another area of the game receiving the lion’s share of attention. In a broad sense, there’s some accuracy to this. Moneymaking modes such as MyCAREER and MyTEAM will be a focal point, because recurrent revenue pleases the suits. However, a MyLEAGUE bug not getting fixed has nothing to do with the time and effort spent on redesigning The Neighborhood. Different people work on different parts of NBA 2K, and legacy issues with MyLEAGUE code won’t be addressed by the art team.
If the argument is that certain modes and features are a higher priority than others, then there’s no denying that. As I noted, modes with recurrent revenue mechanics are prioritised, though they’re also extremely popular. This is something that people often overlook, or try to deny. It’s ridiculous to see posts asking “Who plays MyCAREER?” or “Who plays MyTEAM?” when a majority of NBA 2K gamers play one or the other! Even mockingly questioning “Who plays MyLEAGUE?” is asinine. While its userbase is smaller, it’s still significant and dedicated. Furthermore, there’s no reason that all of those modes can’t receive attention, as each has their own team of devs.
When you plant your flag and pledge loyalty to your mode of choice though, it’s all too easy to see good news for other modes as an affront to your favourite experience. Likewise, when you have strong ideas about what your favourite mode should be like, any suggestions for making it more accessible, or otherwise straying from your vision for it, can seem like a threat to your enjoyment. It’s understandable, but that mindset is riddled with elitism, gatekeeping, and yes, zero-sum thinking. Once again, when the suggested changes would feasibly allow everyone to enjoy a mode no matter their preference, there’s no reason to oppose that, apart from an elitist notion of “purity”.
We see this with gameplay mechanics as well. Fans of the alley-oop and dunk meters in NBA 2K22 – and yes, they do exist – have scoffed at suggestions of disabling those mechanics. Their reasoning is generally rooted in the mythological skill gap, but even if we’re to entertain the notion that those meters represent skilfulness, there’s no good reason that they can’t be disabled offline. The way someone chooses to play offline, with their own sliders, settings, and choice of difficulty level, shouldn’t matter to anyone else. Ultimately, basketball games are meant to be enjoyed. Sometimes, that requires tweaking to suit experience and skill level. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Sadly, there are gamers who do see something wrong with it. Frankly, it’s the height of toxicity and zero-sum thinking in the basketball gaming scene. You can at least understand the frustration and concern people have when it feels like their favourite mode isn’t receiving adequate attention. This idea that basketball gaming is a genre that should only cater to the True Elite Gamer™, and weed out anyone who doesn’t measure up, is absurd. Basketball games aren’t Cuphead, or Elden Ring. They’re for gamers who enjoy basketball and playing a virtual representation of it. Of course there should be a competitive scene, but there’s more to the game than the online arena.
Mind you, it’s possible that many online gamers view logical additions such as proper matchmaking with zero-sum thinking because they would suffer a loss from that gain. More specifically, they’d lose an advantage they only have because the online scene in NBA 2K is such a mess. That makes them technically right, but it’s not a mindset that should be catered to. I’ve said it so many times before in articles and on our Podcast, but Rocket League’s online scene thrives thanks to robust ranking and matchmaking, and casual and competitive settings. It’s welcoming to newbies, there’s stimulating competition for elite gamers, and casual play tends to be a good time for everyone.
Pleasing the entire fanbase one hundred percent of the time is an impossible task, but ideally the NBA 2K developers will strive to satisfy the majority. That means giving gamers an enjoyable experience no matter their mode of choice, providing options that allow choice without spoiling other gamers’ experiences, and making the online scene welcoming and accessible for newcomers without jeopardising competitive play for elite veterans. There are ways to accomplish that. They’re easier said than done, but it’d be far more feasible to make progress if there wasn’t such vocal opposition to them from elitists and purists engaging in selfish, zero-sum thinking. It’s just toxic.
Simply put, your dominant Pro-Am squad isn’t less elite just because you can’t beat up on newbies. If anything, the level of competition would solidify your elite status! If you don’t want to play against AI Players and there’s a setting to never have to, it’s no skin off your nose if other squads are fine with fill-ins if it means avoiding The Rec. The way a person tailors the offline experience for their enjoyment doesn’t affect the online scene one iota. Your mode of choice isn’t the only one, and it’s OK that other modes receive additions and fixes. Let’s support each other and suggest solutions that we can all benefit from, instead of selfishly indulging in jealous zero-sum thinking.
