KORPG™ Games 
Thanks to Stargazer for bringing this post to my attention. The original post as well as the response are worth the read if you have the time.
For the record, I’m in agreement that the argument that we should all stop making games foolish at best.
But let’s take a moment and examine why…
The argument (as paraphrased by me) goes as follows:
(P1) There are already many games in the marketplace.
(P2) There is only a finite amount of money being spent on said games.
(Q1) However, your games are probably terrible in comparison to other, better/higher quality/funner games.
(R1) As a result you’re taking money from the good games.
(S1) Therefore you should stop making games.
Sound right? Yes? No? Maybe?
How about we make it more clear. Essentially the argument is:
BECAUSE Q1, P1 AND P2 YIELD R1
SO (NOT P1) AND P2 YIELDS (NOT R1)
Let’s analyze the fallacies and pitfalls of this argument.
(P1) There are already many games in the marketplace.
Nothing wrong with this statement. As a general premise it may indeed be true. According to a simple, non-scientific review of games being released into the market, there does indeed seem to be a lot of products being developed and released each year.
But it does beg the question if the market can support more games or would be better with less games. Hold that thought as we’re going to analyze just that assertion.
(P2) There is only a finite amount of money being spent on said games.
That’s probably true as well and I won’t be arguing against it either. The demand side of all markets is typically finite with limiting factors being desire, market penetration, purchasing capital, etc.
So combining premises 1 and 2 (P1 and P2) we can easily see how the false conclusion (R1) that less game products means more money per game product release.
But is that right?
Of course not. Here’s a simple example working backwards that demonstrates how flawed this result really is:
If less games in the marketplace yields more money per release, then the ultimate result of 1 release being the recipient of ALL the money that year should hold true. Obviously it doesn’t. The reasons this type of analysis demonstrates the flaws is that there are way too many additional variables in the market we can’t control.
In simple terms, we see that (NOT P1) AND P2 doesn’t necessarily result in (NOT R1). So why should we presume that P1 AND P2 necessarily result in R1 to begin with?
Of course we shouldn’t. And here’s where the argument tries to hide all those other variables by employing one master qualifier that is used to describe the One True Market Variable worth being concerned with. To counter the obvious realization that less games necessarily means more profit per game, the argument adds a qualifier:
(Q1) Your games are probably terrible in comparison to other, better/higher quality/funner games.
That’s not a charged statement is it? Note how the claim is that the other, more worthy products can’t possibly be your creations.
Combining P1 and P2 with the qualifier Q1, we can easily see how your products must be taking all the oxygen out of the room and leaving good quality products to suffocate in their inability to find table and display space. Ipso Facto R1.
But we’re left with a subjective qualifier that can’t be easily quantified; the definition of a good product isn’t something measurable in an objective fashion. And if we all stop making games, there will be no innovation – no Google, no Facebook, no UPS or Fed Ex.
Saturated markets may indeed be saturated for a variety of reasons, but all markets reward a good or better product offering. When it comes to games and entertainment, the definition of better or good or quality isn’t so easily measurable as to be so simply used as a metric for who should and should not be in the marketplace to begin with.
So here’s my easy counter argument to show how ridiculous this concept really is when it comes to business and markets.
(P1) There are already many games in the marketplace.
(P2) There is only a finite amount of money being spent on said games.
(Q1) However, my games are the absolute best in comparison to all other games.
(R1) As a result everyone else publishing or making games is taking money from me.
(S1) Therefore you should all stop making games.
Silly isn’t it?
Kind of like asking someone to tell WotC and Hasbro to stop making games.
Guess I’ll keep saturating the market with my products… that’s the only way to get all these other sub-par offerings off my spots on store shelves.
