- cross-posted to:
- gaming
- patientgamers@lemmy.ml
- gaming@lemmy.ml
This data will probably only lead to more live service games. :|
You must log in or register to comment.
I misread this as
60 Percent Of Playtime In 2023 Went To 6-Year-Old Or Older Gamers
and I was really alarmed that 40% of all playtime was from 5-year-olds and younger.
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.
The article touches this to an extent.
r/Titanfall would beg to disagree! Game was sick 6 years ago (7 actually) and is sick now (when the servers work)
I probably wouldn’t play as much Civ VI if it weren’t for the expansions or monthly challenges. Does that mean I’m playing an eight year-old game?
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.
Unfortunately, playtime does not equal profit and I’m pretty sure these half-baked, micro-transaction riddled games are way more profitable.
You mean quadruple A games?
AAA is such a joke. It should be tied to quality, but instead it’s just tied to monetary input into the game - which of course doesn’t equal quality.
Counting Roblox as a game instead of a platform seems weird to me, from what I experienced when I tried it out.
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.
Mine too, except Elden ring. That’s definitely my newest.
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.
Interesting data but how does it compare to past years?