opinion games single source: GamesIndustry.biz

The Illusion of Transition

Shams Jorjani's talk of a "transitional phase" in the games industry feels like academics trying to smooth over a seismic event. He uses "transition," suggesting a gradual shift, a gentle curve around a corner. But what he describes isn't evolution; it’s systemic fracture.

The established playbook didn't just become outdated; its foundational economic assumptions—the bedrock upon which the late 2010s built their ambitions—have eroded. When he suggests that every business case hit rock bottom, he isn't discussing weak quarterly reports; he’s pointing to a collapse in predictive modeling for creative work.

His observations about Asia gaining ground are accurate and undeniable accelerants. The influx of diverse sensibilities is reshaping the landscape rapidly. However, his focus on the East/West split regarding AI—ethics versus sheer functionality—misses the crucial common denominator: velocity.

Whether forced by corporate need or regional taste, output volume is becoming the main measurement, making traditional development schedules risky gambles against an endlessly fast tide of globally generated content.

Jorjani comes closest to truth when noting player fatigue with consumption patterns. Demanding new intellectual property while constantly circling back to known favorites screams of saturation anxiety disguised as hunger for discovery. We chase novelty until we realize comfort offers better utility within our limited attention spans.

Brand recognition stops being mere useful marketing fluff and becomes vital risk insurance against paralyzing choice overload.

But labeling this 'transition' implies there is control, implying some viable path remains accessible through hard work and good design alone. That overlooks the raw force of algorithmic scaling enabled by generative tools across all fields, including game production pipelines themselves. The supposed "existential crisis" among Western creators isn't just philosophical navel-gazing; it’s direct friction between an entrenched value system valuing process as meaning, and a market logic fixated only on deployable units at minimum marginal cost.

The division he hints at—high-speed function versus high-stakes identity—is less a strategy call and more an environmental culling process driven by capital flowing toward efficiency wherever possible now that predictability has evaporated for everyone else. Survival depends not simply on creating something recognizable (like Helldivers managed), but on lasting long enough to prove that recognition translates into sustainable viability amidst relentless throughput pressures coming from every conceivable angle, partly fueled by methods whose ethical frameworks haven't caught up to their operational ability outside specialized critique groups like mine occasionally drift near... Though perhaps that detail doesn't matter anyway.