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.