What a misleading title. Actively developed live games that started more than six years ago is not the insinuation that this title suggests. People aren't spending 60% of their gaming time playing 6+ year old content.
I think the title is accurate to what the article says. Obviously GTA V and Fortnite have changed in 6 years, but they are the same basic game engine and same basic game as 6 years ago. They haven't released anything they want to call GTA 6 or Fortnite 2.
I don’t think the contention is that the title is wrong. I think the contention is that the conclusion you draw is wrong. The implication of people playing games released more than six years ago is that the game is over and done. Live service games with regular releases do not fit the traditional definition of a game release so it is difficult to compare the player base of Half-Life 2, CS:GO, LoL, Borderlands 3, and Fortnite. A huge playerbase for an offline game with no updates is a big deal. A huge playerbase for an online game with regular updates just doesn’t seem like a proper comparison.
In fact, in 2023, five old games—Fortnite, Roblox, League of Legends, Minecraft, and GTA V—accounted for 27% of all playtime in the year.
This is pretty much what we expected. Games are not like movies where everyone has to watch the latest ones. People play what they like, which is usually dominated by a few highly successful games.
I don't know about the others, but Roblox and Minecraft have environments that are designed for infinite replayability. It's like being amazed that kids are still playing with Lincoln Logs or Legos.
Hopefully it will inspire the game industry to finally start releasing some new good triple A games again, instead of milking existing franchises with half baked content, subscriptions and micro payments..
We vote with our wallet,
and currently we're voting well with not buying into the crap they often pump out lately, and the statistics reflect that.
Not saying all new games are bad though, I'm thoroughly enjoying Horizon Forbidden West on PC lately.
But to me it does feel like the game industry has been dwindeling the past few years.
I assume due to venture capitalists who are not really passionate about creating good content, but more about turning a quick profit.
I assume due to venture capitalists who are not really passionate about creating good content, but more about turning a quick profit.
Remember, it’s not just good enough that the line goes up. The line must also go up at a faster rate than previous months at all times or you’re a failure.
Hopefully it will inspire the game industry to finally start releasing some new good triple A games again, instead of milking existing franchises with half baked content, subscriptions and micro payments…
I'm afraid it will inspired them to release more half-assed remasters. I hope I'm wrong.
Yeah, I play games based on whether I like them, not when they came out. Probably the majority of my Steam library is games older than 6 years, even 10 years for quite a few.
To succeed, Little Timmy needs to do the exact opposite of the super-profitable Valve Software company. Much to his surprise, it's been the opposite of profitable.
Okay, I was really irritated there at first, reading the headline as "60% of games are for six-year-olds and older" and I went "yeah, no shit, Sherlock"... Glad it was my fault. I'm posting this so whoever is embarrassed because they just did a dumb-dumb or remembered that one dumb-dumb they did that one time may laugh at my dumb ass and feel better about themselves.