>It is a world in which video game designers get to make higher quality games faster really such a bad one? If that's what was happening it would be great. But

>It is a world in which video game designers get to make higher quality games faster really such a bad one? If that's what was happening it would be great. But we already saw the mobile market as a canary in the coalmine for how this shakes out, and the Steam marketplace is going that direction too. Lots of stuff out there very much not even worth a download, let alone worth paying for and hoping to derive enjoyment from. It may be hedging on overused at this point but: it's a sea of slop right now and curation is needed more than ever. That's not a future you get with more quality games coming out. Steam is a great example because objectively you can assess some hard figures on if these are "quality". I'm not doing such a study, but I wouldn't be surprised if key metrics like revenue per game have cratered in the last decade in part because there's just so much generated slop that is getting very little attention, but accumulates to make browsing for new releases a pain. People aren't biting per game, but it's so cheap that even a few purchases is enough for asset flip essque games to keep on going and roll the slot a thousand times over. This isn't a tastemaking assessment as much as a cold, hard assessment of how consumers are reacting to the current situation. >Would a radical shakeup of the video game world really be such a disaster? With current consumer sentiment: yes. Frustrated consumers who still demand quality will simply not buy new games without a lot of social momentum. Everyone loses out except the asset flippers.