From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


A major problem --both for developers and gamers-- is the
proliferation of new games on the Steam (and other) marketplaces.
There were something like 20,000 new games added to Steam in just
2025, with similar numbers for the years previous. Most of these were asset-flipped scam games that sank without a trace... but a few were
worthy titles that suffered the same fate just because they were
unable to make any headway amidst all the cruft. Even big-name titles
can get lost in that crowd.

But it's not a new problem, this excess of choice, though the scale of
the problem has grown dramatically. Even back in 1989, there were
worries that the glut of choices made it difficult for gamers to
decide which game to buy... and back then we were lucky to see 2000
games in total (many of which were ports of the same game to different platforms). In fact, Robert Garriot (no, not the Ultima guy; his older
brother who handled the business side of things) worried about
'product proliferation'* and had concern that customers would get
'lost' from the entertainment market.

What he'd say about the state of affairs in 2026 I can't imagine. But increasingly developers are becoming disenchanted with Steam's
handling of the volume of new releases. Although what Steam is
supposed to do about it, I'm not sure. If they curate the releases to
minimize the flow, then they get blamed for 'blocking' games.

I mean, I myself wouldn't mind if Steam made it a bit harder for
people to get a spot on the marketplace... but it does lead to the
potential that small-but-cool games don't get a chance to shine. Then
again, that's happening right now anyway, because too often the wading
through the shitflow of new games on Steam isn't worth the bother.

But the problem isn't a new one, anyway.

Back in 1989, did you think there were too many games?



(X-posted to rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons... 'cause Garriot and
Ultima are mentioned and that newsgroup needs love anyway ;-)






----
* he's a business guy; that's how they talk. article here https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/ultimas-robert-garriott-was-worried-about-there-being-too-many-pc-games-on-the-market-37-years-ago/


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 3/20/2026 8:01 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

A major problem --both for developers and gamers-- is the
proliferation of new games on the Steam (and other) marketplaces.
There were something like 20,000 new games added to Steam in just
2025, with similar numbers for the years previous. Most of these were asset-flipped scam games that sank without a trace... but a few were
worthy titles that suffered the same fate just because they were
unable to make any headway amidst all the cruft. Even big-name titles
can get lost in that crowd.

But it's not a new problem, this excess of choice, though the scale of
the problem has grown dramatically. Even back in 1989, there were
worries that the glut of choices made it difficult for gamers to
decide which game to buy... and back then we were lucky to see 2000
games in total (many of which were ports of the same game to different platforms). In fact, Robert Garriot (no, not the Ultima guy; his older brother who handled the business side of things) worried about
'product proliferation'* and had concern that customers would get
'lost' from the entertainment market.

What he'd say about the state of affairs in 2026 I can't imagine. But increasingly developers are becoming disenchanted with Steam's
handling of the volume of new releases. Although what Steam is
supposed to do about it, I'm not sure. If they curate the releases to minimize the flow, then they get blamed for 'blocking' games.

I mean, I myself wouldn't mind if Steam made it a bit harder for
people to get a spot on the marketplace... but it does lead to the
potential that small-but-cool games don't get a chance to shine. Then
again, that's happening right now anyway, because too often the wading through the shitflow of new games on Steam isn't worth the bother.

But the problem isn't a new one, anyway.

You can have too many games or not enough games. Choose.

Also you really don't want Steam/GOG/Epic/all the other online
storefronts "curating" their catalogs. Why? Censorship. Example, the
games made by Pathea get complaints about what names and words players
can't input. Words like "freedom". Why can't you name your home
"Freedom"? Because Pathea is a mainland China based company and they
have to obey the Chinese laws about allowed speech.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

<snip>

I mean, I myself wouldn't mind if Steam made it a bit harder for
people to get a spot on the marketplace... but it does lead to the
potential that small-but-cool games don't get a chance to shine. Then
again, that's happening right now anyway, because too often the wading >through the shitflow of new games on Steam isn't worth the bother.

Steam needs a dedicated group of people on staff who play all the games
at least a little bit.
This would let them weed out all those scam games, while letting the
triple A and Indie games through (likely need someone into Indie games,
but I am sure that "Indie Game Guy" exists as much as "Indie Rock Guy"
[and is probably equally annoying in person.])

But the problem isn't a new one, anyway.

Back in 1989, did you think there were too many games?

I don't think computer games really registered with me much in 1989.
Not sure when dad upgraded from the 8086 to a 386, but it was around
then I started getting into it more. The XT only had a Hercules card
so it wasn't up to much gaming wise, but the 386 had VGA.

Probably didn't really get into it until college and the rampant game
trading that occurred then.
Maybe 1993ish and the release of Doom 0.99 which did not support SB
clones and had no sound until 1.0 came out a week or two later.

I remember going to The Future Shop and they had a wall of games - not
racks, but actual warehouse type shelving with on wall of the store
covered in games.

Bought Wing Commander there and saw Arena and was amazed that the
features listed on the box included weather, fog and snow.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 07:17:34 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> said this
thing:

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

Back in 1989, did you think there were too many games?

I don't think computer games really registered with me much in 1989.
Not sure when dad upgraded from the 8086 to a 386, but it was around
then I started getting into it more. The XT only had a Hercules card
so it wasn't up to much gaming wise, but the 386 had VGA.

Probably didn't really get into it until college and the rampant game
trading that occurred then.
Maybe 1993ish and the release of Doom 0.99 which did not support SB
clones and had no sound until 1.0 came out a week or two later.

I remember going to The Future Shop and they had a wall of games - not
racks, but actual warehouse type shelving with on wall of the store
covered in games.

Bought Wing Commander there and saw Arena and was amazed that the
features listed on the box included weather, fog and snow.

I don't remember ever thinking 'too many games' in that era so much as
'not enough time' (or money). I think, had I surplus of both, I'd have
been quite happy with the number of games available.

Then again, it was such a different era. Storefronts were you could
buy video games weren't as common, so it wasn't something you could
visit as readily. At least for me, this meant that each visit was
almost a brand new experience. Sure there were a lot of games, but I
couldn't have told you if most of them were new or old.

Too, games lingered on shelves longer... or at least they seemed to.
This was helped by the excess of available platforms; a game that
released in 1987 on C64 might release on the Atari in 1988, on the
Apple II in '89, the Amiga in '90 and on the PC in 1991. So you'd be
seeing that same box on shelves for years, unaware it wasn't (exactly)
the same game each visit. And even if it was the same game for the
same platform, it might still hang about for years, slowly
depreciating in value (and price!) until finally it ended up in the
awesome bargain bin.

More, some games just never showed up at some stores. Distribution was
a major issue for some publishers. It wasn't like today ("Just put it
on Steam") or even the 2000s (with only a handful of major retailers,
like Walmart and GameStop). There were thousands of unassociated
independent game shoppes, and while they often had the stuff from the
Big Name publishers, mid-sized or small publishers were very
hit-or-miss. Even if there were 2000 new games released in 1989, many
stores might only see 30 or 50 of those games hit the shelves.


TL;DR: I never felt overwhelmed by choice back then. Later, maybe but
in the 80s and early 90s the selection available to me just never got
big enough for that to be an issue.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2