Why We Play What We Know: Gaming’s Innovation Dilemma
Is innovation taking a backseat in gaming?
Good question. It’s a paradox that got me thinking. I mean, look at the 2023 gaming charts. They look like a greatest hits album with Call of Duty, Fortnite, Minecraft, The Sims, Apex Legends - the usual suspects. Hogwarts Legacy being the only new kid on the block, but that too is riding on the coattails of a franchise older than its players.
On the other hand, there is a never-ending-influx of new game IP which is flooding an already oversaturated market. New IPs struggle to stand out.
Mostly because:
(A) they look like they came straight out of a Godo tutorial
(B) most of them lack the hefty marketing budgets, or
(C) they don’t cut it in terms of gameplay and come off as cut-copy-paste jobs.
It’s so alarming that a study found only 2.5% of these new PC/Console titles manage to cross the 50k player line. That number could look much better.
Meanwhile, we're all busy getting our nostalgia fix with the new old 'Fortnite OG' and cruising around 'Tilted Towers' in shopping carts like it’s 2019. This nostalgia is a big component in why we play and replay what we know. But not all gamers are nostalgia-driven, especially those that are too young to feel nostalgic for something they didn’t grow up with. But, I’m not entirely buying this because many of these gamers are Gen Z and Gen Alpha, so too young to feel nostalgic for something they didn’t grow up with.
=> So, what's really going on? The old favorites dominate, and the fresh and innovative games struggle — it feels like we're stuck in a loop of inertia where innovation is at a standstill. But is it really?
Why Are Legacy Games Still Big for New Gamers?
So, let’s break things down. To understand the big picture, let’s start with the question of: Why do established franchises continue to be a big deal, even for gamers who weren’t around for the original hype? Take Fortnite, for example. Bringing back the old Fortnite OG map isn't merely a trip down memory lane; there's a powerful draw for new players too. Long-time players who grew up with Fortnite, and then grew out of it, came back because it “…brought back my childhood” and because “it's like everyone is back, all the memories, all the youtubers, all the players. All this gets me emotional mate”.
And with this emotionality attached to a game, with streamers broadcasting their emotional experiences, it all contributes to an almost universal awareness. This vibe has a magnetic pull and attracts even the Gen-Z crowd who're all about what's trending online.
That’s great for established games, but super tough for new games to get noticed. There’s an interesting theory called “The market-based assets theory of brand competition” - it’s a mouthful, I know, but it's simple. If applied to the gaming industry, it’s about how a game's success isn't just about being unique; but how a game’s competitiveness is influenced by two factors:
a game’s mental and physical availability.
Mental availability arises when a known game, like Fortnite, has built a network of memories in players' minds, so much so it’s more likely to be thought of and therefore chosen by players. Just think of all those Fortnite moments that stick out - shopping cart TikToks, the blackhole incident, Travis Scott, the rocket launch, these are all like mental bookmarks that keep new players coming in, and old players coming back.
Physical availability simply refers to those games being easy to access, cross-platform, and easy to jump into.
This kind of mental and physical availability makes sure games like Fortnite stay on top of the game. It’s a mix of smart marketing and establishing brand recognition. As a Redditor told me:
“I play plenty of IPs that are new, but at the same time there's also something nice in the expectations that most franchises have with themselves.
When another Doom game drops so long as there aren't technical issues with the game, it's a pretty safe bet for me. I enjoyed Doom 2016, I enjoyed Eternal, I will probably enjoy the next one.”
And that brand recognition creates safety for players.
Again, when we look at the 2023 charts, it’s not just about reliving the past; it's also about the intrinsic qualities that made these games successful to begin with.
=> So, what exactly made these legacy games so successful to begin with?
Qualities of Legacy Games
Well, for the most part, these games we see on the charts are definitely:
(A) community-driven with both competitive and co-op gameplay
(B) They also might have had less competition back then and less challenges to stick out. When games like The Sims 4 first hit the scene, they didn't have as many rivals and carved out a unique niche and build a loyal fan base
(C) They’re easy to learn but hard to master.
Minecraft to me is a good example of what’s easy to learn but hard to master. Anyone can start building, but mastering its complexities is a whole different game. But, that’s part of the fun.
(D) And with games like The Legend of Zelda, you have games that bridge the generational gaps, and appeal to both older and younger audiences.
And with all this combined, and a grand community, those games often then transcend gaming and become part of broad cultural conversation.
(And don't even get me started on modding – it's like the cherry on top that keeps these games fresh and fun for ages. And I’m not talking about horse armor; I’m talking about complete gameplay overhauls and graphics improvements.)
Why New Games Don't Cut it
=> So, does that mean all the new IP games struggle to keep up because they don’t have those qualities?
Yes, and no.
My answer is twofold.
Some new IPs possess all these winning qualities but falter in marketing. Others ace the marketing but lack the gameplay. Monster Hunter for example - the concept is awesome and the game is beautiful, but trying to understand the crafting system was like learning a new language. You don’t wanna spend your 1-2 hours of play sitting through tutorials. And with Baldurs Gate 3, one Redditor explained that:
"Baldur's Gate 3 - I'd rather watch people play it as I don't know D&D and I like to build for optimal effectiveness. Not knowing what spells/abilities I unlock down the road makes me not want to make the "wrong" choices now. I also don't want to read a bunch of guides. I'd rather watch someone else do the cool shit while I play some Civ on my other monitor. I'm old and just don't have the time to learn all the mechanics of so many new games.”
So, again, you wanna have an easy start. Easy to learn, hard to master.
Take 'Outriders,' by People Can Fly for example. Published by Square Enix in 2021, it had the buzz, was highly anticipated, it was "on track to become the company's next major franchise” but stumbled with server issues and a repetitive, mediocre gameplay that didn't quite hook the community. Or 'Splitgate' – a gameplay that got me personally hooked, and lots of people jumped into it, but it then faced server capacity issues, struggled to keep up with the demand and just failed to retain its players. Or 'Balan Wonderworld.' by Square Enix; it had flashy marketing, the gameplay felt a bit dated, not really catching on with players. Then there's 'Godfall,' looking all shiny and next-gen, striking visuals, all the bells and whistles but it just didn't deliver enough depth to keep players coming back. And then we have of course the time factor; some new games just need time to build brand recognition and loyalty. So there is a lot to juggle for new game IPs; however - on the flipside - there’s an interesting theory that offers another perspective:
The Long Tail theory
In very simple terms, the long tail theory, when applied to gaming looks something like this:
At the top of the curve, we’ve got our juggernauts - the games everyone knows and loves. Further down the curve, that's where fresh games live – not as famous but absolutely adored by a smaller group of players. Thanks to Steam and other online marketplaces, this tail gets longer and flatter, meaning more and more niche games get the chance to shine, over time! They might start slow, but will eventually find their audience. Hollow Knight for instance wasn't born famous, but it grew its own legend living somewhere here in the long tail. However, the challenge is to stand out. With the influx of new games, it's tough to get noticed. This is where quality becomes crucial. If a game is really good, or good enough for the specific audience, it’ll get noticed no matter what. That's the Long Tail magic – it's not about pleasing everybody, but hitting the sweet spot for a specific audience.
Okay, so nevertheless, with or without the long tail, what we currently see is not the most balanced of gaming landscapes. Even if new games check all the boxes and linger around the long tail, it’s more challenging than ever to get noticed when legacy games continue to dominate the gaming culture. And despite us playing what we know, and sticking to the familiar, we don’t want to be stuck in a loop of playing the same old Call of Duty campaigns forever. We’re in a situation that highlights a real tension - an imbalance in the gaming world. On one hand, there's this huge push to keep the big-name titles on top, on the other, there's a need to let fresh, innovative ideas breakthrough.
=> So the bigger question is: In an industry where legacy games rule the charts, how can we make room for innovation? How to balance out these scales so that games continue to evolve and surprise us?
The Hegelian Dialectic
Well, and here is where I’m going to apply a framework that I personally like to use as a lens when trying to understand current patterns and their trajectories.
The Hegelian Dialectic. In an oversimplified way, this philosophical framework is basically this idea that progress happens when opposing forces, like tradition and innovation, clash and then fuse to create something new. There are three stages to this:
Thesis: The state of affairs
Antithesis: The opposing force to the thesis.
Synthesis: The resolution of the conflict between thesis and antithesis, resulting in a new state.
Example 1:
Thesis: Games used to be traditionally centered around consoles and PCs.
Antithesis: Then came along smartphones which led to the rise of mobile gaming, which had different dynamics, monetization models and player demographics.
Synthesis: Then, we see these two blend into each other, with console and PC game devs exploring mobile markets, while mobile game mechanics and monetization strategies started influencing the broader industry as a whole (free-to-play, pay-to-win, etc.)
Example 2:
Thesis: Look at early video games that were predominantly single-player
Antithesis: With the rise of online gaming, it brought a shift towards more multiplayer-focused games, massive online games, battle royales, e-sports, etc.
Synthsis: Now, the synthesis of these two conflicting states is that now many games offer both robust single-player/story mode campaigns and multiplayer modes.
Now, when applied to the innovation dilemma:
Thesis: Our classic, heavyweight franchises.
They have defined genres, created cultures, and amassed legions of loyal fans.
Antithesis: An overflow of new, innovative games trying to carve out their own legacies but struggle to break through due to the dominance of legacy games.
Now, what happens next is what we call a dialectical conflict.
All these conflicts are dialectical processes since they are characterized by inherent, interdependent opposition that gives rise to continuous change and development. This perspective, rooted in dialectical thinking, suggests that conflict is not just a series of isolated incidents but a dynamic process where opposing forces interact, leading to transformation and evolution. This concept is often associated with the philosophical ideas of dialectical materialism, where contradictions and tensions are seen as essential drivers of change in society and nature.
These two - tradition and innovation - thesis and antithesis, collide to eventually create a new state.
A synthesis.
This collision of conflicts, this imbalance, is actually something good. It fosters creativity. It feels stale right now, but it’s not a stalemate. The “tension” here is actually not a barrier to innovation, but the driver behind a new era of gaming where innovation isn’t just surviving but thriving.
And we are in the midst of the Synthesis stage.
Established franchises see the success of new innovative games, and begin to adapt and evolve. Similarly, new games learn from the mass appeal of the big ones. It’s not a new phenomenon, we see this all the time when big and small products influence each other. And we’ve seen this in gaming ever since the dawn of time, where one influences the other. Minecraft inspired the Fortnite Creative mode. World of Warcraft had massively influenced the total conversion mod Enderal: Forgotten Stories, which used Skyrim’s engine and crafted its own narrative, going beyond the boundaries set by traditional Bethesda RPGs. Metroid and Castlevania influenced the design and gameplay of Hollow Knight; Braid’s time manipulation and overall game structure inspired many other AAA and indie games, alongside Fez and Super Meat Boy, all innovative games, they even made a documentary about them. The Messenger, a successful indie game that nods to Ninja Gaiden. Then we have Temtem, which follows Pokémon’s creature-collecting legacy but introduces MMO dynamics, offering a new multiplayer experience. You can find Final Fantasy Tactics in indie games like Fell Seal and Fae Tactics, or A Hat in Time, a cool indie game, inspired by none other but Mario 64, blending 3D platforming with its own unique artistic style.
The list continues, but you get the point. It’s a cross-pollination we begin to see taking place more and more. It’s at its height right now and it’s certainly no mere imitation game; it’s an interaction that’ll lead out of this perceived “inertia” or “loop” to a new gaming ecosystem unlike anything we’ve seen before. So, I believe, whats next for the gaming industry is somewhat of a new golden age that’s just around the corner, and here is why:
Prediction
Right now, we're on a plateau. Big legacy games rule, new IPs flood the market, struggling for visibility, due to sheer volume and our own tendencies to gravitate towards the familiar.
Ok, what’s next is a redefinition of what it means to be a successful IP. We’ll continue to see more and more blending between indie and AAA games, to the point where it’s getting harder to distinguish between what indie and AAA is. What used to define an indie and used to define AAA will change and merge. Especially with easier-to-use tools and AI shaking things up, it’s going to become even easier for smaller studios to unlock AAA-like potential they couldn’t unlock before. I mean, you can already see this with upcoming titles: Krafton, the makers of PUBG, an indie game dev studio, announced the release of a beautiful ultra-realistic life simulation game called inZOI, rivaling EA’s Sims 4 and upcoming Sim 5. I mean, look at this, it’s using UE 5, and it doesn’t look like a game that’ll come and go. In general, indie developers don't have to have Triple-A studios behind them anymore to put out similar quality games. Game engines like UE continue to democratize game dev and bring stunning graphics to smaller studios.
Especially with AI, the art of making games will just not be the same; and I’m not just talking chatGPT, Midjourney and Stable Diffusion. These are already great for creating detailed game visuals or assistance in coding; I’m talking about entire AI-assisted creation piplines, from automated testing to AI NPC and AI-powered motion capture tools. You want to generate 3D animations from a video without a motion capture suit? It’s there. AI-powered mocap tools without equipment. Wanna create voice dialogues with AI actors? No problem, can do! Want the player to give orders using his or her voice? Sure, speech recognition tools and translation tools get easier and smoother by the day. Looking for game ideas? There’s a tool for that too, helping devs generate innovative game mechanics and concepts.
And when that happens, the gap between indie and AAA games gets smaller, allowing for more competition based on creativity and innovation rather than just budget size. And talking about budget, this is a pure guess, but I believe we're also seeing a shift in how games make money. With both AAA and indie games becoming more “forever games”that continuously evolve, we’ll go from just subscription based models to perhaps a variety of monetization models that are more dynamic and personalized. A more tailored experience to what you, the gamer, want and are willing to pay for.
So with all this, I believe, we’ll reach a new plateau, or a new meta equilibrium in gaming, that’s marked less by the dichotomy of legacy vs new IP, but marked more by a fluid ecosystem where games are seen less as discrete titles and more as platforms or services that evolve over time, regardless of budget or type of game studio. Again, we’ll have a total redefinition of what constitutes a successful IP.
Now, once that new meta equilibrium is reached, things will stabilize again and come to a stall; as is the case with… well…cycles. The market might become saturated with high-quality games from all corners, making it harder for any one title to stand out like the blockbusters of yesteryear.
It's a double-edged sword: new IPs can finally stand toe-to-toe with the big players, but the competition to become the next cultural phenomenon will be fiercer than ever.
And when that's reached... What then?
Ah, there lies the tantalizing enigma of the gaming world – where one meta equilibrium is just the prelude to the next grand meta equilibrium.
Perhaps we'll witness the birth of entirely new gaming paradigms, ones we can't yet fathom, born from technologies still in their embryonic stage. And that's the beauty of it – in gaming, as in life, the only constant is change.
However, all I can say for now, is that innovation is surely not taking a backseat. Far from it. It’s just gathering steam.
