[OPINION] Why “Being a Gamer” Is Changing in an Oversaturated Industry

If you enjoy independent indie game coverage, consider supporting Indie-Games.eu on Patreon. It helps keep the site independent.

A recent discussion on X has sparked debate about what it means to be a “gamer” in today’s industry. According to participants in the thread, the term no longer always refers to people who actively play games. Instead, it increasingly describes those who primarily watch livestreams, follow influencers, and engage in online debates without spending much time playing themselves. This shift reflects deeper changes in how games are made, marketed, and consumed in an era defined by overwhelming choice and limited time.

At the center of the discussion is the idea that modern gaming has become a victim of its own success. With thousands of new titles releasing every year, players are faced with more options than they could possibly explore. As a result, many rely on streamers, reviews, and social media opinions to decide what is worth their attention. Watching gameplay or absorbing commentary has become, for some, a substitute for hands-on experience.

Participants in the mentioned conversation argue that this trend is driven by extreme market saturation. In 2025 alone, Steam saw between 19,000 and over 20,000 new games released. Nearly half of these titles received fewer than ten reviews, suggesting that most disappeared almost immediately without reaching a meaningful audience. In such an environment, players cannot realistically try everything. Instead, they become highly selective, scrutinizing every visible flaw before committing their time.

This selectivity has raised the bar dramatically. Games that are merely “fine” or “good enough” often fail to gain traction. Without a strong hook, polished execution, or clear identity, they are quickly dismissed. Players now treat their free time as their most valuable resource, and anything that feels unfocused, unfinished, or repetitive is likely to be abandoned.

Adults are being more selective with games, especially with single-player experiences

For many adults, the mindset to be more selective is reinforced by real-life constraints. Surveys indicate that active players typically spend between six and thirteen hours per week gaming. At the same time, around 60 percent of U.S. adults and those in EU play only sporadically, and many maintain massive digital backlogs containing hundreds of unplayed titles. Faced with these limitations, players have little patience for games that demand long-term commitment without delivering immediate value.

Nowhere is this pressure more visible than in the live service market. These games rely on continuous engagement, frequent updates, and long-term player investment. Yet they compete against established giants like Fortnite and Valorant, where players already have years of progress, purchased cosmetics, and social connections. Breaking into this ecosystem has become increasingly difficult.

Data from 2025 illustrates the problem. More than half of that year’s live service releases reportedly lost over 90 percent of their peak player base shortly after launch. Many shut down within months, turning the genre into what some commentators describe as a “graveyard” of failed experiments. Even heavily marketed titles often struggle to maintain momentum beyond their opening weeks.

The online discussion reflects growing frustration on both sides of the industry. Developers are seen chasing trends and fleeting success, producing similar-looking games in hopes of catching lightning in a bottle. Players, meanwhile, report abandoning shallow “clone” titles midway through, comparing them to cheap imitations that fail to justify continued investment.

In contrast, many participants express renewed appreciation for focused, self-contained experiences. Single-player games that respect players’ time, offer complete stories, and avoid excessive grinding are increasingly valued. These “evergreen” titles provide meaningful engagement without demanding endless commitment, fitting more easily into busy adult lives.

Participation has evolved massively

The conversation suggests that the gaming audience has matured. Players are no longer impressed by sheer quantity or hype. They prioritize quality, originality, and efficiency. A game must now earn its place in a crowded schedule, not just on a wishlist.

This shift has major implications for the industry. Marketing alone is no longer enough to guarantee success. Influencer coverage can generate visibility, but it cannot sustain interest if the product fails to deliver. At the same time, developers can no longer rely on average quality to survive. In an oversaturated market, mediocrity is often indistinguishable from failure.

The changing meaning of “gamer” also reflects how participation has evolved. Watching streams, engaging in discussions, and following online personalities have become legitimate ways to experience games. For some, this is a practical response to limited time. For others, it represents a new form of fandom where community and conversation matter as much as play.

Gaming is no longer defined solely by access to hardware or software. It is shaped by attention, time, and trust. With more games than ever competing for limited engagement, both creators and publishers must adapt to an audience that is more cautious, more informed, and less forgiving.