Which do you think is better?

Kopogero

1) When 500 producers make 50 games where 5 players spend $50 on .
2) When 500 producers make 5 games where 50 players spend $50 on.

Some would argue more options is better, while others would argue that it's better to have fewer games I would actually play over many that I would not. Currently our market is basically in state 1 because devs/producers believe it's better than state 2 and are you happy with it or would you rather see it into state 2? I have to go with option 2 because I can only play one game at a time and I would also save far more $ by spending only on one game for long period over multiple for shorter time.

At the end being part in something epic, playing something far greater for me than most I've had chance to experience would be a great way to live life and the participation of far more individuals makes simply the entire product to feel like it matters more to be a part of. It's something like NBA or soccer, they are just games like any of the thousand other games we've played and compete in, but because the way they are ran they receive so much more attention, audience and revenue.

Kyleran

I vote for one producer to make 1 game that I like, everyone else be damned.

Antiquated

Kyleran said:

I vote for one producer to make 1 game that I like, everyone else be damned.

One game gets fifty gamers involved producing content...

Since 90% of everything is crap, you get five genuinely good developers out of the deal.

Jill52

Neither. For me it isn't about the number of games. I don't really care how many games there are so long as the choices we get are unique and of very high quality.

The real problem isn't the over saturation of games in today's market because there are way more players now than in the old days before MMORPGs became mainstream. Back then there were fewer games available but they still had smaller communities because there were less people who played games from the MMORPG genre.

These days there are way more games to choose from but if you want something new, different or unique your choices are still limited. While there are far more games, the majority of these games feel like cheaply made copies of everything else.

Think of it like having to choose from McDonald's and 100's of other fast food places just like it. They all serve the same things when what you're really looking for a place with something that isn't on any of their menus that also doesn't have that typical fast food "just thrown together carelessly to make a quick profit" feeling to it. 

I'd like to see fewer games that are all vastly different from one another that get the time, attention and love they need from their developers instead of seeing lots of cheap, mass produced games that are almost exactly the same.

pantheron

Ill take the 50 games that 5 people buy. I'm more likely to get the game I actually want when there are 50 choices, rather than 5. 

sunandshadow

I think option 1 has the hidden advantage that as a byproduct it will produce tools and content packs others can use to make more games with less wasted effort reinventing the wheel, with with 2 those larger companies are going to be 100% closed source, jealously guard what we made with out hard work so our competitors can't use to to make more games to compete with us in the future.

On the other hand, I'm really skeptical that option 2 would include any game for which I was the target audience.  But if it did, that would be pretty awesome.

filmoret

Which is better?  
1.  Candy Crush which has sold over a billion copies.
2.  Witcher 3   which has barely sold 6 million copies.

gervaise1

Does the OP mean "production companies" rather than "producers".

Although I suspect the question might be about f2p game producers specifically and whether they are targeting "whales" rather than "the masses"  

If so I am not sure they do. That is how f2p games might - maybe we don't really have the data - end up but I am sure they want everyone to pay something. And there are f2p games out there that encourage people to spend a small amount unlocking ranks that provide usually some form of bonus cards.

Ending up with is not the same as aiming for though.

If (OP) you meant something different "c'est la vie"

cameltosis

In both your examples, each gamer has still managed to find a game that they thought was worth $50, so I'd have to say both options are equally valid without further data. 

Option one offers more choice, so presumably each gamer was more able to find something to their own tastes. However, option two means you're more likely to be playing the same game as your friends, so if you are more socially orientated I guess that'd be the best option


I'm assuming your examples were supposed to highlight your preference for larger, high quality games (AAA) over smaller indie titles, in which case I agree: I prefer AAA games too. 

Kopogero

@Cameltosis exactly. The longer players are exposed to gaming the more veteran they become in buying fewer products that they find themselves enjoy for longer and these products as you put it will be products that are well known and popular enough to attract their friends as well for the best experience.

Distopia

 You'd still be getting essentially the same amount of "great" games, which are realistically few and far between. In one scenario it's worse though, as you have no filler, which is what the bargain bin is good for. 

Azaron_Nightblade

As if you'd actually pay for any of them, Kopo. =P
Unless we're counting the money Pirate Bay gets from their advertising banners. (And even there I bet you're running an AdBlocker)