The missing middle in game development
howtomarketagame.com
howtomarketagame.com
Cost of living.
The market is saturated. The market being saturated pushes it to be (even more) hit-oriented. 'Saturated' as in a sponge held at the bottom of a full bathtub. You can keep releasing more games but the people you want to buy them (let alone play them) aren't going to quit their second job to find the time to buy and try your weird little games.
This is not the middle. The author is talking about small games. It may be the middle of indie game development, but across the whole landscape, the "missing middle" would seem to refer to the "single-/double-A" studios/publishers/games that died out between the launch of the PS2 and the release of GTA IV.
id Software is an exception and makes a poor example to follow. Studying wild success stories is not without merit, but is -- if you are interested in how to do the thing successfully -- ultimately a trap. id was (among other things) in the right place at the right time. There is very little opportunity today for any team (let alone individual person) to push the boundaries of the technology in a meaningful way. You cannot make a game as radical and captivating as DOOM was. You will not attract players to your (now generic) platformer by getting it to run at 60Hz. You might say there was very little opportunity for any individual to do so back then as well, but then we are back at exceptions being bad examples.
Which is why game mechanic and gameplay is where the boundaries are, not computational efficiency or photorealism (or even, artistic direction or production value).
I imagine that prior to Jonathan Blow's indie hit "Braid", people were also imagining that the technological ceiling has been hit and an individual (or small team) cannot compete with the AAA studios.
I'm not entirely sure what your point about Braid is. An individual or a small team could not compete with triple-A studios in 2008. Anyone thinking that then was right.
I wonder how much this will last. On the other hand, maybe the point is not selling the game to people who see the ad, but merely to use them to prop up download numbers.
Mainly because, at least for mobile game ads, the quality of the fake gameplay video is technically achievable by my device. But the major problem is that the ads often show a much more fun and interesting game, mechanics and graphics…
Everyone knew the images on the box weren't real, that seems an odd thing to complain about.
The point of the article is to find success at smaller levels before aiming higher.
However, you're right that good-looking screenshots sell, but that's just good art and not exclusively AAA art.
The article has plenty of current examples of developers doing this on Steam now that are not at all outliers or an exception. For another concrete example you have something like Chilla's Art https://store.steampowered.com/search/?developer=Chilla%27s%.... Two japanese developers who have been releasing games for 5 years very consistently and have slowly built up their audience while also increasing their skills as developers. They also have a Patreon, which is a model that works nicely, with another more known example of it being Sokpop https://sokpop.co/. And for all their consistent work they're now getting rewarded pretty nicely for it, without having had a single insanely huge hit as far as I can tell. You can find plenty of examples of devs like this, doing it and succeeding on Steam, right now. Calling all of them exceptions sounds like a poor excuse.
>You will not attract players to your (now generic) platformer by getting it to run at 60Hz.
Yes, you need to be creative in the creative profession and come up with good ideas. That comes with the territory. If you aren't very creative then you should probably consider doing something else.
It also was framed heavily around John Romero and id, which is what I was talking about in that paragraph.
> Calling all of them exceptions sounds like a poor excuse.
I'd probably agree, but I'm not sure who is calling all of them exceptions or what doing so would be an excuse for.
The excuse is basically most replies in this thread, yours included. They all take the shape of "yea, but this idea is wrong because [the market is saturated/the issue is discoverability/no one wants to buy your little games/you're better off at a normal job] and so on. All of these are defeatist mindsets that people use as an excuse to not try, and they also happen to be wrong, as the examples shown in the article as well as the ones I posted show.
>It also was framed heavily around John Romero and id, which is what I was talking about in that paragraph.
The article clearly uses id as an example of a broader point and ends the post by bridging into the present situation. Talking about what people should do in the present, which you did, while ignoring present evidence and focusing only on the past sounds like poor thinking, doesn't it?
>You will not attract players to your (now generic) platformer
>but the people you want to buy them (let alone play them) aren't going [...] to buy and try your weird little games.
>The market is saturated. The market being saturated pushes it to be (even more) hit-oriented.
These are the things you said. I'm simply saying they're all wrong and there's plenty of evidence, in the present, right now, as to why they're wrong, as I mentioned in my previous reply. Consider the last one, "the market is satured and it pushes it to be more hit-oriented". I posted an example of a small indie team consistently releasing games and succeeding without having had any super huge hits. You don't have to reply anymore if you don't want to, it's just that you posted things that are wrong, and I felt the need to correct them.
...those aren't the things he said. If you published those as quotes, you'd be deservedly fired for intentionally clipping context (the rest of the sentence) that radically changed the meaning of the quote.
You really don't see a difference between "You will not attract players to your (now generic) platformer" and "You will not attract players to your (now generic) platformer by getting it to run at 60 Hz"?
>There is very little opportunity today for any team (let alone individual person) to push the boundaries of the technology in a meaningful way.
This is what he said. The post is about succeeding in the market as an indie developer, so pushing the boundaries of technology is not very relevant, as that's not the only way to succeed with making indie games.
>You cannot make a game as radical and captivating as DOOM was.
OK, maybe true, maybe false, still irrelevant as succeeding in the market today doesn't require DOOM-level success.
>You will not attract players to your (now generic) platformer by getting it to run at 60Hz.
Again, irrelevant, because the post is about succeeding in the market, and there are multiple ways to succeed in the market, most of which do not involve technological boundary pushing.
Do you now see my point or not? The issue in contention is that he is fixating on the example of id in the past to make factual statements about reality today ("There is very little opportunity today for any team") without looking at the current market and the evidence that exists in it to the contrary. He makes multiple such wrong statements, which I quoted in the post you replied to.
Today, bugs and QA issues are sort of "fixable" by online patches. And as for the perception of it being a fad, I think Nintendo showed the market a few years later in 1985 that there was still room for consoles.
EDIT: I remember a few years ago we were talking about the "indiepocalypse", but that didn't really seem to have nowhere near the same impact.
Checkout the demoscene.
An example of a megahit that started as a tech demo was Teardown [1]. It features a fully destructible world running on a custom game engine created by one guy. It succeeded because of the technical "wow" factor.
> This is not the middle. The author is talking about small games.
Exactly what I thought reading this article. It’s very hard to stand out and it’ll only get harder. Tools are much better than before, and now AI generation is entering the ring. Being an exceptional game is half the problem, the other half is getting noticed. Which takes money, or connections. Usually both.
Two additional points.
1. Good interaction design is still hard. Making something that many people can play and understand quickly is a skill. Releasing lots of content is the best way to learn.
2. Back in the Newgrounds days it was really simple to put something out there and get feedback on it quickly. Ads were (generally) not woven into games directly, the Flash tools were simpler and they limited game scope. Itch.io is ok for this but has a lot of downloadable stuff. I miss the days where browser games were huge but I guess there’s no money in it anymore. Maybe someone with better insight can share.
> So why is it so bad now that games earned $10,000 when 30 years ago it was the norm? Because now there is a slim chance to become super rich because of the indie-utopia.
Which is an utter misdiagnosis of the problem. $10k 30 years ago was a decent chunk of an annual salary which included amenities like living indoors. $10k now is, in the bay area, 1 month's salary if you wish to live indoors.
> A “middle game” should only take 1 to 9 months to create and can be profitable (or at least not a money sink) because it is expected to earn in the range of $10,000 to $40,000.
$53k/year isn't a great salary, but $120k/year is common outside of big tech and especially in games.
It's also a lot better than working unpaid for 4 years on a game that fails to capture any attention (or sales).
The point is releasing games as a stepping stone from new studio to large projects. How much would a founder earn at a self-funded startup in the first year anyway? $0?
However, very true that it would be foolish to live in the Bay area when not earning a Bay salary.
To be fair, the author specifically listed their definition in the opening:
>These are games that are bigger and more polished than a game jam game but are not huge, 30 hour epic triple-I indie game. A “middle game” should only take 1 to 9 months to create and can be profitable (or at least not a money sink) because it is expected to earn in the range of $10,000 to $40,000.
if you don't agree with the definition, then of course the rest of the arguments run hollow. But this was an article aimed at existing (or soon to be) small indie developers, not consumers nor AAA developers.
>here is very little opportunity today for any team (let alone individual person) to push the boundaries of the technology in a meaningful way.
Sure there are. But you aren't making a game at that point, nor should try to sell a game on that premise. maybe a tech demo, but that can still be a multi-year venture depedning on the tech. Consumers don't care.
People who do that sell tools to other devs who may make games based off that, and that's probably a more profitable venture than indie devlopment.
I’m almost 2 months into a project which essentially boils down to an iteration of Asteroids & have a demo up on Steam, but while I’m really pleased with it so far, I’d be surprised if the game even makes $1,000 at this stage, let alone $10,000. I’d be very happy with the latter though as I’m treating this very much as a learning experience, not the least in terms of getting my head around the marketing & community building side of things.
I’ve also worked on a game which I’d consider to be a “modest success” that took 2-3 years with a friend & sold enough copies for my share to so far pay (almost) £24k/year, which as others have mentioned isn’t exactly a competitive salary for a software developer generally.
In particular, while I can probably build small games in the 2-3 month timeframes suggested (especially if each is an iteration on the last), don’t forget all the “marketing admin” & trailer making & so forth. That’s also definitely not enough time to build enough wishlists to get any Steam visibility etc.
Still, definitely timely food for thought for me personally!
Not quality of output. Not speed of output - as long as that's above a minimum.
But marketing effectiveness. Which is closely related to marketing spend.
DOOM was dropped into an ecosystem of PC magazines and BBSs and almost sold itself - literally with the shareware release. It had almost no obvious competitors. There was some ad spend, but not a huge amount.
Today there are thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of small/medium games available across multiple platforms. Even for an exceptional game, getting traction in the market is far harder than it used to be.
Meanwhile the AAAs have a budget for carpet bomb marketing. Skyrim spent around $15m, which is an insane sum.
Marketing effectiveness is not closely related to marketing spend on the Steam market for indie games. You can't buy your way to the front page of Steam. Either your game is good and people buy it, play it and share it, or it isn't and then the algorithm will not promote it. There are many things you can and should do to try to nudge the algorithm your way, but by far the best is having a genuinely good game. If the game's quality isn't good you'll mostly be wasting money if you try to approach it with the marketing mindset you have.
>Even for an exceptional game, getting traction in the market is far harder than it used to be.
It's actually easier than ever because very few games are exceptional, as has always been the case. The offering of exceptional released games doesn't increase just because the total number of released games does. If there suddenly was an AI tool that let anyone finish a game very easily, you still wouldn't get a significant increase in exceptional released games because there aren't that many exceptionally creative people in the world.
Then you have the ability to affect things through off-platform marketing. If you make use of that to find success the organic discovery on Steam compounds the result.
A good game is table stakes though and good relates significantly to the market segment your game is in. Understanding that is also part of marketing the game.
I would disagree with this, you can absolutely buy your way to the front page of Steam if you know what you’re doing. On Steam, everyone’s front page is different so it’s perhaps not as obvious as hitting the front page of HN though and it’s in the interests of Steam & most successful indies to paint a narrative of purely organic growth leading to great success.
You don’t necessarily have to have an “exceptional game” but you do need to know your audience, what they like & how to reach them. Even then, once you’ve got that stuff down, you don’t just build it & hope they’ll come via the Steam algorithm. That’ll only really help you once you’re over a certain tipping point & it’s getting to that tipping point where the judicial use of a sensible marketing budget will make all the difference.
Bringing it back to the points raised in the article, it’s very much the believe that “all you need to do is make an exceptional game” that causes indie developers to sink years into a single make-or-break game which almost certainly won’t recoup its development costs.
Maybe in 2D, but I still doubt it. Quality animations that stick out are still a hard problem to solve and many tools that tried to solve that problem back in the day (Flash, Spline, etc.) don't suffice these days. If you can emulate the look and feel of a hand drawn animation without requiring 1 year+ from your artists to produce content, there's an entry point.
For 3D is absolutely isn't true. Or at least, it is only true in that 99%+ of indies struggle to even achieve AA scales of graphic in a timely matter, or with a small enough team. There's plenty of room for efficiency here if you want to pursue that (but yes, that efficiency will itself require years of work on not-directly-games).
Studios still use Flash (now called Adobe Animate) to create great looking art very quickly. I think Massive Monster used Flash for Cult of the Lamb. Klei still uses this process:
https://youtu.be/8_KBjd0iaCU?si=J1jL6fXVkvkXjWy_
But it definitely requires skill and drawing many frames: just not as many as flipbook animation.
Like, I understand that $120,000 isn't a lot for a team of 3 Americans. But that's a pretty good amount of money in Poland, Brazil, or Vietnam. So why don't we see these "missing middle" games coming from those places?
Sure, American publishers aren't interested in writing small checks... But what about Chinese or Indian publishers?
Poland actually had CD Projekt Red, but Cyberpunk 2077 from that studio was perhaps one of the greatest dumpster fire releases of the current decade. Don’t know about India, but a lot of Chinese development is gacha-based with limited western appeal. (It also does not help that the CCP censors are not particularly fond of video games.)
That may have been its critical reception but the game was wildly profitable for CDPR: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/04/17/cyberpunk-...
I think gamers keep expecting groundbreaking games, but there's only so much "new" most games come up with. The really creative games are made by Nintendo I feel like, every other one is once in a blue moon from different studios.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P99qJGrPNLs
I still watch that thing sometimes because it was so good. I think people reacted to the potential of the ideas put forth in that trailer.
in hindsight, I'm pretty sure that video was used to gauge interest before they started building the game, but for many of us it was a sign of what could be. And I think a large part of the response to Cyberpunk's release was what it wasn't.
Is this really true?
My understanding is that the best selling mobile games in the US and EU are largely from Chinese developers and Chinese studios and Chinese publishers.
Mid-range stuff has not really come ouy of China. The only game that comes to mind by Chinese indies is My Time at Portia, which had alright gameplay but was noted for janky localization.
Mihoyo is a juggernaut at this point, which speaks to the worldwide appeal of Chinese game dev but absolutely precludes them from the "mid-range" category, lol.
Microtransactions are frowned upon on Steam, yet we try to consider the two markets as the same group, even though "console/pc" gamers constantly avoid this mechanism.
Didn't blizzard taught us something with Diablo Immortal?
yeah, that it's insanely profitable to make a mobile game with a popular IP. I heard it made on the order of $500m in its first year despite the bad PR. But that doesn't really apply to most games; if you have a valuable IP you can get away with a lot of monetization schemes or simply lack of quality (Pokemon) that would crater most other studios.
I agree with your point but more for the fact of formats rather than monetization. Making a continually updating mobile game is basically untenable for a single developer, but the norm in mobile. So making a game that can target the mobile market properly is an impossible goal from the outset for a small indie team. At least in America (I'm sure some small chinese teams can pull this off given their CoL). Your best bet is keeping a mobile build of a premium game working on the side to make a future port easier to do. Won't make as much money but it is relatively easy side income if you have a successful PC/console game.
I've never been to Brazil myself, but someone said that an iPhone is $3000 USD in Brazil, so I wouldn't blindly assume that $120k is super amazing to developers there.
Also, I quickly googled and found something that resembles an family house and it is very expensive at $280k[0]. I could very well be googling incorrectly so HN Brazilians can hopefully add some context.
[0] https://www.realtor.com/international/br/alameda-ezequiel-ma...
This house is definitely way up in the upper range. It's not where a middle class developer would live. I just sold a couple flats in a big city there (60m2 / 80m2) and made around 80k.
But don’t get me wrong, software developers do incredibly well there compared to the rest of the population. But income inequality is off the charts, so you have people earning nothing and also those million dollar houses that few can afford. An engineer working for an USA company remotely could probably rent it.
The wealthy that were software engineers founded startups and became CEOs.
(Yes Silicon Valley salaries seem ridiculous but cost living is jaw dropping)
According to this inflation calculator[1], $40k in 1986 is equivalent to $112k today.
Am I understanding that right?
A reasonably competent developer could make at least twice that in salary, with far less risk. So that's not really profitable, once you remember opportunity cost (and especially if you risk-adjust it).
The ones that take a few days can be a weekend project. The longer projects you'd be hoping become huge, and very profitable.
You'd most likely be working on a small portion of a bigger game at a salaried job, without really being able to accumulate the needed skillset to jump into a larger game developed on your own terms.
The problem the article is addressing (I think) is that this reality does not seem to inform the popularly held beliefs and expectations of (inexperienced?) indie game developers, and the effects of that.
Reality doesn't inform a lot of creative endeavors. Writing some tech book (or really books more broadly) is almost certainly some way below minimum wage task from a financial perspective unless it makes your company notice you more, it brings you clients, etc.
Doing those mid-level games is arguably equivalent to taking a low-paid internship.
The hypothetical three year game made by an indie team expecting to make $300,000 is still going to be earning far below a normal software salary.
How long ago was that though? I started professionally in games in 2004 getting paid £16k/pa living in Dundee making J2ME games then moved over to another company making a UE3 title after six months going up to 19k/pa. I also had an offer for 21k/pa working for EA Chertsey but didn't fancy moving there!
I hope base salary has gone up by quite a bit in the UK since then!
2014. My salary has gone way up since then as I moved up the "ranks", but I know that company pays £25-28k to juniors straight out of uni nowadays.
A half decade before you, I also started at a big studio writing C++ (but with one degree) and was paid more twice that but in Canadian dollars (65k CAD). You're right that it pays lower than other programming jobs: Silicon Valley starting salaries were around 80k USD.
What some successful devs seems to do is make a "mid game" Early Access prototype, learn as they go, and if it seems to work, grow it into a bigger game.
I really like this approach, as its like having your cake and eating it. The dev gets an "excuse" for barebones features in a release and free alpha testing. Escape bridges are not burnt. The game builds up a following and a small revenue stream. And then it gets a free 2nd launch, with all the algo/pr benefits of a full launch, at any arbitrary date, which is impossible for non-EA games.
Early access is, at least for me, starting to a signal of poor quality. Certainly when the EA release is barely beyond a tech demo.
https://gamalytic.com/blog/steam-revenue-infographic
But reading between the lines I think it’s driven by porn and visual novels
Unless you're doing a very unusual city builder I guess.
To be honest, "erotic city builder" is such a novel concept that now I want someone to tackle it.
12,653 games were released on Steam in 2022[1]. I don't even want to know how many are released on Android/iOS. This is not 1992 where you need a assembly wizard to even make a game, and while the author tried to address this, the fact that any middle game will almost certainly be crowded out seems like an unavoidable elephant in the room.
eBay and Amazon sellers have a trick for this: listing zillions of variations or combinations. Not sure if game devs already figured that out. Probably some of them did because 12k looks a lot.
I think straight up relisting would be harder on Steam, at least at this point in time. It's not quite to the point where there is so much sludge that Valve staff can't even handle community reports.
Note that their chart doesn’t seem to show most game types.I presume this is because they do much worse. If I do a quick check for games since 2022, games with sexual content made a median of $1.6k whereas non sex games made $296.
If we use their advice to only check games that cost at least $10: sex games make $17k and non sex games make $11k. So maybe not so bad. Most of these games are selling about a thousand copies it seems.
Of the games released since 2022 that made at least 10k (4260 games) only A third were sex and dating sim games
> is there really all that much demand for the size of game advocated for?
Yes, people do buy and play small games.
> Aren't those publishers asking for bigger games because that's what the market is looking for?
Obviously, there is demand for big games because big games sell. But the publishers focusing on big games doesn't mean that there is only demand for big games. There are multiple reasons why publishers would not be interested in small games or small studios.
Where the big producers ARE totally not listening is monetization. But here again 'globally that work' and most (not all) customers see themselves as more 'moraly right' than they really are. Everyone is happy to bash f2p immoral economic system, but are glad to enjoy free games. They will all speak about how possessing your games is important, but will take gamepass anytime because it's less costly. (here again they are just pragmatic and nothing is wring with that).
A funny thing when you discuss and do post mortems with little game development studio, is that each time they try to avoid a notoriously 'shady' practice, first critics will be about them missing (mainly gamble/casino mechanics and timesink/grinding features) ^^
From their perspective, because a big game is predicted to earn more, and because investment will chase higher returns, they have to say they'll go big to get any investors on board. The publishers that can stay small have to bootstrap, which makes them unattractive as sources of funding. It's not being driven by consumers that assume a production with 4000 people involved is strictly better than one with 3 people, it's the funnelling effect of all the money coming from more speculative sources that have no motive to consider industry health holistically - which is a macro-economic problem.
You can learn about the early days of this from Matt Barton's interview series with Robert Sirotek, particularly the last part[0]. Sir-Tech ran sustainably, by Robert's assessment, and consistently shipped smaller productions, but a shake-out occurred in the 90's. At first it was primarily coming from retailers who wanted things done their way to get a placement, squeezing out lower-cap players and imposing drop-dead ship dates on the developers. But it's reasserted itself a few times in a few different ways, since then, and is now pretty clearly tied to the industry being in a dilemma of either getting no investment, or endless amounts, with a promise of making 100x that, which ultimately reflects the decades-long asset bubble and increasing use of "free money" federal lending. If they don't promise those kinds of returns, someone else takes the funding.
So, the market is actually scrambling to figure out what to do with the investment tap cut off right now. Embracer Group, one of the biggest consolidators of the last cycle, reported troubling finances last quarter and has started closing studios. It's become a "lowering tide, see who swims naked" market.
The biggest misconception game developers generaly have about games is they think they are content like movies/series amd music. That is that the average player plays hundreds of games, one after the other.
Games are successful or failed killer apps. Like any other software mind you. The average player spend 88% of his time / money playing a very few hits like Minecraft.
Which solves your middle-games paradox: those just don't sell anymore. In other words, if you'd make a Commander Keen today, you'd sell 3 copies to your grand-ma (yes grannies play games now).
There is always those who come to tell: I have hundreds of games in my Steam library. "Yes me too". Yes you do and on average you guys still spent 88% of your time / money on a handful of them. They are exceptions of course. There is a line that's somewhere but nowhere near "games are content"
if you're making a console/PC game, 12% is a lot of time to capture, and it's still a huge market.
the "middle game" as described in this article is still a very small scope, even if it's not necessarily more profitable than alternatives. $10k is selling 2000 copies (+ more to cover Steam's cut, so 2700-ish) of a $5 game. Those aren't crazy numbers and is pretty much a failure to any game with more than 2 people on staff.
they aren’t dissatisfied with the game’s sales. i just think its weird that this article is lamenting about the nonexistence of a kind of game that very much exists.
It seems to ignore that the distribution channels, the long term availability, the international access, dont have an influence on how to release and monetize a game. The few examples shown are some of the extremely few, very lucky projects that probably made money.
Middle games are step or two above these. But they suffer from needing both budget and good marketing. But cannot afford either unless they accidentally become hits... AAAs can push both as marketing will bring the sales to fund itself and development.
For advanced development we are still limited by the technological limitations provided by the platform, so it kind of limits our overall ambition too.
Yes, you can argue that some developers would work for less than that, but any programmers capable of generating a good game can then go get jobs somewhere else.
And you need art assets. And music assets. And sound effects. And ...
This is why there is no "middle". Earning $5 million on a game (not $5 million per year--$5 million total) is absurdly successful on Steam.
In the US.
A Dev in this position would take a huge cut but negotiate for profit shares. Likely very large if they are such a small team.
> In today’s post I want to explore why new indie game developers plunge themselves into much longer game development cycles. The industry has essentially stretched us to cut out one of the most important stepping stones between tiny games and multi-year projects. This has caused developers to have incorrect assumptions, wasted resources, and burnout.
If anything, productivity is much higher today. There are small shops out there shipping dozens of simple games a year, mostly in the mobile industry.
On the other hand, making and shipping a high level cross platform game is a gargantuan task. A small company can easily spend 5+ years building a game and still disappoint their fans.
If you want to know what making AAA games at an understaffed shop is like since the mid 2000s, look up Bethesda's documentary
Just because you must release at least 2-3 mid games, or more, per year to break even
Fair enough.
I guess the whole start-up billionaire phenomenon thing has changed people's outlook (Google, Facebook, Minecraft etc). Understandably everyone wants to do something once, make a huge pile of money from it, and then never have to work again.
Personally I'd be quite happy to work on a game for a month as a vacation-project/side-project and "only" make 15k from it.
A developer that cranks out a dozen little games will inevitably rely on trickery and deceptive marketing in order to convince consumers thier games are worth anything. Most of the games i play are from a developer dedicated to the continued improvement of a single title across many years. Factorio, subnautica, prison architect ... such games take focus. Entire careers can be dedictated to improving a single game (minecraft). The modern indi market demands long term commitment, not fly-by-night studios attempting is get in and out in months Among Trees burned many bridges with indi gamers willing to buy into games early.
Or you can develop mobile games powered by addiction and microtransactions. I guess that is a "market" too.
From a game publisher perspective, you're right, you want to create "lifestyle games" that players can put 1,000 hours or more into. These games are more likely to sell because YouTubers and streamers will find a niche publishing content for these endlessly repayable games, and that will attract a lot of eyeballs and drive a lot of sales. If your game is "just" an incredible story and experience, then a lot of people will experience it by watching their favorite streamer play the game, and then they will never play it themselves. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIqz5xmQKnc
Outer Wilds is an indie game where exploration and knowledge is the entire point of the game. It unfortunately has zero reply value as once you’ve pieced together the mystery and how to end the game it’s over. I say unfortunately because it’s honestly the best game I’ve ever played and I sometimes wish I could receive just enough blunt force trauma so I could experience it for the first time all over again.