By The Numbers

What does it really mean when players stay on older multiplayer service titles and don't move on to new experiences?

FBC: Firebreak is having a rough launch.

Palworld saw big numbers initially, but then a big drop.

Ubisoft seems to be bleeding money on every attempt to make a new multiplayer service.

Concord... well, maybe PlayStation could squeeze a movie out of it?

It isn't just the death if new IP, it is the end of growth.

We see it in the MMO space. Players pay a sub fee to play one game for years, sometimes decades, despite the fact that the content is usually an effort well below the base game. EverQuest still has a player base and they keep cranking out low poly expansions, but without ports to mobile or attempts to really grow the game. World of Warcraft is so uninspired that they made literal roll-back servers where players could pay for a decades old experience. 

It isn't a good sign for large-budget companies that need to keep adding another "A" to explain why their games about pirates or space wizards can buy the attention of the player base.

It also isn't a great sign for indies trying to hold player attention and make a less social generation engage in psuedo-social experiences.

The people leading the video game industry have held the belief that there isn't a potent alternative to video games, but I am seeing it in younger people. Video games are a tertiary way to spend time with friends. Often a Roblox session will devolve into a video call with weird inside jokes. They will join organized activities they may sort-of enjoy to see their friends. Video games just aren't a great way to engage unless they are already hanging out and need something to do.

I am watching the death of video games as a dominant time sink. I don't think the industry knows it, yet.