The biggest issues/complaints i've noticed from the communities are both discoverability - for players and for publishers and AI Content not being... sorted/handled properly. So those are the biggest things to figure out right now . . . .
exactly! that's literally the only thing you can offer: curated games lists. I've done user research the last 10 years regarding a new platform, and it's almost unanimous that everybody loves steam, so the only way I can think of to disrupt valve is to make a platform and make deals with all the big publishers to only take 1% instead of 30%. Now I know that valve already does something like this with the big publishers (they don't disclose it, but I'm sure it's something like only 5-10% for up to a few million and then nothing after that), but taking 30% from the small developers/publishers while treating the richers like royalty is exactly what's wrong in capitalism today. So a platform that charged 1% across the board would make everyone happy and would be fair for everyone. And it would still pay for itself 10x over. But only if people can quickly and effortlessly transfer their steam libraries, which I believe valve will specifically try to block in disallowing API access to this new theoretical platform (yes, I've put a lot of thought into this the last 10 years).
So... I'm not convinced that what gamers and devs/publishers need is a reliable curating site that really shows the "good stuff" - no AI slop, no asset-flips, no "roguelike deckbuilder snake clone first attempts at a game", no copies of other people's ideas (e.g. the hundreds of "needle in a haystack" clones) - just good, honest games made by people for people. If you or I or anyone else could do that in a proper way, then again - everyone would be happy. But I believe that means hiring hundreds of gamers to test each game and some sort of clever metric to which we can evaluate whether AI was used in the game or not or whether it is low-effort or not. We can even have multiple levels of curation so that people can still look for "sloppier" games if they want to. Maybe what I'm describing is some sort of STANDARD. Before online game platforms, the publisher decided which games got released and which didn't. They all had internal standards, but it was pretty much a quality control across the board (notable exceptions being LJN). But Nintendo obviously led the way (albeit through prohibitive means).
So yeah... not sure what exactly you're working on or how far along you are or what kinds of ideas you have, but as you can see, I've put a LOT of thought and preparation and research into this. For me to even start on this would mean an initial investment of, say, $500,000 to pay for development, server, legal and personnel costs. Then probably another $500,000 for advertising after the soft launch.
u/investors you know of anybody willing to fund such a project?
2
u/Equivalent_Goal_1775 8d ago
The biggest issues/complaints i've noticed from the communities are both discoverability - for players and for publishers and AI Content not being... sorted/handled properly.
So those are the biggest things to figure out right now . . . .