April 6th 2024.
Have you ever found yourself wondering how many video games you can realistically play in your lifetime? It's a question that many gamers have been pondering, and one reader has a particularly interesting argument on the topic. They believe that the main issue with the gaming industry today is that every game seems to demand endless hours of playtime, leaving little room for anything else.
The recent Newzoo report, which highlights the fact that a small number of games make up the majority of our gaming time, brings to light what this reader sees as the elephant in the room when it comes to the industry's problems. It's not just about the money we spend on games, but also the precious and limited time we have to devote to them.
Upon examining the current gaming landscape, it's clear that the cost of making triple-A games is becoming too high, the market is not growing fast enough, and the risk-takers in the industry are struggling to find ways to access it at a lower cost. However, one crucial aspect that is often overlooked is the fact that in the world of gaming, there is no other form of entertainment where the time spent on one product must come at the expense of others.
Think about it - when an album, book, or film becomes a hit, it doesn't necessarily hinder the success of other content. But in gaming, the constant flow of live service titles requires players to stay engaged for as long as possible, inevitably taking away from the time they could be spending on other games. While some may argue that this is simply a result of player demand, it ultimately leads to destructive behavior in an industry where the success of a few seems to come at the expense of the majority.
I'm not here to offer a solution to this problem, but I do think it's important for content providers to acknowledge its existence. Perhaps they could try releasing fewer games that demand years of our time and instead focus on creating shorter, more fulfilling experiences. As a gamer myself, I would much rather invest my time and money into a multiplayer game that promises 100% completion in 50 hours, rather than a title designed to keep me playing exclusively for years to come.
But it's not just live service games that are to blame. The media and gaming community often recommend the most time-consuming titles as "must-play" games, leading to a feeling of overwhelm and a lack of time to play everything. This, in turn, contributes to the idea that there is simply too much content and not enough time to consume it all.
And for those who are confused as to why services like Game Pass haven't exploded in popularity, this reader believes it's because a library of 500 games is meaningless when we don't even have time to play the few we already own.
In the end, the problem may not be the money we spend on games, but rather the time we have to play them. The gaming industry needs to take a step back and consider the impact of demanding endless hours of play from its players. After all, isn't the joy of gaming supposed to be about having fun, not feeling like we're falling behind on all the latest releases?
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
