First, you can have too many. It's just like going to the grocery store to get tooth paste: the frustration of trying to decide the right one with 5000 choices is real, and it increases the likelihood of buyers remorse. That reduces real dollars spent.
Second, indie developers have not been charity cases. Over the past 30 years, there have been a lot of amazing indie games. There have also been a lot of crap games. Good games have made money because they were discoverable.
It is likely that amazing games will continue to thrive. The ones that will face difficulties are the good-to-really-good games. Those won't have the inertia to break out above the fog of the developer masses.
In other words, indie games are going exactly the same place App Store games did.
More supply does not automatically mean the best games rise to the top. The way storefronts like iOS and Steam work is there's really weak categorization and 'top seller' lists and maybe tagging and... that's it. There are no mechanisms in place to find the 'best games' and make them rise to the top; no heavy user rating rankings, no time played rankings, no rankings based on which games your friends play, etc.
This is part of why he points out the huge increase in Steam launches. Back when Steam was curated, the front page changed infrequently and you could count on at least half the games up there being worth a glance (even if they weren't worth buying). Now there's basically no filter and half the games that go up are early access or perpetual betas or games from 2001.
The best games aren't rising to the top. The games that rise to the top are rising to the top. Sometimes the best games are ALSO coincidentally the ones that rise to the top, but not always.
If you want a tired example, look at Flappy Bird. It wasn't a terrible game, but it wasn't an amazing one either. It was just an adequate game, and it managed to get high enough in the charts that it stayed there, because the visibility ensured its success. Like it or not, but life is that way for many indies right now.
(For reference, I've shipped titles on Steam and in the boxed AAA game market.)
So if you're going to the store to buy toothpaste, and there's too many brands on offer, you're going to stop buying toothpaste and let your teeth rot? I'd file that under "unlikely". The paradox of choice means that you may be less happy about your eventual choice, but you're still going to make it.
Toothpaste is something you know you need to buy. Games are not. If a game purchase is an impulse buy (not all game purchases are, of course) and the impulse fades before you've found something to buy (because you're wandering aimlessly through a huge list of uninteresting titles on Steam), you may just wander off and not buy anything. I've certainly done that before.
Comments
I disagree, on multiple levels:
First, you can have too many. It's just like going to the grocery store to get tooth paste: the frustration of trying to decide the right one with 5000 choices is real, and it increases the likelihood of buyers remorse. That reduces real dollars spent.
Second, indie developers have not been charity cases. Over the past 30 years, there have been a lot of amazing indie games. There have also been a lot of crap games. Good games have made money because they were discoverable.
It is likely that amazing games will continue to thrive. The ones that will face difficulties are the good-to-really-good games. Those won't have the inertia to break out above the fog of the developer masses.
In other words, indie games are going exactly the same place App Store games did.
And we all know how bad the tooth paste bubble was!
So only the best games will rise to the top now... I fail to see how that is a burst bubble.
More supply does not automatically mean the best games rise to the top. The way storefronts like iOS and Steam work is there's really weak categorization and 'top seller' lists and maybe tagging and... that's it. There are no mechanisms in place to find the 'best games' and make them rise to the top; no heavy user rating rankings, no time played rankings, no rankings based on which games your friends play, etc.
This is part of why he points out the huge increase in Steam launches. Back when Steam was curated, the front page changed infrequently and you could count on at least half the games up there being worth a glance (even if they weren't worth buying). Now there's basically no filter and half the games that go up are early access or perpetual betas or games from 2001.
The best games aren't rising to the top. The games that rise to the top are rising to the top. Sometimes the best games are ALSO coincidentally the ones that rise to the top, but not always.
If you want a tired example, look at Flappy Bird. It wasn't a terrible game, but it wasn't an amazing one either. It was just an adequate game, and it managed to get high enough in the charts that it stayed there, because the visibility ensured its success. Like it or not, but life is that way for many indies right now.
(For reference, I've shipped titles on Steam and in the boxed AAA game market.)
So if you're going to the store to buy toothpaste, and there's too many brands on offer, you're going to stop buying toothpaste and let your teeth rot? I'd file that under "unlikely". The paradox of choice means that you may be less happy about your eventual choice, but you're still going to make it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_choice
I don't think this is true. Faced with a wall of indie games I will throw up my hands and go play Mario instead.
Gaming should be fun. If people are less happy during the fun, your customer base decreases. For the whole market.
Toothpaste is something you know you need to buy. Games are not. If a game purchase is an impulse buy (not all game purchases are, of course) and the impulse fades before you've found something to buy (because you're wandering aimlessly through a huge list of uninteresting titles on Steam), you may just wander off and not buy anything. I've certainly done that before.