It's just a musing I've had while posting about something semi-related on the topic of buying games and backlogs in another thread, but I thought this may make for a more interesting separate discussion point than an off-topic aside there.

Anyway, I really don't envy game developers position today. Want to earn a decent living making a game? Yeah, good luck with that. With hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands) of new games being released each year, devs don't only have to compete with all the other new games on the market. In addition, they have to compete with already existing games that are months/years/decades-old which may take up my playing time and dollars instead.

Why should I care about the newest, shiniest toy when I have some excellent "classic" I have an itch to replay? Why waste money on a relatively short game right now when I'd rather dominate silly computer people for the hundredth time in a game of Civilization/Master of Orion/your-choice-of-4X? Eh, too busy building my business empire here and/or playing with my digital model train sets again; who's got time for anything else? Oh, hey, that free-to-play/old multiplayer game is still going pretty strong and is excellent fun; why waste time on something new that may end up just a disappointment? Man, just look at all these free copies of games thrown my way; why waste money on buying anything at all? Oh, wow this experimental free indie/open source game is really neat. Sorry, new game, that's a pass. Etc... And that is all just on top of everything else gnawing away on a person's available free time.

Yup, gotta be rough to be game devs these days. As highlighted as some of the extreme successes are, there are a ton more financial failures. Wouldn't want to be those guys.

There's more music than you can ever listen to in your lifetime;
There's more books than you could read in your lifetime;
There's more movies and TV series than you could watch in your lifetime;
And there's more games than you could ever finish in your lifetime.

But that doesn't stop more from being made...

I mean, this is nothing new. It's been like this (relatively few successes, lots of failures) for many years. If it makes you feel better, some devs are just in it for the sake of making a game, and have "real jobs" on the side since they're not expecting to make any significant money.

not true for those who make mobile games though

The mobile market is actually the one which suffered first under the current crisis. Many people got fired and studios got closed in this sector as well.
Sure, people pay less for full games right now, but when everything became more expensive, they first stoppd paying for bonus diamonds.

When it comes to stuff like games, I think most people have a much greater need than I do to stay "current". People want to play the new big thing, follow trends, keep up with whatever the "cool" streamers are playing and all that crap. So old stuff is probably not much competition for the attention fo the average gamer. Sure, there's a sizeable niche that plays older stuff, and we're part of it, but it's still a niche.

Still, I agree the sheer number of new games that gets published these days can be staggering, and it sucks to see brilliant games like Ghost of a Tale not get the fraction of attention something mediocre like Spelunky gets.

He's one of the relatively few successes, and is very aware of it. You say "and yet" as if you're contradicting the topic premise, but you're not. Especially true for those who make mobile games.

I am in the same boat, but then I have to occasionally remind myself that there are other kinds of gamers too which don't play decades old games (I finished e.g. Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain two days ago, and yesterday I started playing Soul Reaver).

It somehow amazes me when when I visit certain game discussion forum, and whenever there is a brand new AAAA game released that costs 80€ to buy, there are instantly dozens upon dozens of (Finnish!) people playing it eagerly and discussing eagerly how they are playing it or how they finished it in a record time and are now on their second or third playthrough. Even with games which I thought have had rough times according to gaming news, like Diablo IV. Heck, even the Star Citizen discussion thread is alive and well, people apparently play that game a lot and even pay for it?

Also, this:

https://tech.hindustantimes.com/gaming/news/spiderman-2-game-creates-huge-playstation-studios-sales-record-within-just-24-hours-71698130094414.html

Since I personally couldn't care less about Marvel or DC or superhero anything (or Star Wars for that matter), movies or games, it kinda amazes me that a Spiderman game sells at record speed. I have no idea if it is because that game is about Spiderman, or because it actually is an extremely good game, or both. Would it have sold just as well if it was a mediocre or even poor Spiderman game?


Now, when it comes to e.g. indie game developers... I also have a feeling it is just overcrowded. Maybe the tools have become so good that it takes little effort to become an indie developer to flood the market with similar-looking indie games with similar ideas, hoping that you will become the next Minecraft, Among Us or what have you.

Oh well, I guess it is not really my problem as a gamer, as long as we won't have a similar video game crash as back in the day (before 8bit NES etc. revitalized it).

Its because it is a very good game. In the end, if a game is bad, it will not sell very well even if it is based on a well known franchise. There are many examples of games based on franchises that flopped. but, the new Spiderman game is well designed and fun to play, even if you are not a marvel fan.

Same with for example Lego Star Wars games - you do not need to like Lego nor Star Wars, but still have a very good time playing the games. if you don't kow the references, then off course some content is lost on you, but the game mecahnics and game loop still makes them fun to play

The thing is, this applies more specifically to PC games, and less so to console games.

I can't e.g. play my old Playstation or PS2 games on my physical consoles because I am pretty sure my PS2 is already dead, or close to it (I probably haven't powered it up for at least two years, I expect its capacitators have probably dried up for too little use or something). If I want to play those old games I have for them, it would have to be either on some Sony online portal (where I'd have to buy the games again, or play them with some monthly subscription?), or on a PC with an emulator.

I think consoles in general have much less of this PC gaming paradigm where you may be able to keep playing your 10-20 year old games even on your new PC, somehow. It is up to the console manufacturers which kind of backwards-compatibility they offer (usually it does not span over several console generations, I think?), or which old classics they re-release on their new system.

I mean, here's the thing: Ken Silverman, Steve Moraff, Software Dynamics, Malfador Machinations, David Allen, James R. Shiflett/Wolrdwide Microtronics...they've all come and gone, along with countless thousands of shareware devs. The and yet was more to the idea that it was harder before the internet and software publishers; than it is now.

Anyone can publish a book now, but back whence, you couldn't because you had to get someone to actually agree to print the damn thing.

I take your word for it, and yes I expected it to probably be a good game.

I guess I was kinda taken by surprise when reading that news today as I wasn't aware, or didn't care enough, that there is some (yet-another) Marvel Spiderman game in the works, especially one which is not a multiplatform release but exclusive to PS5 only. Maybe the gaming news have been screaming and hyping about this game for months already, I must have just missed it because I apparently don't read those gaming news, or I have just quickly passed any news about a Spiderman game.

I guess I was similarly a bit surprised learning that the "recent" Harry Potter game apparently was actually good. I missed all the hype with that as well, but got the hang of it when I actually heard people, even in this forum, telling what a fun and great game it is. Oh and there were some glowing reviews in some (Finnish) non-gaming newspapers which kinda reminded me "Ok, apparently this new Harry Potter game is then kind of a big deal, and actually a good game.".

True. The first Spider-Man game was indeed really damn good on the other hand. Not perfect, I definitely had issues with it and wouldn't rush out to the store to buy the sequel even if I owned a PS5 play it on, but still, it was overall a remarkably fun game, and it's been a while since I considered myself a Spider-Man fan. Honestly, it was probably my favorite Spider-Man thing since the 90s.

On the other hand there was recently some Avengers game, apparently an online only, games-as-service type thing, and despite being tied to the super-popular franchise it failed big time in terms of sales. Or even more recently we had Gollum, and the only thing being connected to the LotR name got those devs was plenty of media attention being paid to just how shit the game is.

And that's it - a popular license gets you attention. Sure it may be enough to turn an average game into an above-average selling title, but it won't turn it inot a huge hit, and won't save a terrible game from failure. Hell, it can even be an albatross around a game's neck, like with Shadow of Mordor. Yeah, the game did very well, but most people seem to agree they would like it even more if it wasn't pretending to be LotR-related.

I think it's more about the Internet, social media. People really badly want to participate in whatever is being talked about now. They'll play whatever game is popular, or watch a crap show even if they don't like it, just so that they're not on the outside looking in at all the people talking about it on Twitter and Twitch and whatever else there is.

Hell, wanting to be in on the current hashtag/meme craze was pretty much the only reason plenty of people went to see Barbie and Oppenheimer as a double feature.