Just because a game is used in tournaments doesn't mean it's a good competitive game :P. PC example is obvious: Painkiller.
In fact, looking at the joke that competitive gaming has been turned into this year, being a terrible game seems to have become a prerequisite lately... it's more about which publishers will relinquish the most money/rights to get their game tacked onto events than which games have actual competitive followings or are even tailored toward competition.
Console example: GOW's multiplayer was tacked on in like the last 2 weeks of development time as an afterthought... for months/years they said they wouldn't even do multi because it was a single player game they wanted to focus on. Thus, the multi is terrible (yea yea it's an opinion... but how else do you describe something that's completely featureless and shallow?). Yet it's often the #1 played game on XBL and has $$$$ tourneys...
But that's a whole other discussion right there.
My point is, it is only logical to expect that UT3 will be a better competitive platform in every possible way, since it's being built with specific focus on smaller-scale gameplay (the kinds of scales that actually work in organized games), doesn't require a subscription, and will run on a wider range of machines than Huxley will. You may like Huxley more than UT3 and that's fine, and it might even be more popular, but as the Battlefield series has proven, just because tons of people play a game doesn't mean a high enough % are interested in real competition to truly support it. I just don't see people getting into Huxley with competition in mind. Most people I know are primarily interested in the possibility of interesting co-op gameplay (myself included).
And just for amusement, check this article:
Shadowrun - Controller Balancing
That article pretty much killed the game for PC gamers before it was even released.