Hearts and Minds

Why the games industry could learn something from WWE All Stars.

"I got the opportunity to work with Shawn Michaels, but guys like that are your heroes. I like to keep them at arm's length, because you don't want to find out they're not how you thought."

As a second-generation WWE superstar, son of "The American Dream" Dusty Rhodes, Cody Rhodes is obviously comfortable around professional wrestlers - and comfortable with throwing them around a ring, or he wouldn't be much good at his job.

His attitude towards elder statesmen like Michaels is shared by many of his peers. Rhodes and his former partner, Ted DiBiase, spent a whole summer going back and forth with him in a tag-team storyline of epic proportions. It unfolded across multiple pay-per-view events and weeks of wrestling shows on TV. They probably spent every day together.

Is Michaels your friend, I ask him? "No," he says, indicating that this is out of respect.

The veneration of past superstars is a thread that runs throughout World Wrestling Entertainment. It's the reason Rhodes and I have both worn suits today - trussed up for the WWE Hall of Fame ceremony. There, wrestlers past and present gather to share anecdotes and pay tribute to retired masters for over three hours.

Obviously there are PR benefits to showing that WWE has a lot of love behind it, especially as it now competes for viewers with less cuddly mixed martial arts promotions like UFC. But anyone who sat through wrestler Triple H's speech inducting Michaels into the Hall of Fame, and Michaels' emotional response, knows that this really matters to these men.

1

Stone Cold turned up at WrestleMania on a quad bike.

It also matters to the fans, which is one reason THQ put together 7/10-scoring WWE All Stars. An accessible and over-the-top take on wrestling, it breaks things down to a series of grapples, reversals and show-stopping finishers, allowing players to create bouts featuring present-day stars like Randy Orton and past masters like Hulk Hogan.

I get to speak to many of the wrestlers the night before Hall of Fame, at a special Superstars Challenge where they all face off on the game. Some of them are gamers who appreciate both the accessibility and the context.

Evan Bourne is a small guy who performs incredible acrobatic manoeuvres in WWE and obviously wants a higher profile. Ask him which legend he wishes he could have worked with and there's only one answer: Eddie Guerrero.

"Eddie was a guy who a lot of us moulded our styles after," Bourne says. Slightly prickly in conversation, he says this with great conviction. "He paved the way for a lot of the smaller guys in the industry to make a name and not just be thought of as lower-card guys."

Speaking to other wrestlers like the lovably vicious "Celtic Warrior" Sheamus, you get a sense of how hard these wrestlers have to work to get to the position they are in, and why those with legendary status probably deserve it.

2

Bret Hart was at WrestleMania last year and Edge this year.

Like many wrestlers, Sheamus was on a developmental contract with the regional Florida Championship Wrestling promotion, which acts as a feeder to WWE's televised outings, when he was suddenly called up.

"It's a huge culture shock. You go from Florida Championship Wrestling, where you go training every day, you live local, you go to the school, you go to the gym, you have your time at night time... Then boom," he says.

"All of a sudden you're leaving first thing on a Friday morning, travelling four to five hours to every show, finish Monday Night RAW, may have to go to SmackDown Tuesday, get home Wednesday, have Wednesday off, have Thursday off, head out again on Friday morning.

"It's a completely different lifestyle - not for the faint-hearted. You've got to have a tough neck on you to do what we do."

Sheamus has been wrestling since 2002. He has held the title of WWE Champion twice since his breakout on WWE RAW in 2009. That's nearly 10 years of graft and yet his rise - especially with regard to his capture of the WWE Championship from John Cena at the TLC pay-per-view in 2009 - is considered meteoric.

"There were a lot of shocked faces in the building that night," he says of TLC, which stands for Tables, Ladders and Chairs (he won the championship by throwing Cena through a wooden table in the centre of the ring).

"People expected me to come in and Cena to beat me and that would be the end of the Sheamus story, and it was time for someone else to take on Cena. But it was amazing, fella. Probably one of the best nights of my life. I was pinching myself for a long time after that."

If it all sounds very silly, it probably is. My favourite moment reviewing WWE All Stars was when I first took control of Randy Orton - an Adonis clad in viper tattoos - and knocked out an online opponent with his signature RKO. This involves suddenly spinning round, grabbing the other guy's head over your shoulder and dropping to the canvas.

The move is mainly memorable to me because I was practically miming it in my lounge with the Xbox pad and in the course of pulling it off, I broke a plate. (As the WWE says: "Don't try this.")

Meanwhile, my favourite moment at this year's WrestleMania - the pinnacle of the pay-per-view schedule - was when Stone Cold Steve Austin did a Stone Cold Stunner on Booker T at the end of a match, for no reason at all.

Sitting at the Hall of Fame event after the wrestlers have finished their press interviews (which they all visibly enjoy, especially Sheamus, who seems delighted to have some people "from back home" to pal around with), it seems like the games industry could learn a lot from WWE.

At its heart, the company built by infamous chairman Vince McMahon is a rickety enterprise. It is losing market share and smothered by increasingly garish advertising.

3

Show! I love Show.

I've argued before that the success of hardcore video games like Call of Duty is illusive too, and that if you ignore outliers like COD and Grand Theft Auto, the middle ground is now a much harder place to recover your development capital.

Gaming still needs to find an answer to this. Because as the likes of Guitar Hero have proven in recent years, even extraordinarily successful brands are vulnerable to collapse in a short space of time. With every reboot and rehash, consumers are pushed further away from what once engaged them, and it matters less and less.

It's tempting to say WWE has the same problem now. That it's too dependent on expiring heroes to bring in the big bucks. The fans may have loved seeing The Rock, Steve Austin and The Undertaker as the main attractions in Atlanta, but perhaps the shareholders didn't.

But that misses the point. WWE is unlikely to fall down any time soon, even if commercial realities eventually adjust its size and shape, precisely because it remembers and respects its past. These are real people, real families - and we really like them. Watch the Hall of Fame ceremony and you know all the talk of WWE's heart is more than metaphorical marketing.

4

Cena and Orton have both transcended their goodie/baddie billing - the fans cheer and boo them both with equal vigour.

Sheamus may have spent 10 years wrestling his way around dingy venues in Ireland, trying out in sweaty conference halls for talent scouts, before uprooting his whole life to take a punt on a few years' training in Florida. But how he is any different to my friend Max, who worked on first-person shooters in Nottingham for years and shifted his whole life to Seattle to work on the AI in Halo?

Video games can't easily be fronted by real people but they are developed by real people. Apart from a few Fellowships and Halls of Fame, the industry does a poor job of keeping more than a couple of dozen of them in view of the public, and often seems more content to do the opposite.

Cody Rhodes told me that he doesn't want to spoil the image he has of his heroes by getting to know them too well. Watching and loving WWE makes me realise I wish I had more gaming heroes to worry about getting to know.

Seeing studios like Bizarre Creations - themselves corporate entities, but at least corporate entities with a signature - crumble and fracture makes me realise the number I do have is probably shrinking, even as we're told gaming is bigger than ever.

Hopefully, by the time people like Sheamus have shifted from the Superstar side of the WWE roster to the Legend one, that will no longer be the case.

Comments (32) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • BBIAJ #1 1 year ago

    I don't like wrestling.

    The only time I've ever watched wrestling was with my Gramps, with the likes of Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks in the ring.

    And the last time I played any wrestling games, they were Wrestle War and WWF Super WrestleMania on the MegaDrive.

    But there was something about the WWE All-Stars demo that just kept on pulling me back to it, and I have to put it down to the superbly stylised visuals and OTT yet easy to pull of moves.

    It's for these reasons that I bought the Million Dollar Limited Edition last weekend, and am enjoying it thoroughly.

    And this article was an extremely interesting reading.

    Nice one Mugwum.
  • Murton #2 1 year ago

    Great article there Tom, I agree with pretty much all of it, the industry probably could learn a lot from WWE. I don't watch WWE as much as I used to when I was a teenager but back then the real action gravitated towards 4 pay-per-view events and the rest of the calendar was pretty much filler leading to these events, then they "split" Raw and Smackdown and this gave extra prep and recovery time for the Superstars so that you could ramp up the action in the weekly shows and the smaller PPV events, the games industry is slowly learning how to better mange the placing of content rather than throwing everything into Q4 like it used to. I think this year has seen the best spread of any year with great games in every quarter and even every month, which is still hell on the bank balance of gamers but at least they get to play all of the great games and not just the ones they've managed to save up for.

    I also agree that perhaps the industry could do with more public figures, but as a general rule most devs/producers/PR guys don't "get" real gamers and are too focussed on promotion hyperbole rather than actual player engagement, people like Peter Molyneux Todd Howard, Danny Bilson, Robert Bowling are the norm and the likes of Randy Pitchford and Dr Richard Marks are the exception. My worry is that if the industry does become more public-facing we'll see even more of the former leading to more gaming disappointments rather than the latter and more interesting interviews.

    The thing that the industry has to overcome more than anything though is the blockbuster focus. It's a self created problem of course, the industry has become so large that commercial concerns have to come first otherwise it'll fall down on itself. This is something that occurred to the WWE in the early 90s when they decided to stop fully scripting matches and merely script a few set pieces and allow Superstars to ad-lib the filler segments and then in the late 90s even allowed Superstars to self-script. This lead to more dynamic action and ended the overuse of particular set pieces that had become predictable and stale. The sheer focus of the entire industry to somehow best CoD's commercial success is simply choking the creative life from the industry and leading to every game looking and feeling incredibly similar while those that do dare to be different don't receive the marketing push required to compete. I fear that the games industry may not be able to overcome this problem, costs are now so high that commercial success must be achieved at any cost unless you're Blizzard or Valve, who will always have WoW/Steam to fall back on if they release a commercial flop.

    Again, great work Tom, you've given us a lot to think about.
  • AcidSnake #3 1 year ago

    A good read, but the videogame stuff seems to clash a bit with the wrestling thing...
    Really, you want to write a bit about wrestling without talking about videogames go ahead...It's entertaining :)
  • natureboy #4 1 year ago

    I used to watch this when i was younger:) I liked guys like the Rock, Stone Cold, Undertake, Brock Lesnar (whatever happened to him?) As i grew older my tastes changed and i watched less and less (the story lines they cooked up every week was always a good laugh though) but still have a soft spot for it. Channel 4 used to show it in the noughties every sunday night and Sky used to show it. I still like the hot half naked babes though:)
  • lostlain #5 1 year ago

    I might be stupid, but don't really see the connection here. Two completely different businesses! This is more like a blog post than an actual gaming site article. Still I might be complaining but I like seeing articles like this on Eurogamer! More unrelated/tenuously linked articles please

    - no that's not sarcasm.
  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #6 1 year ago

    Yes, an interesting enough article on the wrestling front, Tom, but your games industry parallels are bobbins.
  • ybfelix #7 1 year ago

    I don't watch wrestling, but seen the tag line "Why the games industry could learn something from WWE All Stars ", I thought I could at least get a bit. I was wrong, I don't understand a word of this article...
  • shellsuitwarrior #8 1 year ago

    I really don't get this article.

    If you wanted to draw a parallel with fields where previous stars are lauded by their contemporaries, you could've picked basically any sport, acting, music...take your pick. Wrestling is not unique in marking past performers.

    Suggesting that WWE 'remembers and respects its past' is quite frankly ludicrous. Have you already forgotten that the build up to one of WrestleMania's biggest matches ignored the fact that HHH and Undertaker had faced each other before at WM? History has always been very much a fluid thing in WWE, mainly dependent on the whims of Vince McMahon.

    Ultimately, I really don't get the point on this article.
  • shellsuitwarrior #9 1 year ago

    One other thing...

    I'd also think long and hard before suggesting anyone could learn anything from how WWE treats its history, given that its owners are clearly embarassed about it.

    Witness the recent edicts banning references to 'wrestling', 'wrestlers' and 'fights'.

    Instead of having wrestlers wrestling, WWE has 'Superstars' taking part in 'entertainments'.
  • LudusSolers #10 1 year ago

    Great article again, Tom. I won't lie, I'm super envious that you got to go to a Wrestlemania week event. Just don't tell me that you met Maryse or Layla - I'll never get over it. ;)

    @natureboy
    Brock Lesnar is currently signed to UFC and was their super heavyweight world champion, until he lost to Cain Velasquez last October.
  • Murton #11 1 year ago

    A lot of people wondering about the parallels between the two industries, I think the point that Tom is driving at is that the games industry boom now is similar to that of the "Sports Entertainment" industry hit in the 90s where WWE, WCW and ECW all suddenly exploded in terms of TV ratings and events revenue, and like any industry that suddenly rockets like that it starts to hit problems that have to be overcome.

    The "Sports Entertainment" industry or Wrestling industry overcome its problems by changing the way it did things, it rebranded itself several times and restructured its output. The games industry has also hit a plateau, partly caused by the recession admittedly, and it needs to look at itself and see what it can make changes to maintain the growth and further the success of recent years.
    Edited by Murton at 22/04/11 @ 16:34
  • sonicyoda #12 1 year ago

    Peculiar article. It appears you've used WWE All-Stars as a metaphor for the way the game's industry is heading. However, using All-Stars as your focus point kind of detracts from it as it just becomes an advert for the game. Perhaps you should have given other examples besides All-Stars.

    It would appear Shellsuitwarrior also shares my confusion.
    Edited by sonicyoda at 22/04/11 @ 14:06
  • metalangel #13 1 year ago

    Though I don't know the answer to the question the article poses, I do love reading your pieces on wrestling, Tom. Thanks for sharing again.
  • afghan_jones #14 1 year ago

    Weird article. I always enjoy Tom's descents into unashamed WWE fanboyism but it's really starting to feel like he needs to just put this stuff in a separate blog.
  • Murton #15 1 year ago

    "Brock Lesnar jumped ship to UFC."

    He left to join the NFL, played during pre-season but was cut before the season started proper, he then went to UFC. Which led to him being sued by the WWE because one of the conditions of him leaving WWE was that he couldn't join a rival wrestling or MMA brand.

    He didn't leave on good terms at all, WWE fans really admire their favourite Superstars and Lesnar had pretty huge following considering his short time in the business, a lot of people felt let down when he announced that he wanted to leave.
  • Gastrian #16 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012
  • Murton #17 1 year ago

    "Gaming is now mainstream, popular and socially acceptable but its not socially recognised"

    This is starting to happen, albeit slowly. Dara O'Brian's "bit" on being a gamer is not only true but hilarious to both gamers and non-gamers alike and various MPs, including Cameron have admitted to playing games, albeit App Store games like Angry Birds and Flight Control. Like I said, we're not quite there yet, but I think as our generation gets ahead and the previous generation embraces the casual side of gaming we'll eventually meet in the middle and social recognition will happen almost overnight. That is of course assuming that the games industry can get out of this stall and start moving again and doesn't collapse under its own weight.

    I agree that this will happen a lot faster with some figureheads that can engage with the media, this is what TIGA and UKIE were created for, they just don't do it. They need to be more pro-active and start engaging the media rather than waiting, hoping to be contacted, after all, I doubt too many people within the media have even heard of them, let alone the general public.
  • metalangel #18 1 year ago

    Whatever sad case is going through here negging everything, including Gastrian and Murton's excellent posts: fuck off.
  • Jonny5Alive7 #19 1 year ago

    Another article loosely based on videogames so you can write about wrestling. Very jealous that you went to the hall of fame event, that would have been awesome.
  • Inmediasress #20 1 year ago

    Oh the game industry has one problem that it is an industry in the first palace.

    Since almsot every game is made by big studios who are owned by big publishers and only care about sustaining themselves which since they are so big needs every ounce of $$$ they can milk people and leaves no room for inspiration and creativity so they produce the same shit ove and over again to cater to mainstream audiences. I think sooner or later when even the mainstream corwd gets fed up with shit. Then the industry will collapse on itself and will have another video game crash.
    I liked my game industry without corporate giants.

    Anyway those that want more game developers on the media.
    I don't think I want to see or hear them lie about their products might I ad rather openly as this became a general thing among devs/publishers. I know they need to sell their products but nowadays they lie so balatantly that it almost hurts to just listen to them and no I'm not talking about Molyneux's interesting promises though that man can also be pretty irritating. I don't even know what they could do to spark interest other than marketing drivel maybe some silly game shows where people make idiots of themselves.

    They promise you the stars just buy our game and when you buy it you realise that you get a doungheap. It is enough to hear politicians talk shit.
  • pobb #21 1 year ago

    Great article with one major problem. Its far too short. Could read stuff like this all day. Wrestling reminds me of Megadrive and SNES days, playing Street Fighter 2 and NBA Jam with school friends for hours. WWE needs more people like The Ultimate Warrior, Big Boss Man, Legion of Doom, and The Bushwhackers!!!
  • whoyouknow #22 1 year ago

    What even is this article? The only thing I got from it was that you met some wrestlers.
  • shellsuitwarrior #23 1 year ago

    @Gastrian

    "In the late 90s it all went tits up, because of WWF's increasing focus on gimmick characters and a passing of icons such as Hulk Hogan, The Ultimate Warrior, Andre the Giant, etc fans stopped watching"

    The late 90's was the wrestling boom, with WCW and WWF experiencing their peaks in terms of ratings.

    Do you actually know what you're talking about?
  • Gastrian #24 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012
  • shellsuitwarrior #25 1 year ago

    @Gastrian

    "A non-constructive criticism and an insult while not saying anything yourself? Woah, you must be the coolest person in your class with that level of nitpicking."

    Nitpicking is anally highlighting a minor error. The statement I highlighted of yours was COMPLETELY WRONG and that point deserved to be made.

    If you would like something constructive, I would suggest that you perhaps get your facts right in the first place, rather than making other incorrect statements such as:

    - Claiming the signing of the Warrior by WCW was a 'major coup'. It wasn't - when WCW signed him he was renowned for being unreliable and hard to work with, whilst his drawing power had diminished a lot.
    - Claiming that being inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame is 'a huge event'. That would be the Hall of Fame which includes Drey Carey, Koko B Ware and Vince McMahon's old chauffer.
    - Claiming that "smaller leagues who'd spent huge amounts of money in the boom years all went bust". I can only assume you're mainly referring to ECW here. Which didn't go bust in the timeline you put forward (some time soon after Warrior and Hogan left the WWF). It went out of business in 2001 for a range of reasons, but one of them wasn't because it overspent - it was renowned for being run on a shoestring with wrestlers often going without pay.



    Lets go over your latest statement:

    "WWE/F lost a lot of its viewing figues to WCW in the mid to late 90s"

    Ok, so you've revised it from late to 'mid to late'...

    It's generally regarded that the decline of the WWF began in 1993/94, when McMahon was charged in the steroid trial. This not only damaged the company's public image, but almost certainly led to McMahon losing his focus on the product.

    1995 was pretty much the creative (and possibly financial low point, I don't have the figures at hand) for the WWF as Diesel tanked as champion, whilst we were blessed with a wrestling plumber, pig farmer, bin man and a pirate.

    In 1996 and 1997 it took a serious pounding from WCW which pretty much had a licence to print money with the NWO. However, the product was seriously retooled through 1997 as it entered the 'Attitude Era' - leading to a lot more swearing, risque storylines, a lot of near -nudity and even more violence.

    By Wrestlemania in March 1998, when Steve Austin became champion the first time, the WWF had turned the corner. With Mike Tyson on the card, WM drew big numbers - and the WWF finally started to beat WCW in the ratings war (after getting hammered for the previous year).

    In 1999, the WWF was drawing it's record viewing figures.

    "and the ratings war cost both companies dearly with the WWF/E almost going bust"

    The WWF was supposedly on the verge of going out of business at some point, yes.

    Quite how you conclude it cost them dearly though, I don't know. As I said, it ultimately led to the WWF's record ratings. Ditto WCW - which could sell out huge arenas in 1997 before even announcing a card.

    Yes, WCW did eventually fold, but Nitro was still drawing respectable viewing figures despite terrible mismanagement for several years. What actually killed it, was the decision by the newly merged Time-Warner/ AOL that they didn't want a wrestling show any more. If it hadn't been for that, there's a good chance WCW would still be around today.
  • Jonny5Alive7 #26 1 year ago

    I agree with everything ShellSuitWarrior says, bang on correct.
  • tinners #27 1 year ago

    So what your saying is WWF Wrestlefest by Tecmo needs to come to iPhone ??


    And yes I agree :)
  • Gastrian #28 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012
  • shellsuitwarrior #29 1 year ago

    @Gastrian

    You did revise it - hence the quote of ""WWE/F lost a lot of its viewing figues to WCW in the mid to late 90s".

    But that's by the by. If that was all that was wrong with your argument, it would be fine. But as I've already said, a lot of what you said either doesn't make any sense or is plain wrong.

    I don't think it matters if WCW considered signing the Warrior a 'coup'. It wasn't.

    FYI, within the next year or so WCW also brought in Chucky from Childs Play, Kiss and Master P and the No Limit Soldiers. All of these things were made out to be 'coups'. They were not.

    Go a bit further back to 1990 (I hope we can agree that we would be classed as 'early 90's?), and you had Robocop appearing in what WCW promoted as 'a coup'. Go a little further ahead and you have Dewey from Scream as the freaking Heavyweight Champion. This was another 'coup'.

    I would address this...

    "of course there are other examples of talking points within wrestling and things that actually matered such as Hart going to WCW with the WWF Heavyweight belt and a good portion of the 2nd generation but that would just be overkill as far as providing sufficient evidence, hell you only went as far as to pull out one name of four I mentioned, that's nitpicking"

    ...but quite frankly, I don't understand what it means.
    Edited by shellsuitwarrior at 24/04/11 @ 00:12
  • ThePissartist #30 1 year ago

    I really enjoyed the latest podcast, listening to Tom talking about the Bethesda event. I do not enjoy reading about wrestling in any form, especially not on a games site , the resource is surely better used elsewhere.
  • Murton #31 1 year ago

    Gastrian has made a lot of good points, as has Shellsuitwarrior and I don't want to get involved in that particular debate, the only factually incorrect thing that I think needs to be picked up on is this:

    "WWE/F lost a lot of its viewing figues to WCW in the mid to late 90s and the ratings war cost both companies dearly with the WWF/E almost going bust"

    The trouble in the late 90s was not to do with a drop in viewing figures, with the exception of Monday Night Raw which saw a slight reduction as morepeople started watching rival show WCW Nitro the average viewing figures for WWE weekly shows were on par with the NFL with PPVs rating higher than NFL championship games, not including the Superbowl final obviously. The main reason for the financial trouble was a large amount of capital investment that saw little return. Vast amounts of money were spent securing what the WWE saw as top talent thinking it would recoup that investment quickly, Ken Shamrock, RVD and Tazz cost a fortune to "steal" from their respective brands and none of them really went anywhere, the signing of Kurt Angle and the training afforded to both Vince and Shane McMahon so that they themselves could appear in matches are probably the only massively profitable investments of the late 90s, the rest all turned bad.

    If I was to name a turning point in that period that "saved" the WWE I don't think I'd name Stone Cold Steve Austin's popularity and merchandise sales, though both were impressive they pale in comparison to the amount of money the WWE made from allowing Hollywood to cast The Rock in summer blockbuster movies. That is what really made up for the bad investment and brought things back on track and allowed the WWE to reach a position where it could buy it's only credibly competitor in WCW, and not quite as commercially competitive but impressive pool of talent that existed within ECW.
  • shellsuitwarrior #32 1 year ago

    I really don't know where you guys are coming up with this stuff from...

    "with PPVs rating higher than NFL championship games"

    No. Simply no. The viewing figures for a WWF Pay Per View were never higher than for an NFL match available on network television.

    "Vast amounts of money were spent securing what the WWE saw as top talent thinking it would recoup that investment quickly, Ken Shamrock, RVD and Tazz cost a fortune to "steal" from their respective brands and none of them really went anywhere"

    Shamrock was signed in 1997, possibly on a large fee - but I've never seen any figures.

    RVD wasn't signed until 2001. Again, I've seen no figures - but he probably wasn't on mega money - as ECW and WCW were gone by the point he joined the WWF.

    Tazz didn't sign with the WWF until late '99, making his debut in 2000. By this point the WWF had been roilling in the cash for quite some time.

    " the signing of Kurt Angle and the training afforded to both Vince and Shane McMahon so that they themselves could appear in matches are probably the only massively profitable investments of the late 90s, the rest all turned bad. "

    Angle was a great signing, agreed.

    I really doubt Vince and Shane spent a great deal on wrestling training though, what with Vince owning a wrestling company. Getting hold of free training was probably quite easy.

    If you want to talk about bad investments from 1996/97 (when the WWF was in financial trouble) - the obvious ones are Bret's 20 year deal, Mark Henry's 10 year deal and the return of the Ultimate Warrior.

    Good ones would include the signing of Steve Austin and Mick Foley during that time period.

    If you want to talk later 90s in general, Jericho was a great signing (he turned down a bigger offer from WCW), Big Show not so much.

    But if you want to talk about major investments in a short term project with long term gain - I'd refer you to Mike Tyson. Paid something like $1.2 million for a few Raw's and Wrestlemania 14, he drew huge mainstream interest and money. It was a great investment.

    "If I was to name a turning point in that period that "saved" the WWE I don't think I'd name Stone Cold Steve Austin's popularity and merchandise sales, though both were impressive they pale in comparison to the amount of money the WWE made from allowing Hollywood to cast The Rock in summer blockbuster movies."

    No. No. No.

    Austin's drawing power on TV and at live sales, plus merch sales made megabucks for the WWF. If you put the WWF's resurgance against WCW down to one man - it would have to be Austin.

    The Rock didn't start making movies until 2000 (when he filmed a cameo in The Mummy 2), by which point WCW was dying on its arse and ECW was limping along (and it should be noted that Vince was basically bankrolling ECW at that point). And quite how much money the WWF would get from Rock appearing in movies...welll, it wouldn't be much.