Objections and Responses

The core argument of this article is that business should be viewed from the level of the game rather than from the level of the market. Below are the most common critical viewpoints and the responses to them.

1. "Business is too complex to be treated as a game."

Response:
Game thinking does not simplify complexity—it makes the dynamics visible and manageable. The game space helps reveal the people, teams and systems from which value is created. It enables anticipatory planning and faster responses to change.

2. "Traditional market logic is enough."

Response:
Market logic assumes slow and predictable change. In today's fast-cycle environment it becomes a bottleneck, because value creation often happens before a market even exists. Game thinking enables companies to build the next S-curve proactively rather than merely react to an old one.

3. "Game thinking is just a metaphor, not a practical model."

Response:
Game thinking can be operationalised. It includes concrete elements such as:

players and their roles
the impact of teams and networks
the capability of systems to produce value
monitoring of change cycles and transitions

It is not merely a metaphor—it is a tool for evaluating and measuring value creation across different phases of the game space.

4. "Value creation is too difficult to measure."

Response:
Value can be measured through expectations. Simon Hill's xV (expected value of value creation) provides a tool for assessing value even before a market forms. This also applies to building the next S-curve, enabling companies to track their potential in real time.

5. "Game thinking doesn't fit traditional leadership."

Response:
Game thinking does not require replacing executives. It offers a new way to perceive and lead value creation. Companies can combine traditional strategy with the dynamic perspective of the game by: