Articles

Market saturation

If you're all ears online, you can come across some fairly interesting content from people, dare to say “marketing research material”, that's beneficial for devs or anyone wanting to invest in gaming. Putting aside the fact that content creators are already capitalizing on Highguard’s launch of a disaster (linked here), but more importantly, seeing this insightful video about Steam releases of the first week of 2026 (linked here). Clearly showcasing that saturation mainly exists in volume, not in genre or quality; you are competing for time (taste if we look closer), regardless of the size of your game or the market segment you're hoping to target. Which is to say that you can analyze the market to bits, but that’s not the sole driving force in an industry that’s supposed to be creative.

This issue is more apparent when we talk about the underlying issues of the industry at bulk: The stacking of mechanics for example (as mentioned a lot of times already in previous articles). Let’s take how FPS games work: Technically there's nothing more you can do with them, apart from a few incremental adjustments. From a technical aspect, most functions like gameplay, controls, movement have already been covered through the decades. That's why it's difficult to make a competitive shooter (say Highguard), as everyone can just default to the oldies like CS2 if they wanted to scratch that itch (because these days you need that differentiator to pull people in); asking Why would anyone play that instead? Partially that's why Highguard is struggling (as you can shoot in it, but much like hundreds of other games before). Design limits aside, it only caters to those who’re perfectly content with that level of entertainment; which is a very narrow segment of the (much larger theoretical) market. This isn't unique to mechanics, it's in the design as well, like UI because there's only so many ways to convey certain information on screen.

The analogy is that gaming is as if book publishers suddenly wanted to compete with using different fonts, non-standard sizes, fancy 3D artwork on covers, and odd blocking for paragraphs and other gimmicks, instead of focusing on what mattered the most, the guts of the book: the story itself.

However, adding more story, or lore for the sake of it won't fix this issue if the underlying structure is flawed, as the fundamental problem comes from this inorganic, binary view of life that everything has to have a materialistic presence & purpose, and nothing can exist beyond our understanding; that's why organizing and labeling is so important for these types of people and is a massive oversight in gaming.

Like it or not, art has nothing to do with boundaries. Which is why you end up with most cars looking the same but with different coatings (simplifying it for the sake of the argument, excluding safety laws which are very much important and should be in place).

Exhibit A

A practical example would be the project under my supervision (for which the fundraising “campaign” is ongoing, if we can call networking on LinkedIn that). For starters, the setting already has an underlying tone that's a reflection of solo devs’ life, the hardships and isolation that comes with it (represented in a fantasy world with dwarves, caves; which is sort of a “happy” accident, long story,but the goal here is to shed a new light on them as well, from a different perspective, not the old dogma, so the opportunity presented itself) which drives the design, mixed with influences from the real world (like politics, historical events).

Second of all, and this is where the magic happens, the goal isn't to “kill that boss” (although there would be plenty of points-of-interests) or grind 100.000 claws. Not quite. The goal is for you to get lost in the world and forget everything. That's only possible if you design it that way (from a technical and design point) and emphasize interactions over trivial mechanics: You chat with people, find out more about them and yourself (changing your view of your actions in game, and hopefully in real life as well if it touches you, as the core of the narrative centers about knowing more of the people as mentioned, focusing on culture and spiritualism), you interact with them and the world around you, seeing the consequences of your and their actions as well. The focus is on the atmosphere that comes from these interconnected systems and relationships, otherwise not really measurable in numbers; this is where it gets abstract and often confusing for people to understand.

Don't get this wrong, this is incredibly difficult to pull off (requires great execution in all the disciplines and years of practice), otherwise it just defaults to a standard quest in WOW or any other MMORPG where it sort of becomes an obstruction for raiding.

Meaning, on one hand comes from care from the player, after the game managed to spark that very specific tone players so desperately desired; that essentially can be called the hook, buzz word in the business. The talking points mentioned in a previous post (subject matter, intonation, language, etc.) are missing in gaming at large to make this happen. It is foolish to expect that “saving someone from harm’s” or “chatting about love interests” can make a conversation or spark attention; too shallow a way of thinking.

One can quantify it as much as they want (doing this or explaining that), missing the point of what all of this is about: To have a soul, which comes from the amalgamation of all the ingredients, not the individual pieces lobbed together. More specifically the information, the message one wishes to convey, and how they're achieving that: That is the classic “show don't tell” approach. Not everything needs to be on the nose “look how angry I am”, or driven by numbers “he’s over 9000” as it sucks your imagination and interpretation dry from an otherwise beautiful equation; in the end it gets sterile on top of the poor subject material and execution. This is then further exacerbated by the disconnect between player actions and scripted events, design of the interface, controls, movement, AI, animation, etc.

Subtle differences, to further elaborate on what makes interactions memorable, are notoriously hard to pin down as they require a lot to come together. An example would be that in movies the shot (where the camera and the subject is), the background and foreground, the props, the lighting, the subject matter (say closeup on actor to show expression), pacing (both for action and camera movement), the scene itself (what is going to happen), who plays the role and how they look (as film heavily relies on visual, although sound is more important than that), how good is the wardrobe, the makeup, the emotional power of the scene (are we crying or talking to someone), and everything else not mentioned.

One can construct it mechanically, but always ending up close enough yet far away to make great films (games in this case), if one doesn’t have the right mindset on what to look for and how to express themselves other than what they’ve learnt in a book (or in most cases saw examples of in popular media and made it their own). Experimentation and breaking down barriers is what this is all about; supposed to be anyway.

Link to Summary presentation

Thesis statement: Video games and entertainment at large have no real cultural impact (going beyond fandom), are made on conveyor belts en masse and do not provide fulfillment beyond the superficial that only lasts as long as the experience. In the age of consumer empowerment, the rise of the conscious customer, this is unacceptable and actions must be taken to meet the new demands of the market; otherwise continue the downfall of the industry.

Note: We are examining this subject from the Problem, Customer and Brand angle, leaving Demo out as this is a pre-seed venture; although some materials do exist, say in the form of a prototype.

#1 What's wrong with video games, why is that a problem and why investing in the right place matters? [PROBLEM]

#1.1 The rise of the the conscious consumer

This has been a challenge for Marketing for the past decades as consumer habits radically transformed, as they became more selective and conscious with their decisions; also more difficult to reach via traditional advertising and psychological methods. The average percentage of tertiary education mapped onto the entire population world-wide has risen above 43% in 2024 according to the World Bank’s data (link to source); in some countries this percentage is even higher than 50%.

This increase of development in education has brought a new wave of challenges for advertising at large, as appealing to emotions to be transferable to actions are yielding ever more diminishing returns: People simply look past the old methods, which is why influencers and content creators are rising to the top. This trend is further compounded if we include the wide spread of knowledge and regulations available for the customer in this digital age: Every major purchase now is exceeded by extensive research, or the very least the word-of-mouth of others or trustworthy sources. And because gaming is a form of luxury goods, dismissing this new reality resulted in catastrophic failures on loss of returns and immediate studio closers.

This becomes an apparent issue as higher education usually forces, on one hand, the requirements for entertainment to rise up for the new challenge. If it's not met, then there's a higher chance of leaving it behind or passing it entirely; having to fail to have a grip on retention is a direct consequence of this trend.

Societal norms also shifted the past decades, as once again openness and progress has given a moment to breathe: From the freedom of expression, to acknowledging neglected groups of society, to advancement in education, technology, lawmaking and societal norms. To meet this new demand, an entirely different approach is needed within the gaming industry and entertainment as a whole; discussed further under the “Brand” section of the article.

#1.2 Entertainment and beyond 

The fundamental problem comes from understanding the source and function of entertainment: According to the Cambridge Dictionary, in this context, it refers to “amuse” and/or “think about”. Technically an activity for people to take back something in return whilst “participating”; whatever form it may take.

Similar to most things in life, entertainment is not a static phenomenon, rather an ever changing environment: Representative of a person’s ever current taste and state of mind. So what happens if the supply of such remains linear? Can come the issue of not finding the right option in order to relax, to entertain oneself. Sometimes this is represented in “growing up” and leaving certain aspects of life behind, whilst chasing new things on the horizon; Children love the sweet taste of things, however, growing older has the effect of seeking out more spicy adventures.

Which brings us to the problem of not being able to find something that satisfies this new wave of consumers. Generally, when this matter is brought up, the first thing that usually is to blame has nothing to do with quality or merit, rather the person themselves; often questioning their mental state such as being under depression. There’s this false assumption, rather vocal and outspoken among gamers, that if and if there’s this feeling that games no longer provide enough satisfaction, then the issue must be with the person in question and only them, not necessarily gaming as a whole; trends and predatory (monetary) exploitations are part of this narrative as well (as those force certain ill-design decisions such as creating inconvenience in favor of monetary resolvements).

This dismissive approach is not just detrimental, because it mostly assumes that the issue can only be one sided (often with a person’s mentality, rather than the product), but also forces people into submission by “recommending” methods to cope; like taking a break and going for a walk. But when everything is of the same flavor, or barely differentiated from one another, lacking substance for deeper engagement, then Why are we blaming those who want something different? Why the false accusations when people see what's possible yet missing? That is why supply in video games is nowhere near close to what traditional media has achieved, in terms of taste, quality and sophistication all in one bundle; certainly not in mainstream gaming that is.

And this affects those who’re looking for something but cannot find their “fix” (especially those with higher forms of needs, opposed to the cheap): It creates this uneasy environment, which affects one’s mental and physical health (mild cases can vary from anxiety, to digestive problems, all the way up to more serious clinical states like reflux, stomach ulcer or in extreme cases cancer; as long term stress has been documented to be clinically damaging to the body down to the cellular level, as we are constantly bombarded with anxiety inducing issues on a daily basis), in the process of not being able to find something suitable to fulfill their desire. It is an innate mechanism we all have, as we all seek to enjoy the gift that was given to us at birth, and as such demand to enjoy what little time we have. This is especially true in this day of age where time is a valuable commodity and everything is fighting for the consumer’s attention.

Unfortunately, gaming has not yet “risen up for the challenge” (as it was discussed in previous articles), as it is yet to reach those who wish to get more from games other than cheap thrills; which demand is rising as consumers are more educated than ever. That approach only works for the young in age (not exclusively limited to), but as time moves on, an increasing number of people are looking elsewhere, for more intellectually stimulating experiences; often opposing the corporate treadmill. Which lack of decent entertainment is becoming prevalent in large consumer catalogs such as Netflix's; because for some, finding a suitable movie is out of the question.

This vacuum becomes more pronounced with age, as recognition of patterns, gimmicks and tricks are revealed, and it becomes more challenging to find something new and inspiring. This is a major problem in mainstream gaming, in entertainment as a whole as well, because the more “abstract” a product is, the more effort it requires to produce, which is something studios and large corporations tend to neglect in favor of the cheap (primarily due to effort vs. returns); because aiming to entertain adolescence is more accessible when they don’t have the knowledge of how things work in life, haven’t seen all the tricks, thus they’re easier to manipulate (which also creates another problem of forcing them into this cycle of low effort and inadequate teaching). There are plenty more left of the table, which is why breakout games like Dispatch occurs.

Then there’s the issue with time: Video game publishers always tout that when pitching (especially calculating projected revenues) one should never compare their project in the league of similar AAA or viral success stories; as long as the means to compete aren't there. This assumption falls short when we look at the fact that all games are competing for the consumer's time (as mentioned before), whether it is accepted or not. That is why it is also crucial to keep that in mind when making games and taking care of that notorious issue with quality and execution. And as any time a game is forced to compete, a player will not hesitate to skip something if they see no value in trying.

That is why the goal here is to address this, be mindful of the possibilities and apply a much needed relief to a wound that has been left unattained for decades; as far as gaming is concerned.

#2 What are we building here and who’s it for? [CUSTOMER]

Adding to the previously explained customer profiles, providing transferable experiences in a changing environment is critical, especially if that is leading the future of progress. It is achievable by addressing the following:

• Recognition of the missing themes, merit, quality, etc.

• Addressing and adjusting target age group (e.g. taste/requirements) starting from beyond adolescence (although not exclusive)

• Subject matter and merit reaching beyond the superficial (take literature as an example)

• Execution and quality reaching above the mediocre, in sophistication, style and approach

• Reaching Social Impact that transcends beyond gaming (cultural significance, which does not equal to fandom, like cosplaying, rather reaches beyond to become of historical significance)

Sophistication is not solely originating from reaching higher education, but is a catalyst in today's society: It drives consumer habits and opens up new possibilities previously deemed not profitable; or was locked behind bars to gatekeep.

While gaming is viewed as a form of art, however, it is yet to achieve a status other forms of creative endeavors have achieved before: To become “fine art” in certain situations, a driving force for cultural significance and remembrance. This is important as it drives engagement and builds up “brand” recognition among its users.

The future is in these valuable experiences that have the power to transform the world around us. The scale might vary, but the purpose does not, as intellectual fulfillment is becoming the center piece on the stage.

The venture, independent from individual targets for IPs (even then not necessarily inclusive to those), aims to capitalize on this new trend that is more inclusive (as half of gamers are women, link to source by ESA), respects inclusivity (even outside of current gaming, to encourage them to join), and shifts the paradigm of the industry to better suit the current state of the market (which all considered is an irreversible trend). Age, sexual identity, social status or nationality does not play a role, as the experiences aimed at people are universal to human nature; opposed to the cultural niche that gaming is today.

Impactful experiences come from the variety of the spectrum of building blocks. Limiting those is the source of the issue that must be avoided. Suffice to say that this is a reference to artisan expression, subject matter and execution without the limits of the current economics of the industry. It is not a measurement of the cheap and the bland, aiming for the broadest, general audience possible; art and entertainment is highly dependent on personal taste after all. There is a reason why shifting to this new paradigm doesn’t come by simply following the above noted instructions, as a portion of the success hinges on reaching a certain threshold in quality and merit.

#3 Why this venture? [BRAND]

“One can clean their mouth with their hands or by using a towel,”

There’s this clear differentiator for sophistication that separates the two experiences mentioned in the above example. Neither is necessarily deemed good or right (some are defined within culture or personal preferences), however one is preferred over the other when refinement is a measurement of etiquette.

The viability of the solution (for the above mentioned Problem) comes from a number of factors:

• Technical limitations are no longer the bottleneck for gaming (generally speaking, within reasonable limits), and as a consequence artistic expression no longer is bound by the limits of early computing.

• Due to advancement in technology, there’s a clear diminishing return on progress: There’s a theoretical limit which prevents the continuous making of giant leaps that drove the industry for decades.

• Stacking mechanics and graphics no longer the source of awe, as now those have become expected and a standard across platforms; technical innovation is no longer a selling point (to a fair degree).

• Changes in demographics, the widening of the audience has already reached a tipping point: Players are searching for more. Catering to decades of legacy driven incentives is hindering progress and an industry wide gating mechanism is not helping that.

• Aforementioned change in the composition of the global society has reached an all time high, ready to be explored.

• Recurring breakout hits further reinforce the need for change, as the industry cannot deliver value en masse.

• The industry is currently in another massive reset, partially due to unsustainability (due to post Covid recession and continuous failures in high profile circles).

• Innovation is kept minimal, devoid of risk-taking, so does the flow of capital into the industry; mostly high profile studios can leverage additional resources.

• Games are more accessible than ever, thanks to the internet, social media and influencers.

• More and more gamers have voiced their opinions about the state of the industry, moreso the products that are being delivered (too early, broken and filled with micro-transactions).

• The ill-corporate mindset solely focuses on the same, risk avert investments, creating clones, remakes or reboots. Something gamers also argue about.

• There's a gap within gaming that's yet to be filled, to be the next step in evolution for gaming: to reach cultural relevance (fandom does not count as it is niche if projected onto society).

• Due to advancement in ease of access for making games, there's a growing need to create value and soul, as the market, such as Steam saw 20k releases in 2025.

• More and more outliers are popping up but don’t have the resources to make a difference.

The brand’s gaming arm is set to focus on the aforementioned “next step” for video games, reaching cultural relevance by making impactful products that transcend the boundaries of gaming. The gap exists, and hasn't been filled in, due to a number of factors such as:

• Requires a blend of artistic and technical mindset and everything in-between and beyond. In an industry that's mostly tech driven (“man-handled”), this sort of change is inconceivable.

• Multitude of disciplines are required as a precursor for such operations; rarity among developers to have them all (especially lifetime in the making), even more rare to be in key decision positions.

• Difficult and time consuming to create value at scale, which is why entertainment tends to fall back on the cheap.

• Different, non-binary mindset/execution is required (gaming is too technically rigid), has to originate from a more creative source as changing the thought process does not change the core of the mechanisms that drive the system.

• Gating mechanisms prevent meaningful progress (both financial and personnel), and change from outside rarely occurs (due to the costs involved).

• This level of artisan approach is alien for gaming for the most part.

• Gaming has been stuck in its own “cultural ghetto”, unable to grow past whilst focusing on action and leaving out everything else the world has to offer (often leaving themes and experiences on the table). Hence the failure of reaching cultural significance and the labeling from the general public of “solely enjoyable by kids”.

• Aiming for cultural impact hasn't been a priority, nor acknowledged of its importance.

• Certain design philosophies are driving mainstream gaming (often toxic masculinity).

• Sophistication of this magnitude is yet to arrive, and certain “gravitas” is lacking from productions (seriousness for themes and execution).

• Operational and cultural structures are broken and not suitable for these kinds of ventures.

• An entire new foundation for making games is required: The rise of the sole author, as historically speaking, games were the product of cooperative work, often losing identity in the process; which is now blending in the abundance of the cheap.

• Above all, comes the mindset that drives all of this that's unique to those in favor of traditional art. There's also a good reason why western animation is yet to be taken as seriously, as to say its Japan counterpart.

• Quality often lacks in certain departments where greatest impact could be achieved (such as the narrative), solely because it is not prioritized from the general, technical mindset.

• Teaching, or creating experiences that create discourses are not prioritized.

Then there are the factors that come from the personal experience and knowledge of the founder’s, that started outside of gaming and ended up there; essentially encompassing the entire arsenal required to make games (through personal hand-crafting as a solo developer) and more (like business or marketing). This unique blend of experience is used as a driving force for their seemingly endless artisan desires and high bar for taste.

Standing apart was always the staple of the founder’s work (partially comes from a different way of thinking), often daring to embark on projects nobody else would: Being experimental, realistic and staying true to their vision, often turning seemingly dull experiences into something worth exploring; as their sole belief lies in that good narratives come from good execution no matter the source (as what matters is the angle of approach and the delicate touch of sensibility). This unique approach also comes from a lifetime of experience and the many skills acquired or honed from the earliest of ages, giving them ample time to adjust and find their voice; this also includes facing the challenges and inherent circumstances that life presented and continue to do so.

The “value” in gaming for players is often restrained to tangible aspects of design as previously discussed (mechanics and graphics), however, the key differentiator comes in the form of meaning and narration, the story that is being told; the human side of things. That is what moves people, especially under these market conditions and industry maturity in technical execution, which is something also an uncomfortable truth many in the field do not wish to face or admit; or put the blame on something else for repeated failures.

The most striking difference is that very few developers would dare to tackle or be interested in turning deeper subjects into games such as the horrors of the Holocaust; using it as an extreme example, as subjects such as poverty, neglect, everyday life, and so forth, are also part of this. Generally for the reasoning that those are (deemed) uninteresting or way too serious for gaming; or have no place because of their “inherent” lack of value for entertainment (the amusing, thrill seeking kind that is assumed games can only have). The same can be said for the founder’s approach to creation, which originates from traditional techniques from literature, and is more focused on other aspects of enjoyment (opposed to pure action).

This industry wide isolation also played a factor in defining the outlines of the brand, making sure it occupies all spaces necessary, to provide a refuge for those who seek different experiences, as well as be a beacon of hope and a force to bring gaming to the next level: It is as important to game good games as to be beneficial for the industry and the world in the long term.

The Brand is there to define and forever change how people view gaming: It is there to show and be a staple of value that games can be much more than what society thinks and that they can provide an ever-lasting fulfillment for everyone involved. That is as much of a cause to fight for as to keep creativity and artisan expression alive.

If you look around the video game industry, chances are you heard people saying the following:

• Funding from conception is dead 

• You can’t do anything with an idea 

• You need traction and a good MVP to get anywhere 

Creative industry or not, it’s rather dismissive to lump every notion of a new project into the same category of “The idealistic fool” without thinking or asking questions about its merit to exist.

Bob isn’t your rich uncle from the US

Much like the notion of “Social Impact” (discussed in this previous article), there’s this repulsive stigma against startups that mostly exist on paper or in very early stages like a prototype (certainly not meeting the strict requirements of a vertical slice or MVP). However, the question we should be asking instead would be, Why are we talking about this in such a way that implies the nature of nepotism and easy going? Carelessness, in the sense that if you’ve the connections then uncle Bob will give you anything you want, regardless if it's a good or bad idea: Essentially saying “No need to prove anything for me, my sweet child,” That way of thinking stems from the incorrect assumption of what a “concept stage startup” actually means.

To put it bluntly, the case cannot be further from the truth, as this fairy tale does not exist at all (apart from the very few you hear, from a friend of a friend’s, from the circle of a millionaire’s seen in a movie from the 90s). Expecting zero due diligence when money is involved, usually a lot of it, just reeks of incompetence and ignorance from those who outright oppose the notion of pre-seed ventures (the notorious part of going from 0 to 1); which is the focus of this article.

Start from the top: So what is conviction?

In the world of venture capital, pre-seed is the birth-ground-of-it-all, because everything needs to start from somewhere. However, this fertile soil has an inherent, glaring aspect to it: Often there’s nothing to show as businesses have reached not a single milestone. So if there isn’t a product, or the first lines never been written down, then How can someone want to invest in what’s essential just an idea? (not existing on paper) The answer is conviction: The belief of the founders’ that they will deliver and carry on with the business far into the future; not some backroom project for the weekend. And that requires a lot of due diligence to get enough information about; to convince the right cause of all of this.

The power of belief is twofold:

• First it establishes the baseline of dedication towards an investor, who asks questions such as: “How much are they willing to sacrifice?” “What is the limit?” “How long have they been dreaming about this” and so forth. The importance of this lies in the fact of separating the dream from the impulse. Which in turn have far reaching implications.

• Second of all, it draws a clear line behind personalities apt for business: Ones who can solve issues and can handle the immense stress and personal sacrifices needed to run a startup. Which entirely hinges on their immediate performance (as there’s nothing else the venture can rely upon at that point, like previous income from sales) in navigating between perils and running the shop up to specs. If these aren’t aligned, then better not to spend anything at all.

So as you can see, those are very important when judging the viability of a business, because ideas and products aside, the people are the driving force of any operation; without them nothing happens really. And if they can’t do it, then all will fall apart; that’s why certain ventures fail as founders exit the first moment they realize they’re not the ones cut out for the job (or fall victim to internal struggles within the team).

Creativity and business (has to go hand in hand)

In the world of venture capital, ideas exist, but not on a napkin, rather in a well defined document called “a business plan”. Usually it is there to define all aspects of a business, way before spending anything or laying down the first brick. It usually includes a lot of things, such as key aspects like:

•  Executive summary

•  Business description

•  Management and organization strategy

•  Market research

•  Product and services

•  Competitive analysis

•  Operating plan

•  Financial plans and projections

•  And the list goes on and on if needed

Ideally it is a document that can be 50-60 pages or more, well into the hundreds if it’s required. When money is involved you don’t skim on the details, as everyone wants to know everything, right down to the tiniest of screws, to make sure that $500 million investment goes to the right place; just imagine how stingy banks are when asked for loans for your next car to be purchased (they require a lot of paperwork prior often driving you nuts if you’re not in the exact position to be in).

Essentially saying that “impact assessment” is a major part of these business plans, where the future owners lay down the foundations, assess all aspects of operation (and the effects for the future), all of which must be evidence based or not exist at all (rendering the business invalid); obviously, we must exclude impulse driven investments, as these aren’t part of this discussion, like chasing the latest hot commodity on the market.

It also has to be said that making games, well any creative venture comes with the caveat of needing to think business at one point, if aiming for commercial success is on the list. That means that similar efforts and care has to go into planning the “ugly” part of the equation (the business part that is) as much as making it (the art part); one cannot exist without the other. 

The irrational-rationale

Different stages of venture capital (from pre-seed, to seed, series A to whatever else, at later stages) bring their own level of anxiety; some are more, while others are lesser. However, the further down we go, the “easier” it becomes; solely based on the concept of prior work, because at later periods in time, a mature business have a lot more at their disposal to rely on and say “we’ve proof that your money is save with us”. This translates to the fact that in the earliest of stages a lot is on the line, and founders are usually on the edge of insanity: Because they want to make their business come alive, as well as most terrified (if circumstances don’t align and they’ve to ask for external help) for not succeeding; which puts a lot of pressure on them. 

Consequently saying that when someone wishes to tackle this whole “wanting to make games” (or any other type of venture, regardless the industry), then there’s a good chance (if they’ve all the data to back it up, and have the right mentality) that they’re not bluffing: Which is something very different from someone writing down an idea on paper, opposed to be someone with full dedication and plans to make it so. Missing that kind of chance is just a slap in the face of progress, all that should encompass what creativity is all about: The freedom of expression, where the soul of it all originates from. If that’s not present, then you end up with products that are made on a conveyor belt; which sort of summarizes the state of the industry at large.

What about viability?

There’s this false assumption that you can only test a project if it’s in a state of near completion; where this craze for MVP or traction comes from (generalizing here, because in some cases hard investment returns demand such an approach). But if we look back at some of the Kickstarter campaigns of the ages, we’ll find that some of the time there wasn’t anything but a few pretty pictures, maybe some gifs or some video footage somewhere in the background; certainly not something people could put their hands on right away to see it for themselves. 

Just think of how Star Citizen made its rounds: There was no demo people could play, it was purely “sold on the base of an idea of a concept of a game”; which is still under development with no end in sight. That just proves that due diligence had nothing to do with the success of the game, nor did the developers themselves do their share of work in judging how much it will cost and how long it will take. If Chris Robers were to have gone to a publisher, he would’ve been laughed at in the face straight away (with what he had at the time, and what he hoped to achieve).

All in all, it is a matter of approach and care, because if you look behind the curtain, there are plenty of methods to assess, the check if that particular idea is good enough to tackle or not. Some parts of it rely on the intangible (like taste), while others are measurable by the senses. It has to be said that you never solely rely on any of these, but in conjunction with one another, to create this web of interconnecting solutions that mitigate the risks to a tolerable level; zero is unattainable, only occurs at the stage of an MVP (which is why it’s preferred these days, a guaranteed return on investments).

• Developer knowledge: Expertise as well as experience from previous releases is crucial for making judgements of what could be or not. It is however not the hammer that makes the final call. It is a tool to assess the capabilities of how it would and should come together. As those with this in hand know that certain decisions can lead to certain outcomes. Prior knowledge also helps in seeing what others cannot (speaking of the average person who has no developer experience; and fears when they see something mid progress); think of it knowing what colors you’d get if you mix blue and red together.

• Other forms of media: A handy tool to test certain parts of the concept for the fraction of the time and money. This can range to board games, to comics, short films, mockups and test scenes, and so forth. Even the act of asking someone, like an artist, to scribble up a concept can turn the tides.

• Social media and discussion forums: Interacting and acquiring data from the future target audience is key. This doesn’t necessarily mean that one has to show the game or the concept to them (or to discuss), but be an active participant within, to see what their tastes are and their needs. Noting that matching those 100% usually ends up in the category of “I’ve seen this”, as interest usually goes towards that is new (and not experienced before, hence the novelty cannot be constructed just like that).

• Social presence: In this day of age, devs must have an account on most prominent spaces, in order to have a chance of discovery. Which perfectly presents the opportunity to show your project to the world, and get real feedback on it. This can be Facebook, Reddit, Youtube, TikTok, or whatever you can imagine, as long as you can reach anyone within your target audience.

• Prototyping and vigorous testing: Another fantastic tool is to simply test some of the features in reality (actually playing it). There’s no better way to hammer out the inconsistency that arrives from the unknown. If it doesn’t work in that phase, then it’s guaranteed to fail by the end (with a lot of polish).

• Market research: Knowing your audience is one thing, but how is everyone else doing is another. Not for the sake of copying, but to understand the stage you’re hoping to participate in. Highlighting the fact that this is important, much like any subject you learn in your life, that first you need to understand the basics in order to deviate from them later if deemed fit (in the name of progress, because rules are meant to be broken, and only act as a guidance when starting out)

• Product, execution and a lot of questions: If something is not clear, then a question should be asked (from the source of the idea) that how XY would be implemented. That can give anyone a better understanding of their skills, abilities and plans for the future. If they cannot answer those or with not great clarity then there’s a chance of failure.

• Game design document (the thorough kind): It stems from the understanding of laying down everything prior, to avoid instances of scope creep, and to know the boundaries of the venture. That includes everything from art to mechanics, to plans for marketing.

• Team assessment & discourses: More eyes on the project, means different angles of the same thing. Simple team discussions from you to the old (in development space) can also help decide the validity of a project.

There’s probably more on the side of ideation, or perhaps experimentation, but hoping that these gave you a quick overview of how one can test the viability of “just” an idea, way before spending a lot of money on something that wouldn’t work; so next time if someone say “ideas” cannot be tested, you can easily contradict them with a lot of examples. If someone were to apply all of those, then when arriving at a conclusion would come at a much greater ease; essentially limiting the risks involved. Again, you can never eliminate all uncertainty, but you can definitely tackle the unknown if you choose so. It’s just way harder than betting on something that’s already winning.

In a way it is appalling to have this discussion, as the industry just simply doesn’t care about any of this. Not because it should, but because of the abundance and position key decision makers are in: They’re controlling the supply, and as such have the power to do whatever they desire.

 How come there's all this noise about the Future Of Video Games yet we rarely see anything but the familiar? It would be all too simple to just point fingers at legacy driven incentives, which is a dominant force within the industry, however, a less known factor is also at play: Authorship, more specifically the source of it.

Money can't buy this

Will be using a famous example from Hollywood in the form of movie production: Take a look at the difference in execution between how New Line Cinema and Amazon Prime Video did their version of movie magic (referring here to J.R.R. Tolkien's work, in the form of the Lord Of The Rings (LOTR) and Rings Of Power TV show): One awed while the other left fans cold. But it's not like either of those productions didn't have the necessary resources to make something marketable; in fact Amazon even had more at their disposal (speaking of the first season), as the original LOTR movies were made for around $280 million while Amazon's for around $1 billion for 2 seasons; so comparatively Rings Of Power had even more money to spend (if we don't count acquiring the rights for the IP for around $250 million).

Thus one can ask the obvious question, Where did all that money go?

Japanese traditional woodblock printing

This might seem like a sharp turn, a segue into something completely unrelated, but it'll make more sense in just a moment.

There's this famous traditional print-maker named David Bull (as in the field of hand carving), a Canadian living in Asakusa (in Tokyo, Japan), and have been making woodblock prints for decades now (you can read more about them on www.woodblock.com). In a way he's responsible for spreading the word more, sort of revitalizing (in a way) an already dying profession within Western communities; as they were responsible for some of the most thought out art pieces in recent memory (like their reproduction of the famous The Great Wave off Kanagawa, or their Ukiyo-e Heroes series).

However, due to the decaying nature of the craft (the entire ecosystem is on its last leg from supply chain issues for quality paper, to labor shortage in carvers and printers, to loss of knowledge on how to make good prints and tools), also Mr. Bull often notes the difference between their expertise and the ones from the old days.

The difference, as they usually point it out in one of their streams on Twitch (yes, you heard it right, they're in their 70s and still streaming their work online, especially to preserve for future generations) is that they never “officially” learned their craft (they weren't an apprentice, although were given insights, lectures here and there from professionals when he nagged them enough), and most of what they know was acquired through trial and error and researching ancient techniques (the printing business over there was very isolated at the time).

This also led to saying, showing examples of how it is supposed to look like if prints were made by traditional craftsmen. Suffice to say that Mr. Bull’s expertise is also very high in quality, however, as they said, they cannot ever begin to compete with someone (from back in the old days) who carved woodblocks all day and night from a very young age; it was their only identity and purpose in life (so to speak). That's why, some of the line work, at closer inspection, are almost impossible to replicate in such fine detail (not just microscopical, but flow, technique and taste), unless someone has the knowledge and vigorous mechanical training of a lifetime.

This story is a bit of an extreme example, but it perfectly showcases the issue with Amazon's approach: In fact highlights the problem as to why gaming has been stuck in a rut, and why Social Impact is something that's not going to happen industry wide if we don't act upon it with a careful approach.

Money can't buy talent (and taste)

With all the money in the world, the issue with Rings Of Power came from the simple fact that the underlying foundation for the production just wasn't there. It wasn't that they didn't hire talented people, or didn't have enough money to pay them; far from it as we discussed. The crux of the issue came in the form of Tolkien's body of work: More specifically the time it took to get there.

In order to reach levels of Social Impact (the future gaming should be aiming for), the source material has to be genuine, and must come from a source of “authorship” (the experiences and skills of a person, may that be in one cohesive form like a complete story, or an impulse to create something with one’s already existing skill-set & taste). Tolkien spent decades working on his stories, several more honing their skills (say in linguistics), while Amazon only gave a budget and a time-frame to essentially create a franchise out of thin air; there were no prior cohesive works for the series they could just simply adapt to screen (in the form of published books), rather they pieced together their own version as best they could.

And this is the biggest reason why gaming hasn't moved a bit since the arrival of decent graphics and mechanics: There's just no real room for expansion anymore, as progress is now rather incremental, opposed to giant leaps that would’ve fueled sales further on. And for this the industry is as much as responsible as a whole, as individuals “directing” it. Change henceforth will be much more horizontal than vertical, as we are approaching this theoretical limit of technicality.

Imprint on the market

By gating the industry for far too long, even in the advent of easier production tools and methodologies, the video game industry failed to open up for creatives to find their way into AAA: To this day, major productions are mostly driven by profit, legacy practices and perceived value (chasing numbers and metrics, and everything in between), opposed to opening it up to artists. What's worse is that the latter you cannot buy nor replicate faithfully, as you simply cannot mimic one’s upbringing at a board meeting; that comes from age, experience and differentiating circumstances.

That is the de facto reason why the corporate approach never works as it's putting all their money in the wrong basket, leaving a distaste by the end for the consumer. The issue isn't with capital, rather the way it's used: To this day there aren't institutional funnels finding the next generation of talent; people who come from all sorts of backgrounds all wanting to tell their story. As a result, uniqueness quickly falls apart, if the source is mostly driven by wages and the same cultural and institutional heritage video games currently have. That is the reason why incentives such as having a Social Impact bears more weight, as it not just aims to create an entirely new line of products, but seeks to establish a new system underneath it, to fuel future generations to come.

That is the secret sauce, and also the reason why it hasn't been done at scale before: It requires an entirely different mindset as well as greater efforts in establishing it (and the loss of gating mechanisms). And it's not that aiming for Social Impact (as written in this previous article) is something intangible, not measurable in Return On Investment. Take the UN’s Playing for the planet’s alliance initiative and their latest scientific findings that gaming and higher concepts (Social Impact) can and will materialize in the world for example (linked here).

The only downside to this is that because of the decades of this one dimensional flow, a significant trust needs to be earned, alongside processes laid down, to prevent the industry to default back to its original state: As while the beauty of Social Impact comes from reaching new heights and a larger audience (beyond adolescence), not providing continuously the means for it to thrive (the actual position for breakthroughs to happen, going from 0 to 1) is setting it up for failure if key decision-makers do not favor this approach; hard to imagine they'll ever do on their own.

Watershed moment

While the power for this initiative to change for the better has the momentum to break through barriers, albeit with hesitation of falling back on itself, it's worth to note that even one breakthrough can be enough of a catalyst for others (from the outside) to join: Sort of how capital sees an opportunity (when proving viability at a sufficient enough scale) and tries to gain an advantage early on. In this case that could only happen securely if the first breakout were to also establish (some time in the near future) a blueprint of preserving and celebrating “authorship” of the individual. Without the means to show how to raise or bring to spotlight the future of the industry, it's a lost cause, in a world where innovation is eclipsed by mindless copycats and doers (without the part that would make most sense, the thinking that is).

Good games comes from good writing (more like the attitude that comes with it)

Writing is often something brushed off as banal, only the act of writing down thoughts, dialogue and settings, or getting from A to B. Far from that. It is a tool mastered through decades of experience of the world, where a collection of numerous disciplines collide in favor of one grand purpose: to entertain. But what does this have to do with gaming, which is an audio-visual form of media. A lot actually.

You see, writing (the mentality) comes from the innate desire to create, to express one’s self and imagination. But that, much like everything in life, comes at a price of learning and refinement; and as the imaginary often have connections to audio-visual experiences from the past, the gap between literature and gaming becomes that more narrow, overlapping more like.

Good writing comes from good observation, practice, experimentation and pushing of boundaries; as much as experiences and circumstances of the individual. If those all, yes all of those, aren't present, then the outcome will potentially suffer as a result. Unfortunately, a multidisciplinary background, the interest in all the things in life, is a hard requirement for this to work (not limited to writing), because: Good dialogue comes from flow, pacing and relatability (to the subject and the words spoken), action comes from the “cinematic” where shots and scenes are laid out in three dimensions and usually follow certain conventions (akin to cinema, which can be studied, although rules are always there to be broken) to convey space and meaning as well as be a vehicle for events, then good personalities come from the observation of psychology and human behavior, relationships that move the world around, and so forth. Think of it as an interconnected web, where one has to know how music is made in order to write about it well; if you don't know what the dance moves are, what kind of emotions they provoke whilst practicing them, then the final result will be a pale comparison opposed to the real deal (that's why you can often tell if a story is written by someone close relatable to the subject, often showing details that only “insiders” know about, because sharing something from the outside is different from within).

Even the knowledge of how cars works, or pottery is made, or how to webpages, and so forth, are all contributors to the final picture (you never know what and how something can influence the outcome, even an life-altering event or a discussion can make a huge difference), that makes up this whole persona of the “author”; speaking of broad terms where someone genuinely believes and acts upon from innate desire, not for the sake of becoming someone important for the history books to remember (in this case the selfish desire to quench one’s thirst must come first before the aim for commercial success, although the latter is helpful to avoid starvation).

That is why, in a nutshell, it is vital to think of making games as an organic system, opposed to a stacking of individual parts and hoping for the best. Meaningful progress will never come otherwise, just this sterile increase in the mechanical; a far cry from the true craft of art (gaming supposed to be). This is also the reason why investors should approach this with an open mindset, as discussed in the previous article. 

The moment there’s an agenda that sounds like something originating from a press release from the United Nations’ or some rich millionaire’s dream wanting to end world hunger or cure cancer, interest chills quickly as those are usually deemed a waste of time and money, often too difficult and bothersome to spend efforts on; even if the scope is more localized, like solving segregation in rural communities, or abolishing detrimental traditions. However, the question remains: Are mission driven causes a dead canary in the mines or there’s more to it that meets the eye?

In the name of the farmers’

From an investment point-of-view, anything that isn’t clear straight away (in terms of Return Of Investments, also known as ROI) are a massive red flag to any worthy individual or entity (Liquidity Provider, LP) when it comes to funding. The more diluted the pitch about any given venture, the greater the risk becomes of losing interest from potential business partners. This can of course vary to some degree, based on the experience or operating field of any given LPs, but generally is a strong deterrent, because of the “unknown” nature of such ambitions.

Picture this: You read the news about farmers quitting, you see the protests opposing large supermarkets and their practices (pushing predatory prices to kill their competition, which are small sales or markets), you experience the value & price proposition in your own food to decline that regular produces taste nothing, not healthy or not ethically sourced (by any stretch of the imagination), leaving you dissatisfied by the end. Which then slowly pushes you to the edge of action as you come to your senses, if it is something that you are sensible of, then you might think: We need to do something about this before it's too late! The recognition of such patterns is just the very beginning of a long and arduous process, what isn’t how we approach fixing it if we take matters into our own hands; as great matters of life usually don’t correct themselves on their own, rather, we must go out of our ways to act upon.

Going on from the example above, if some thinks that they need to save the future of the small farmer’s, fixing the issues within their own community that these occurrences are a direct result of (such as rise of unemployment, domestic violence, etc., which can devastate rural communities), they will be immediately hit with the reality of reaching out for support, as LPs would look at this and say: Individuals vs. Well Oiled Machines. There’s no way in hell that anyone would prefer the first option, because small farmers don’t have the distribution network, the logistics to ship on scale, the force to bring in masses, and the stability to provide on time 24/7 (as crops can fail due to a poor season, animals can die of sudden diseases or outbreaks, and so forth; which all can be mitigated if you’ve hundreds of suppliers, which you also “almost” directly control). While LPs may say it’s an honorable cause, they'd also prefer not to lose money on their investments, because of the inherited risks of such proposals. But what if there’s more to this than just seeing inefficiency and out-of-touch reality?

This argument about wastage changes fairly quickly if we look at the broad picture as well as dive a bit deeper of current market trends and micro economics:

• Consumer habits have drastically changed the past decades or so as people are no longer blindly trusting a product or brand, and have become more educated and aware of what they choose to consume or to buy; they go online, read reviews, look at recommendations from trusted sources, ask on about a forum, and so forth (which is also something gamers do before buying anything, hence come the role of influencers). This is why labels such as “organic” or “ethically sourced” (say for eggs) came to be to oppose not just the issues with health and quality (and the handling of livestock) but to bring a form of change for the future (say environmental or economical).

• Modernization and organization of a typical farmer’s market has the ability to revitalize a dying community, drive (associated) businesses, investments and future generations (and educational institutes, such as tertiary diplomas in agricultural science related fields), albeit in incremental steps: As quality first brings in the “innovators” (from the 5 Adopter Category used in marketing, saying earliest of people who take swing at things), then as word spreads other farmers join, which then drives the market’s expansion (which effects the local municipal’s income, drives local tools and hardware sales for the gear used at the market and on fields, and so forth) and builds up trust and source of stable income, which then can drive career paths and investments within those areas (either from loans from banks, or grants from the government). All in all, resulting in an increasingly profitable ecosystem if handled well because of the cascading effect it can have.

• Money usually flows where money is. That is to say that if the market starts to become profitable once again, it could drive other crafts into the same venue as well; say a baker suddenly starts to sell their produce as they see a good cause to participate. Which effect than could drive interest outside of the local community (in the form of commuters or regional buyers).

Does this mean that there wouldn’t be any challenges to overcome? Definitely not, however, it is also worth to note, that seemingly the concept of revitalizing and as such saving local farmers can and should worth some investor’s time; if they’re equipped to look more into the future and not bog down on quick returns, which is the bulk of today’s sentiment. All of this resulting in greater returns in the long term.

But what does this have to do with gaming?

The way we operate

If someone were to look around gaming these days, they’d see the following:

• Massive layoffs to no end

• Studio closers

• Failed launches and flops

• Union busting and poor working conditions (like crunching)

• Drying out resources

• Lack of innovation

• Race to the bottom in terms of wages, studio & industry culture

• General ignorance to the state of it all from the industry

These are the symptoms of an industry that is far from being healthy, and mostly operated by greed, and decades of ill practices (both business and community); often resulting in lasting traumas. Which in turn drives this almost cyclic round of events that money usually follows and quickly drops if expectations do not meet reality; causing a large portion of it to crash, as there’s nothing to dampen these fluctuations. Causing recurring disruptions, such as the current “hard reset”, which equally affects everyone in the industry (either indirect or direct, and exacerbates industry consolidation leading to be more prone for disruptions as the market & industry crashes each time), which further cements the notion that working in the video game industry is akin to winning the lottery whilst being in the gallows; stability is almost non-existent, a difficult reality many has to face and suffer if they choose to work in this field. All could be banished into the past “simply” by introducing a common goal, a mission to drive positive change and actually act upon it with greater force than what previously was attempted; almost sounds all too good to be true.

The power that comes from directives, such as making games that have a Social Impact (as described in this previous article: [LINK]), isn’t just measurable in direct sales, but in secondary effects on the industry itself, which can become apparent in: improving working conditions, increase of income stability (driving education and further investments, and in opening of new studios), preservation of knowledge & talent for future developers (by keeping institutional knowledge more intact), and the increase of perception of quality (as gamers see the increasing decay of AAA) and overall opinion of the industry (from players and from society in general). That is why, using cars as an illustrative example, it’s useful to have decent suspension, because if you drive all day long on dirt roads with lots of potholes, chances are that sooner or later you are going to damage your spine (from all the hard impacts on the chassis).

The Dark Matter

There is this mysterious phenomenon in astronomy that’s called “Dark Matter”; a form of gravitational force we yet to fully understand. It’s powerful enough to seemingly dampen the expansion of the universe; which is continuously expanding. Without it, we’d live in a different universe, a much darker one (literally).

This same force is almost as powerful as what’s motivating players today: value proposition, often in the form of lasting entertainment. Which often translates to experiences that last, by going beyond the frivolous (above a certain age where pure emotional impact no longer suffices). Its importance lies in the fact that this mindset drives communities and sales. If we look around we see countless examples of this, the latest one being the release of Splitgate 2. It had a staggering $100 million investment at its disposal, yet failed to deliver on all fronts, and now is limping with minimal community support (which is an issue when the game is built on live service and there's nobody to play against).

Failure is no longer measurable in “were those mechanics good enough” or “were those graphics top notch” (although many still argue that often a failed launch is due to inadequate advertising, which could be a contributing factor, but usually that’s not the sole reason, which also can be countered by a staged approach to getting the word out as soon as day 1 of development), rather in “did playing this worth my time by giving me the experience I’m seeking knowing or not”. That doesn’t come from the immediate, rather the hidden: “Was there something beyond a mindless activity that grabbed one’s attention?”, or “Was there something compelling that told a story worth telling”, etc. Key word here being “narrative”, the “story” that one can experience and make for themselves; something transformative and lasting.

Let the gates be open

Having a goal or a mission in an economy (an institutional force that’s driving game development in this context) such as this one, that was built on the structural, opposed to the artisan is a cause worth fighting for. The reason why gaming is still just a microcosm of general interest can also be traced back to the fact that games, the majority of it (let’s be honest here) are not made by artists, rather those who value the scientific approach; for better or worse.

In itself this wouldn’t be an issue, if the sentiment behind making games were to be freely available to all walks of life; not speaking of tools (as technically everyone these days can make a game), rather execution from the source of the artist in major productions. Apart from the very few, most of the time key decision-makers don’t necessarily come from the natural arts. Which is why we yet to see famous examples that are repeatedly told and expanded upon, as there isn’t room for such people in this environment to thrive; those games usually survive in the depths of indie budgets.

However, the key to progress, to achieve that desired goal of Social Impact, requires the break from this stigma in this industry; which is strongly upheld by its participants. Without it, we will never see talent rise to the top and creations that break away from the scientific (the rigid, the bland and the calculated) and venture into the unknown, the unfamiliar and the strange (collectively gating artisan expression).

Imagine if all art had this same, often clinical approach (of what makes fun, like “numbers going up” and participating in unglamorous and repetitive tasks), we’d be stuck in the stone ages. Because without innovation in the field of expression of the imaginary, we limit ourselves that lies ahead, and we’d never progress as a species. Gaming has long past the technical hurdles it once had, and now we must reconcile with the changing of times that perhaps maybe it’s time to give control to those who’d like to drive into a different state of being.

This all matters as such approaches, such thinking has already reached its limits: Games have stopped this seemingly endless trajectory of expansion and innovation sooner than expected and began to slow down already (which is apparent in plateauing revenues on PCs and consoles in general, and and also signaling a decrease in intentions for future investments), because when your target audience is mainly kids and young adults, there’s a limit to how quickly you can acquire them and for how long (at the rate of generational shifts and birth rates); often being driven by trends that the industry simply cannot predict (as adolescence often creates its own craze which then business tries to capitalize on).

Thus when someone sees a mission or a statement regarding a common goal, one should consider the consequences of such a directive not clear at first glance, because more often than not those are far greater and outweigh any risks that might arise from the observation of the immediate. People (usually) don’t want to change the world for the better on their own, unless they see no other way and feel compelled, or more importantly forced to act upon, fearing that change might not happen otherwise; something small and almost "insignificant" to ponder about for the future.

It’s like a Pavlovian response that’s driving the video game industry, because the moment someone mentions “merit”, “value” or “impact” eyes are being rolled and discussions are being neglected. But where does this deeply rooted phenomenon come from, what can we do about it and why is it so important to focus on henceforth?

Games are solely meant to be fun

There’s this common misconception that games can only be fun and nothing else, because the moment you inject something outside of this biosphere, all gets tainted and loses its original intent: To entertain. However, if we look a bit-more closer (specifically referring here to a description under “entertain” in a Cambridge dictionary), we find that “entertain” also carries the meaning of “think about” which translates to, and to quote “To hold in your mind or to be willing to consider or accept”.

The above is already something that pokes fun at this rigid statement of games solely equal to fun classification. The interesting part comes from how games already tried to bridge the gap by widening its perception and the themes used in gaming: Just think about titles that tackled emotionally expressive subjects, explored sorrow, hardship, or loss (but that’s just the beginning).

Another aspect is the driving force behind the developer side of things, because let’s be honest, for the longest, the majority of games came from the imaginary, not necessarily from the reflection of life itself (as a way of pure escapism, handpicking abstraction, not a manifestation of facing the truth); thus being lighthearted, or more often than not, an abstraction or a slice of a very specific aspect of living (like first person shooters on a “mission”, or fantasy characters playing a “role”). This approach, dare to say mentality, is something that also shaped the perception of gaming throughout the decades, and was the leading cause of labels from the public (who didn’t play games) such as “childplay” or “made for kids”.

However, as mentioned above, being entertained in a visceral way (focused on mostly action and short emotional bursts) isn’t the sole option when it comes to having fun; far from that. This is nothing new, as there are countless examples from the past (in cinema, literature, music or even traditional art like paintings or sculptures) that showed another aspect of intellectual fulfillment (another word not to be afraid of). And not just the sake of it, but to enrich and build upon the previous.

Gaming, for the majority of the time, was still too focused on the emotional impact, opposed to providing substance that can last longer; the situation is especially terrifying in the mobile space, where exploiting the psyche is the standard, to ensure highest profit margins (like using the fear of missing out). We see this time and time again, where say the narration, the story that each experience is trying to tell us, is often measured by this objective lens of number-crunching, where story equals hopping between physical locations (going from “A” to “B”) or the size of its spectacle; which is why Hollywood is filled with blockbusters all trying to destroy the universe, because there isn’t any higher stake than that (eerily reminiscent of the infamous scope creep).

Then there’s the aspect of repetitive exposure that drives isolation: Plenty of studies highlighted how people can shy away from facing certain aspects of life, say environmental or political issues (which often embodies in lack of taking action), when they’re constantly being bombarded with information; and more often than not those carry a negative connotation, so it’s natural that people want to protect themselves from harm, and would rather shove their heads into the ground (obviously, there are exceptions to this rule, because sometimes it can be a free choice of will not to partake).

All of this should not signal the end, far from it, because it is not impossible or even unheard of to break through this rigid system gaming has evolved in.

The changing of times

For the longest, gaming was viewed as an anomaly, a sub-culture often enjoyed by a niche group of people with a specific kind of taste (especially when it was new and very expensive); often people loved to call them “nerds” or other derogatory titles. And to be said, even just a few years ago, before the boom of accessibility (both in tools to make games, such as visual scripting, and the widening of the audience), the “Kingdom of Gaming” was held tight with egos the size of mountains, carefully gatekeeping and polishing their own armor of knighthood while the peasantry roamed free and enjoyed the blessings of their masters; still are but increasingly weakening.

However, the advancement in technology and production, going from text games to 2D, later 3D with increasingly better graphics and quality, meant that more games reached those who were skeptical of this whole thing with computers; so the demographics started to change at a rapid pace, which was also a key ingredient large corporations wanted to take advantage of (and they did just that).

This meant that arriving to today, games are a well known aspect of life, ranging from the young to the old; as the average age of players are 30 and above. What is surprising is how little the overall perception has changed, because still, the majority of games are stuck inside that bubble of comfort; for better or worse. It's no longer about serving niche interests, especially not catering to solely one gender (as half of gamers are women), but to cater to others’ as well as yours’; however that part is mostly neglected because of the nature of convenience, lack of intent, or any other hidden motivations (like character, as in personality traits or just access to funding/networking).

There’s this fundamental disconnect that innovation isn’t needed in this regard, and the same content pipeline of the ages could be utilized over and over without consequences. That it is only a matter of marketing, getting the reach of new players, that’s holding the industry back; that is the notorious discoverability (while it plays a role in today’s issues, not the sole contributor, far from it, but that has been pointed out by many before). That is why it’s most striking to see that while there were fundamental changes in the composition of the audience (from age, to gender, to social status), no industry wide efforts were seen to capitalize on this; beyond “using” the Hollywood method of focus group testing, essentially saying that making sure everything is as generalized as possible for widest of covering.

And this is where the crux of the problem lies: Imagine if books were only accessible for the niche and never evolved to something everyone can enjoy; providing the same five flavours under a different paint doesn’t translate to accessibility. And it’s not that games cannot provide to everyone’s flavor either, yet this aspect of design is poorly neglected. On one hand, the industry is in a rot because it failed to address the elephant in the room, that in order to mature as a whole, a different set of approach is needed for making games; not just creating more binary genres (mixing two or more existing together, or coming up with new schemes), rather to understand the needs of those who are left behind, and not (gate)keeping gaming from progress in the form of neglecting a much needed structural reset.

You see this in attempts to pivot, say to name an example, the creation of eco-conscious games (doing something to prevent ecological collapse, or experience the far future of total fallout as a warning), where people can address the issues modern day present; sort of providing escapism for those affected, or wanting to address their concerns in one way or another.

A larger audience comes with the caveat of catering to the uncomfortable realization that what has worked before, is not the end; hence the explosion of cozy games, because players want more. However, the trend is that none of this matters, as change in this realm will mostly come from outside of the industry; certainly not from a major player at the top (that’s the reason why gamers tout the coming of indie games, falsely, but that’s another topic for another time).

An acquired taste

To act upon and change the perception of the meaningful, we need to have a closer look on some of the aspects that created those barriers in the first place. Like tackling a sensitive topic, as in anything that someone doesn’t like to face head on, first needs to be understood where it came from. It could be:

• Innate. Certain people have certain preferences born with (some with great tolerance for neglect), which if not desired to be changed, could seal any attempt to removing it (if deemed necessary).

• Taught. Parenting, education, social stature or circumstances often can come with this perplexing outcome of pushing you away, opposed to embracing it all. Not just to oppose the status-quo (for the sake of it), but often the way, the unnatural demanding way alongside it (aka. You’ve to accept this whether you want it or can understand it).

• Experienced. Some of the time people can go through certain life events that could either end up in a form of trauma, or be strong enough to become a deterrent for life. This, in combination of the continuous bombardment of information, say from media outlets, can further reinforce the notion of keeping one’s self in a safe place.

All the above can perpetually keep the gates shut. So-o, How can we change that? Using the eco-anxiety as an example, it’s one thing to say that something doesn’t affect you, a whole other if we look at the greater picture. Most of the time people don’t care about the things they don’t have power over or feel the consequences on themselves. To a certain, selfish degree it is a universal truth, however, most of the time we feel it on ourselves, just not consciously. When weather becomes extreme, and houses are torn apart in countries not accustomed to, action is taken. But when prices go up due to drought, very little happens, yet it still affects everyone.

All of this doesn’t stop at the surface either: say domestic violence can shape culture and society, rendering social gatherings awkward, communications stilted, values shifted or any number of ill effects one can think of. It can also manifest in the psychological (depression, anxiety in mild cases and others), and ultimately causing physical illness from reflux (constant stomach ache) to others like cancer (as constant stress is a major contributor). Whether we like it or not, circling back to the bogeyman metaphor, some things in life exist beyond our bubble of influence and understanding, and shouldn’t be dismissed on the basis of unfamiliarity.

How can we act upon that? A good way would be to approach the entire problem of neglect from a different angle, almost always, direct confrontation will never lead to anywhere constructive; this is where creativity can shine. Believe it or not, everything comes down to execution once again: Easing the player in with a tasteful approach and showing instead of telling. You’d be surprised how quickly perceptions can change, if the issue isn’t tackled head on from the same direction it is being neglected; that’s why influencers have a powerful grip on people, because they’ve the power to break down those barriers, essentially offering zero resistance for new ideas to flourish (for better or worse). This is why, normally, it takes a lot of effort to change someone’s perception of a certain aspect of their life, because of the associated, often complex “relationships” that play a role in said formulated opinion.

The power in social impact

Similar to literature, consumed entertainment has the ability to change how we think, and has the strength to leave a lasting impression. Yet gaming positioned itself far away from any of that, demonizing any attempt changing it, partially because of the aforementioned knee-jerk response of the lackluster and not fun in this case, and for the very reasons that it is yet to happen at scale.

Why is this important anyway? Changing how we think, provoking critical thinking is key to a healthy life; especially avoiding the position of being cornered into something we don’t understand and need. Not just for the sake of being different, or appealing for a (seemingly) niche audience, but to tackle a deeper aspect of our everyday life: Solving problems and making decisions that benefit us (and hopefully others as well) should be a natural occurrence (to avoid manipulation). In this day of age, where information is increasingly orchestrated by a small group of circles, it is vital for anyone to stay relevant and up to date with how the world operates, what the underlying mechanisms are and how we can make sense of it. Because, most of the time people either don’t have the time and space, or lived a life of the “sheltered” where it didn’t become apparent what the striking issue was; that’s why, as an example, certain health conditions need external intervention, with the aid of a third party other than ourselves and close relatives.

The beauty of this is that social impact doesn’t necessarily need to be colossal, or “the ultimate” in order to have an effect; in fact so much so that it could be seamlessly integrated into almost anything. And once again, traditional forms of media already proved that this isn’t just a fairy tale and could work with fairly high efficiency. Why do you think children's literature exists in the first place? Classically, to not just entertain, but to teach, to warn, to enlight; technically that is the basis of all old stories and myths, not solely written for children, but to remind us of the past. All of these require very little effort, and mainly hinge on the intent to implement them. And it’s not that any of these need to be direct (“this is the moral of the story”), in fact could be and should be applied more nuanced, often in subtext: An alley depicting poverty, where people walk by and are ignored, up until a point where someone “special” comes in and helps them out (like bringing food, clothes, etc.) and they all have a chat along side; a gentle reminder that austerity doesn’t render people evil or monstrous universally, and that in fact personal circumstances are at play also, not just ignorance on their part.

This is the part that is missing from games, and holds the key for the future. Not another clone, or a remake, or a never-before-seen mix of two or more genres: it’s all about intent and value, and how we present them. A low hanging fruit ripe for the taking, but it seems that jumping on that boat is unacceptable, as the industry is perfectly fine with swimming in the swamp of ages and surviving on the ease of disposable content; at the expense of innovation and progress.

Having an impact also means that in the smallest of interactions in life, a great difference could be made, if we’re willing to go there. A kind gesture when needed, even just a restraint of keeping those boiling tensions locked, or willingness to listen to other’s opinions with more flexibility, are all positive signs of which impact is all about. And that is the reason why it is so damn important to focus on, especially in this day of age; not just the state of the world, but the increasing isolation we are facing as a species in the age of the internet.

Uncharted territory

A big part of exploration isn’t just to leave an impact, but to tackle subjects currently not present or mainstream in gaming: Could you imagine a game made about the Holocaust, or the horrible events happening in Ukraine, or tackling historical events well in the past about how Stonehenge was made, or bringing attention to everyday’s (life, marriage, work, etc.), or to show ideas, teach people, or explore everything else that’s out there? If not, then you should be. Because as much as those five flavours are sufficient, seemingly, breaking down boundaries and exploring the unknown is where the excitement begins and should be to focus on; that’s why breakout games in narratives hit so hard, as they oppose the status-que of the “action heavy”. Because we moved past the pursuit of tech, as we’ve reached a pivotal moment in history, where artisan expression should be reigning free.