It’s true. Reviewers rave about a game, I pick it up and play it, and they’re raving about a new one before I’ve finished that last one. I’ve got a list of 20+ games that came out this year that I still haven’t gotten around to. I might get through 5 of them before the new year. And you know, if wouldn’t hurt my ability to play more games if more of them were shorter.
EDIT: I provided this anecdote as a reason contributing to the problems that the industry is experiencing. The article is about the trouble the industry is experiencing as a result of too many competing games being released in a given year. It is not about how I feel about trying to play through many of the ones I found interesting. Apparently Schreier had the same problem on BlueSky with people answering what they think the headline says rather than what the article is about.
You dont have to buy every game a reviewer hypes.
I literally can’t. The article is speaking from the industry perspective of sustaining its jobs though.
There are enough people to buy the new games. The market for games has expanded along with the number of games in the market
Did you read the article at all? That is the entire point. That there are too many games relative to the number of gamers.
Lots of people here didn’t read the article and took the headline to be a personal problem rather than an economic one, lol.
You’re both wrong though, just because there are 93% more games than 2020 doesn’t mean they’re following the same end goal as other games, it’s like comparing fanfics on wattpad to published books.
The end goal for all of them, unlike fanfics, is to sell enough copies to make their development costs back and be able to make another game. Even if you discount the stuff that no one has heard of, the point of the article is that there’s so much competition that even making a game that does well critically isn’t enough to save it; and it used to.
Did you? Do you not critically think about the content of any text you read?
And it’s a problem that will hit the smaller dev studios harder.
As they are the ones fighting for attention. Especially on the monopolised PC marketplace.
No, but I find fund in adding them to my backlog list anyway.
And then i play some city builder that cost $20 for 300 hrs
Which city builder? I think I have 300 hours in Cities Skylines by now
Cities Skylines
OpenTTD is free
Considering the hours you put in a good building game just about every one of them is “free”. But yeah, OpenTTD is great and a lot of fun. TTDX was my first PC game which was an instant buy (before I even had a computer but was getting one in a couple of months) after I saw a review on TV. The 90s was something else.
In building specifically, I only played OpenTTD and Dwarf Fortress.
And I paid for DF after sinking most hours.
Yeah, i bought it too when it came to steam but also donated about 50 dollars back around 2009 I think. It is worth it even if I don’t really play it any more.
Yeah, I created Patreon account just to give them money years ago, and I even forgot about it.
Or in my case, old driving games
The article seems primarily focused on new games. And the article still makes some great points, but when you factor in older games the problem gets bigger.
I am not going to say that old games were better or that “they just don’t make them like they used to”. What I will say is that a lot of older games that are super cheap on Steam or out of print entirely are still great. There are occasionally new great games being released of course (I haven’t played Hades 2 yet but I expect it to be great, for example). But there’s a lot of new games being released where I think… “Why would I spend $70 or $80 on this when I already have this backlog of older games? Why would I spend my time playing 7/10 games when I have dozens of 9/10’s sitting in my library waiting for me?”
Yeah. When they announced the new Silent Hill I was somewhat interested - although I felt the peak was back then with SH2. But having read about the remaster of SH2 and some reviews that said, it’d return to the roots? Nice!
Then I saw a streamer play it early, watched a bit and it looked promising. So I went to wishlist it. Then the release day comes and steam lists it for 70 bucks (available in two days) or 90 bucks now. Well, no. Let’s see how long the price will be that high, but WTF? I don’t wanna know what’s the price on console for it - usually it’s 10-20 bucks more?!?
Very true. And sometimes there’s an answer to those questions, even if we discount the games designed to disappear after a few years. You might be sensitive to spoilers, it might be the perfect game for you in the moment (like the right game for a handheld system just before a trip), your friends might want to play it with you or talk with you about it when you’re done, etc. But that competition with back catalogs absolutely exists.
This doesn’t make sense. Nobody is supposed to ingest all media. It is impossible.
You can’t hear every song. You can’t watch every movie. You can’t see every painting.
It should be celebrated that we have so much accessible art and entertainment.
It does make sense, because “choice paralysis” is a thing that exists. So instead of choosing the game you want and playing it, you might spend more time looking for games to play than actually playing them.
So there are not too many games. That seems like a personal handicap than a real problem.
Yup.
The overabundance of games is killing great games.
Can’t tell you how many fantastic multiplayer games I’ve bought only to find out they’re ghost towns or become ghost towns soon after purchasing. And it’s because players are so spread out over so many games. 20 years ago these games would have been major successes with a huge player base for years, but they’re dead on arrival or within a few months. It’s a real bummer.
That being said, I’m going to plug Mycopunk. Just got it and it’s great. Like Deep Rock Galactic and Risk of Rain 2 had a baby. We need more players though. Came out in July. Currently on sale. But base price is cheap.
There are multiplayer games from 30 years ago that still have 30 people who play on the first Friday night of each month, and they will put that in their calendar and keep the game alive.
The idea that multiplayer games need huge communities of players otherwise they are “dead” is what is killing multiplayer games.
There are three tiers of activity:
- Active enough that I can queue at any time of day and find opponents close to my skill level with good ping
- Active enough that I can queue at peak hours and find opponents
- Need to schedule games via Discord matchmaking
If I really love the game enough, I’ll put up with jumping through hoops to play it, but it does get frustrating when the games I like are a lot more convenient to play than the games I love.
I mean I get what you’re saying. I’ve been playing Sven-Coop for 26 years and counting. People are still playing. People are still making new levels for it.
But it’s mostly people on the older side and it’s because it was a mod for a HUGELY popular game and the mod itself used to have a ton of players.
But a lot of these new, good games never get that big following that allow for a small fan base decades later. Or even months later. Because there’s so many other options spreading gamers out.
Maybe smaller titles could enable players to actively communicate times to meet.
Multiplayer games 20 years ago were also built to be more scalable to different numbers of players, and they mostly had bots and such, too. I might push back on how long they sustained huge player bases though. Those games were often sequeled very quickly, and most of the players would move to the next one, leaving behind a small percentage. At least the old game was always still playable for those who bought it, though.
Will give mycopunk a shot.
It’s great. It’s early access, so it needs some polishing, but it’s already pretty solid. It can be a little overwhelming at first, so make sure you’re doing one of the easier difficulties. Get your weapons and character leveled up and it starts becoming more engaging. Try out different weapons too. I was struggling until I started branching out. And keep in mind that the enemies are made up of various parts and you can blow those parts off and then other enemies can pick those parts up and use them. So learning how to take off limbs and then make sure the limbs are destroyed so they can’t be re-used is important.
Oh, and it allows gifs in the in-game chat. Something I’ve never seen in a game before. Type “/gif” followed by any keyword and it tosses an appropriate gif into the chat. It’s a lot of fun to mess around with.
Love it so far. My only complaint is that I’ve accidentals melted several mods I wanted to keep because I forget which key does what. Wish there was an unlock button and trash you could drag to instead of just two keys. Other than that its great.
XD
This is a good thing for everyone besides the capitalists who seek to profit from their game.
We need a UBI so these artists can just make the games they want, and so “too many games to play together” is no longer a financial issue.
Again, wealth redistribution fixes a problem phrased by news as a consumer problem.
This is my point exactly. Art should be accessible for both the artist and those that enjoy the art. In the current landscape too many artists is a terrible thing for most besides the ones who are already wealthy, but it doesn’t have to be that way. I see so many extremely talented and creative people who can’t afford to make art and are forced to waste their talents because they can’t survive as an artist. Good art takes a lot of time to create and only wealthy people have free time.
Bullshit propaganda, sorry not sorry. The problem isn’t too many games, its reviewers overhyping too few games. Gta6, marathon, whatever the heck else, seriously do some basic research and you’ll find great games at a great pace. There is, in fact, room for all games in the market.
Those dastardly reviewers, always reviewing games and stuff!
Have you read some of these reviews? Outright waste of time way too often.
I don’t feel there are too many games, because I can simply buy fewer games, but I do miss the feeling that there are games that everyone is buying and we’re all playing at the same time. I felt like everyone I knew was playing BG3 and we were all talking about it all the time. I don’t want to only play those kinds of big, blockbuster games, but I do want a few of them per year.
I’ve learned to be more careful with those hyped games. I don’t like souls likes or platformers, but black myth wukong and silksong are both massively popular. I saw enough comments claiming BMW “wasn’t a souls like” that I decided to give it a try. I’m sure there are some technical deviations from the genre to claim it’s its own thing, but fit me it was just a miserable waste of $60.
Omg there’s too many cars I can’t buy them all.
I mean… Unironically, yeah. Do you want to start importing Kei cars? What about ADM, or Euro spec? You want to collect a specific year of econobox or do you want to aim for a high end sports car?
Too many cars.
I like having a lot of choices. You don’t need to play all the games!
The problem they describe will self-correct; the “market” will drive that. But it might not be pretty. The things below are already happening, but will be further instigated:
New AAA non-franchise titles will be less common because return is less likely amongst the sea of new games coming out. Investors will continue to gamble on them, but they’ll be fewer and further between.
Mid-budget AA games not in a niche will disappear. You’ll still have your city builders, your milsim squad shooters, your competitive RTS games, but you won’t be seeing many new AA action platformers, multiplayer CoD style shooters, block puzzlers, adventure RPGs, etc. They’ll either be bare budget / indie or mega budget.
You’ll see dev cost continue to be driven down to mitigate this risk, making quality suffer. Asset flips, AI, and outsourcing will increase for most studios that don’t get recurring revenue from live service games.
Indies will continue to be random breakout hits, but their studios will die fast because followups to their breakouts often drown in the sea too.
Being an employee in the industry will probably mean jumping from company to company where you might only stick around for 1 - 2 titles before a major layoff. Contracting will get more common.
I’m not sure there’s any solution to this problem. Returning to the era of gatekeepers would be a regression, and the increased democratization of game development has led to more creative and interesting products all around. This glut may be intimidating for players, but it also presents them with more choices than ever before, so long as they can ignore the FOMO of not jumping on every new release as soon as it hits.
But for the companies investing hundreds of millions of dollars into games that need to move huge numbers to break even, this is no small challenge. And it’s just getting harder every year.
Solution is simple, stop spending millions of dollars on the same bloody IP and cash grabs and give your devs some freedom.
Going to need a global wave of union organization to at least get royalties on sales determined for contribution levels. That’s unlikely to be incredible money but anything is better than nothing as you age towards their elder years
Besides that, no real solution. It’s happened to every art industry. It turns out there’s probably been an incredible amount of artistic talent every year throughout the millenniums but it’s just the last couple decades where it didn’t require super levels of luck and financial backing to make it
I believe Gearbox has always done this royalty situation union-less. But that doesn’t spread out sales to other games that need customers. There are still going to be plenty of games that just don’t move a lot of copies because other games suck the oxygen out of the room.
Let’s not toot Gearbox’s horn. While Borderlands 3 was their biggest success when it launched the people working on it got less royalties (per person) than they got for Borderlands 2. Meanwhile Pitchford bargained himself a 12 million bonus before the game was even released. Oh and when people complained about getting less royalties Pitchford said, like the asshole he is, they’re free to quit. Gearbox does royalty situation union-less (as I know 40% of the royalties are split between the employees), but that comes at the cost of having to put to with one the biggest assholes in the industry who will tell you to eat shit if you don’t like something.
It also comes at the cost of being paid less than the industry average, which isn’t high. But it wasn’t so much tooting Gearbox’s horn as it was pointing out that it doesn’t solve the problem stated in the article. It wasn’t about how well the employees at a successful studio are paid but rather how many studios are unsuccessful because of how much competition there is. The industry might generate absurd amounts of money, but a large percentage of that is still just going to a handful of games that gather all the attention rather than being spread around more uniformly, and I don’t think there’s really a way to spread it around.
Absolutely. I agree that royalties aren’t the solution here and I agree with what the problem is. Your previous comment just kinda came across (at least to me) like giving some praise to Gearbox for giving out royalties when IMO it doesn’t really deserve praise when those royalties don’t meet the expectations of the people actually doing the work. Especially when the owners get to set their own special deals with guaranteed payouts.
I’m sure it looked great when they made Borderlands 2, but they also made Battleborne. Borderlands 2 devs still get royalties to this day. And hey, Gearbox still gets some stuff right sometimes. The entire Borderlands series still supports LAN, which even the people who manage the Steam pages don’t seem to care about. They can be good in some ways and shitty in others. Life is rarely so simple.
Dear video game developers,
There are too many video games nowadays. Please eliminate three.
How comes movies aren’t like this? I feel like there are so few movies but so many games.
Distribution. It’s very easy to put your game on Steam next to Grand Theft Auto. You’ll have a much harder time getting your indie film in theaters or on a streaming service. High quality movies aren’t typically found on someone’s YouTube channel.
The price it costs to make movies and the services that promote them. There are way more new movies than you realize. The market is just as oversaturated. You’re just less likely to see low budget indie movies the same way you prominently see low budget games and music unless you follow cheap horror circles and things like found footage.
Can confirm, my neighbor makes indie films, and I don’t live in Hollywood or anything, just a random town in Utah. There are more than you and I expect.
It still costs more to make an indie or found footage film than it would to make a game or music or other art. I watch a lot of found footage so I’m pretty familiar with the style and do a lot of research on the ones I like. The average on the low end of the price spectrum is around $10,000 although some have been made for around $1,000.
Still there’s a lot of stuff out there. Another thing to consider is that art, music, and games from foreign countriea are way more accessible than movies and shows from abroad.
scale down then. or make better games.
capitalist crises of production are dumb.
