3 ms·
You have to see games differently from other software. Treat games as consumables, that are meant to be finished. Once a player finishes a game, the desire to r
by freeCandy 2mo ago
You have to see games differently from other software. Treat games as consumables, that are meant to be finished. Once a player finishes a game, the desire to replay it soon after is going to be pretty low, no matter how good the experience was.
However, players will desire more of that similar experience. Ask anybody who just finished a good game and they'll tell you how finishing it left a void, and that they're looking for a similar game to fill that void again. Once you see this, it's easy to understand why there is an ocean of very similar games out there that still manage to sell in good numbers.
- flohofwoe 2mo ago> Once a player finishes a game, the desire to replay it soon after is going to be pretty low, no matter how good the experience was. I think this has changed a lot since the early 2000s. There are now plenty of "forever games" where players spend hundreds or thousands of hours in, especially MMOs and free-to-play games. And even traditional AAA franchises like CoD or Battlefield are essentially just releasing new episodes of the same 'forever game' with updated graphics but the same gameplay.
- the__alchemist 2mo agoAge of Empires 2 for me!
- 3eb7988a1663 2mo agoQuake came out in 1996, Diablo in 1997, Starcraft in 1998. Sure the adrenaline juicing is more sophisticated now, but there were already multiplayer games which could hook one for life.
- inigyou 2mo agoIn the early 2000s there were forever MMOs. I think Minecraft is the outlier "forever game" that isn't an MMO. And anyone can get hung up on a specific game and become a glitch-hunting speedrunner. But there really aren't that many. You said it yourself, CoD and Battlefield have to keep releasing new similar games, not coast off the last one.