Opinion The Video-Game Industry Has a Problem: There Are Too Many Games - A crowded September for video-game releases illustrates a broader challenge in the market

Link Archive

By Jason Schreier - September 26, 2025 at 1:00 PM EDT

Too much to play

On Sept. 4, the independent game developer Team Cherry released Hollow Knight: Silksong, the long-anticipated sequel to an indie gem that was seven years in the making. Reviews pegged it as one of the best games of 2025.

On Sept. 25, the independent game developer Supergiant Games released (the full version of) Hades II, the long-anticipated sequel to an indie gem that was five years in the making. Reviews pegged it as one of the best games of 2025.

Between these two instant classics came a slew of critically acclaimed games, including a remake of the beloved The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky, the latest entry in the popular Borderlands franchise and a cooperative puzzle game starring two Lego pieces. There was also a new Dying Light zombie-action game, an intriguing adventure game and a new entry in the longrunning Silent Hill franchise.

And that was just September.

Over the past few years, the video-game industry has faced a difficult contraction period during which companies have laid off thousands of employees due to flattened growth. There have been many reasons for this shift, such as huge, Covid-era investments that didn’t pan out. But one problem stands above the rest — there are too many video games.

In 2024, a staggering 18,626 games were released on Steam, according to SteamDB, a website that tracks data on the popular PC platform. That’s an increase of around 93% from 2020, when 9,656 games were released.

This glut of new releases stems from a number of factors, including widening interest in games, the rise of cheaper and easier development tools and lower barriers to entry.

There was once a time when it was impossible to create a video game and get it into people’s hands unless you had a publisher that could get you prime shelf position at GameStop and Walmart. But over the past decade, as customers pivoted en masse from physical to digital games, the playing field has been leveled.

Most of last year’s Steam games went undiscovered and unplayed by the majority of users. But a surprising number were received quite well. Of the 1,431 games released last year that garnered more than 500 reviews — an indication that they were played by at least a few thousand people — more than 260 were rated positively by 90% or more of the players. More than 800 scored 80% or better.

In other words, this isn’t like the 1980s, when the US gaming market crashed due to a flood of poorly made products. Today, there are too many video games, and many of them are great.

Today’s titles are also competing not just with the new games released every year but with countless old “service” games designed to keep people playing forever. The three most-played games on Steam are almost always Counter-Strike, Dota 2 and PUBG: Battlegrounds, all multiplayer games that have been around for years. Some of the other biggest games in the world, such as League of Legends and the top titles on Roblox, would be alongside them if they were on Steam.

The market for new video games isn’t just oversaturated — it’s nearly impenetrable. Teams of hundreds of people are spending years of their lives developing games that are destined to get lost in the sea of new releases. It’s no longer enough to simply be a good game — more than 120 games released in 2025 have scored higher than an 80 on Metacritic, the review aggregation website. The ones that earn more than a 90 tend to hit, but many of the others have failed to take off.

It’s the main reason that games such as Wildgate and Sunderfolk, both developed by Dreamhaven and released this year to positive receptions, struggled to make a dent. The list goes on and on.

I’m not sure there’s any solution to this problem. Returning to the era of gatekeepers would be a regression, and the increased democratization of game development has led to more creative and interesting products all around. This glut may be intimidating for players, but it also presents them with more choices than ever before, so long as they can ignore the FOMO of not jumping on every new release as soon as it hits.

But for the companies investing hundreds of millions of dollars into games that need to move huge numbers to break even, this is no small challenge. And it’s just getting harder every year.
 
I now see why you said you liked the ME3 ending: you're not very smart, are you? Both the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and Pearl Harbor attacks were acts of war, carried out by uniformed Japanese military personnel initiating full-scale war against China and America, respectively. I use them both as analogy: organized hostile forces (the Japanese military, and gaming "journalism: respectively) have initiated hostilities against their hapless, unprepared opponents.
You're comparing a bunch of lifeless low IQ 4chan dwelling incel faggots crying about women in the videogame industry to a well planned act of terrorism carried out as a declaration of war that killed 2400 people including civilians. You're a cringey manchild with no future and I feel bad for the parents you undoubtedly leech off of.

In short;
am.webp
 
Última edición:
I do everything I can to be upbeat but realistic about videogames -- I expressed my certainty about a VG industry crash two and a half years ago, but also said I was okay with that because I thought we'd return to an era like the 90s: random shitlords like id software making shit out of home garages on properties not zoned for business. (EDIT: for the record I think the collapse is ongoing, not even over the hump, and it will take out a lot of shitty indieslop studios too at this rate)

But for me there have definitely been way too many releases in recent years cuz I play emulated games, romhacks, mods, sourceports etc etc probably much more often than I play actual 'normal' game releases. When you add in those kinds of extra sources on top of normieslop, it's waaaay too fucking much.

Normally I just glaze my eyes over and ignore 90% of things that come out because I'm desensitized, but I got outright fucking angry at the re-re-release of BLOOD - Warner Bros charging money for what seems like it should've been a free patch to BLOOD: FRESH SUPPLY. Even with a 66% discount because I own Fresh Supply, just fuck off WB.

I don't want to say "there should be less games coming out", but I think everyone self-publishing and flooding the medium with 100 clones of the same old gay shit for any given genre - and wanting to charge people money for it - is obvious retardation. I think all you can do now is downscale your exposure to it all, and try to run on word-of-mouth and watching talky people whose taste you approve of and trust their opinions on what's good. Me doing my videos recommending stuff is just a tiny little way to help people find good shit in a sea of pointless garbage.

Also, consider going after Total Conversion mods for games you have over getting new shit. I've breathed life into our Diablo 1+2 lan party weekends with Devilution X and Median XL. You can also pretty much guarantee that these sorts of things are being made by actual passionate fans, instead of dictated by retarded managers and their soulless audience testing and shit.
 
Última edición:
The endless chasing of higher and higher fidelity graphics, bloated feature sets and bloated teams have really fucked up the games industry. There's a real stark contrast in how few games big publishers like Activision and EA release now vs the 2000s. Activision now basically put out a COD game in a year, and maybe a Tony Hawk's or Crash game. In the 2000s they were often releasing several games a month. Sure, they were playing it safe with basically all sequels and licensed games, but now they're putting all their eggs in the COD basket, which could well blow up in their faces if another game siphons away the COD player base.

What I'd like to see is the big publishers bring back some of their old IPs, but with mid to late 2000s era graphics, scope and team size. For example, looking up the credits for F.E.A.R, they appear to have a core team of less than 50 developers. The graphics are still perfectly serviceable, and I'm sure a new F.E.A.R game could be released now with similar graphical fidelity and feature scope, while being profitable. I think a better balance of much more modest budget games with the bigger budget games would make the industry a lot healthier and diverse.
 
The endless chasing of higher and higher fidelity graphics, bloated feature sets and bloated teams have really fucked up the games industry. There's a real stark contrast in how few games big publishers like Activision and EA release now vs the 2000s. Activision now basically put out a COD game in a year, and maybe a Tony Hawk's or Crash game. In the 2000s they were often releasing several games a month. Sure, they were playing it safe with basically all sequels and licensed games, but now they're putting all their eggs in the COD basket, which could well blow up in their faces if another game siphons away the COD player base.

What I'd like to see is the big publishers bring back some of their old IPs, but with mid to late 2000s era graphics, scope and team size. For example, looking up the credits for F.E.A.R, they appear to have a core team of less than 50 developers. The graphics are still perfectly serviceable, and I'm sure a new F.E.A.R game could be released now with similar graphical fidelity and feature scope, while being profitable. I think a better balance of much more modest budget games with the bigger budget games would make the industry a lot healthier and diverse.
Seriously, some of the greatest games of all time were made by teams of less than 100 people on a shoe string budget in comparison to today's ridiculous game development costs. Halo 2? 70-80 people with a budget of 40M. Bioshock? 80-90 people with a budget estimated to be 80-100M as the figures were never released. Psychonauts? 42 people and a budget of 11.5M. And these days the idiots spend hundreds of millions and hire 1000+ people to make a generic overdone piece of shit no one wanted or asked for that fails miserably and they NEVER LEARN.

The modern videogame industry is a shining example of CEOs all being sociopaths with no emotion or passion who only care about statistics and profit margins. If you don't understand or care about your products then they're always going to be shit and these fools will never be able to understand that.
 
Última edición:
You're comparing a bunch of lifeless low IQ 4chan dwelling incel faggots crying about women in the videogame industry to a well planned act of terrorism carried out as a declaration of war that killed 2400 people including civilians. You're a cringey manchild with no future and I feel bad for the parents you undoubtedly leech off of.

In short;
Ver archivo adjunto 7978848

He who lives in a glass house would be wise not to cast stones. Now go back to reddit, eat your chicken nuggets and cry into your funkopops while reading kotaku like the good little niggercattle you are.

See, I can be nasty too.
 
and a cooperative puzzle game starring two Lego pieces.
Surprised no one mentioned this (unless I missed it).

The steam reviews for this game, LEGO Voyagers, say it has very little content, and then it ends. Most players have four or five hours of playtime logged. It doesn’t look like a replayable sandbox either.

Why scrape the bottom of the barrel to make this point?
 
the grassroots reclamation of the medium is an inevitable result of this and it is Good. passion and creativity have come back to gaming and it is once again bearing all kinds of fruit.
Not really. Gaming becoming more inaccessible just means it's easier for people to ignore and turn away from gaming. Then, these passion projects will inevitably fail. When there's no audience, passion doesn't pay off. Few and far between are the passion project makers who don't want a decent audience.

this attitude that we all need big game franchises to gather around and share experiences over is a relic of the pre-internet era, when communication was much more limited and gaming was a much smaller hobby, culturally.
Lol, nigga touch grass. LMAO, even.

we do not need big gaming corporations, we do not need gaming franchises with huge marketing budgets that force everyone onto the same brain cell.
I get they deserve this, but yes you do need franchises and big marketing budgets. Maybe not as big as they are, but they need to exist. Otherwise people will turn away. People do want to be on the same brain cell whether you like it or not. That's how people just are.

we do not need money or consensus. your mindset is cucked. you need to adapt
Spoken like a true autistic.

the notion that gaming is less interesting now due to a lack of co-op is stunningly out of touch. there are a bazillion co-op games out there right now, it's one of the lowest hanging fruit for indies to target. look at games like Lethal Company, REPO, PEAK, and so on.
In person co-op and online co-op are NOT THE SAME THING. No matter how much you retarded Zoomers try to insist it is. Online co-op will never be as fun as playing a game in person with your friends, no matter how hellbent you are on claiming otherwise. Nigga we tried MMOs, online games, LAN parties, etc. None of it was the same as sitting around playing a split screen or something like Mario Party with a bunch of people. Your weird parasocial relationships are not a replacement for in person human connection and they never will be.

perhaps it is your social circle that is failing, friend.
Lol. LMAO, even.
 
Not really. Gaming becoming more inaccessible just means it's easier for people to ignore and turn away from gaming. Then, these passion projects will inevitably fail. When there's no audience, passion doesn't pay off. Few and far between are the passion project makers who don't want a decent audience.
Good games will always find an audience. Mass marketed slop can wither away as the peons find something else to do, I don't care. in fact, this is the preferable alternative.

Gaming has survived worse, bring on the inaccessibility if it means we can finally get some good games.
 
Gamers are eating good right now and even that's a fucking problem. Fuck this pessimistic negative cycle and let me play my goddamned video games, journoscum.
 
March 10, 2012 to be precise. That was the date when a bunch of people, myself included, got to the end of Mass Effect 3 and saw what was waiting for them. It was the first major internet-enabled gamer revolt that broke containment, and we got to see the playbook get run for the first time.

Particularly egregious was the dialog shilling the DLC after the devs shat on my favorite sci-fi ip. I can’t find a pic at present, but EA has had 13 years to sweep that.

Edit: I FOUND IT. GPT was useful for once

Imagine playing through probably 100 hours of game over 3 installments, costing $150, and you loving pretty much every second of it until about 2 hours from the end, when it starts pissing and shitting on everything it previously built up. After it all goes to hell, the last thing the game showed you was this:
Ver archivo adjunto 7978871

Translation: Yeah, we ruined your favorite video game franchise, now buy more slop, goy.
I was there, Disdainer, when the strength of AAA failed...
the media gaslighting
The amount of "how dare you feel they should rewrite the ending" shit I remember seeing was off the fucking charts. The media was screaming that it was art and that we plebs shouldn't question it and should be thankful for the steaming pile of hot shit we were forced to look at.
 
And let us not forget whom I refer to, with utter disdain, as Space Slut:
Ver archivo adjunto 7978446
How fitting that the character was a journalist.
The only thingm I remembered about her were her BattleTits™ and her being played by Jessica Chobot, who probably did a quid pro quo for BioWare for a rave review or something.
 
well some of those arent good. The whole Halo series is a joke and its funny that Halo 2 couldnt even get clsoe to the top 5 fps in 2004
Lmao Halo 2 was an Xbox exclusive and it was still the second best selling game of 2004 only beat by San Andreas because that game was available on Xbox PS2 and PC and it is widely regarded as one of the best sequels of all time. Starwars battlefront is the only other shooter in the top 10 sellers of that year as well.
 
Lmao Halo 2 was an Xbox exclusive and it was still the second best selling game of 2004 only beat by San Andreas because that game was available on Xbox PS2 and PC and it is widely regarded as one of the best sequels of all time. Starwars battlefront is the only other shooter in the top 10 sellers of that year as well.
Actually, the game was ported to PC. It was a very interesting port, to say the least, but it existed.
 
The amount of "how dare you feel they should rewrite the ending" shit I remember seeing was off the fucking charts. The media was screaming that it was art and that we plebs shouldn't question it and should be thankful for the steaming pile of hot shit we were forced to look at.
The real sin about that whole situation was Gamers not burning shit down starting with 2 turning into a shitty cover shooter and Abandoning everything that made the first one interesting in terms of both gameplay and story.

Mass Effect 1 Ending : "Lets work to end the Reaper Threat!"
Mass Effect 2 Start : "LMAO FUCK NO, you work for our Mary Sue Illusive Man now bitch"
Mass Effect 2 Ending : "REAPER BABY ABORTION TIME!"
 
I personally had no problem with Shepherd dying a noble death to save the galaxy
Neither do I. I have a problem with shitty writing and poor plot construction though.

Im not going to launch into a spergfit over all the little inconsistencies, lazy hamfisted plot contrivances, character retcons, the poor world building or how the game ultimately fails to live up to the promise of what came before, as that time of my life is over. I will however point out that you have terrible taste
 
Seriously, some of the greatest games of all time were made by teams of less than 100 people on a shoe string budget in comparison to today's ridiculous game development costs. Halo 2? 70-80 people with a budget of 40M. Bioshock? 80-90 people with a budget estimated to be 80-100M as the figures were never released. Psychonauts? 42 people and a budget of 11.5M. And these days the idiots spend hundreds of millions and hire 1000+ people to make a generic overdone piece of shit no one wanted or asked for that fails miserably and they NEVER LEARN.

The modern videogame industry is a shining example of CEOs all being sociopaths with no emotion or passion who only care about statistics and profit margins. If you don't understand or care about your products then they're always going to be shit and these fools will never be able to understand that.
I'm not going to deny I enjoy some of the games with huge teams that come out as I'm really looking forward to Battlefield 6 and GTA 6. But to me 100 developers sounds like a good ceiling. With that head count, a creative lead to know each member of the team. And even the most junior member could at least occasionally ask the creative lead a question about their vision for the game without having to go through layers of bureaucracy.

Gamers are eating good right now and even that's a fucking problem. Fuck this pessimistic negative cycle and let me play my goddamned video games, journoscum.
I don't think I'm 'eating good' at all right now. While I'm happy that indie developers are able to easily publish their games on Steam, I'm not interested in the glut of 2D roguelikes, metroidvanias, etc. Where's the glut of immersive sims, for instance?
 
Atrás
Top Abajo