1 hour ago, Scouting Ninja said:

You are correct with apple changing the store

Again not what I meant.  I'm not taking the chance - not because Apple has done anything to their store, but because there's so much garbage out there now, compared to the likelihood of encountering something cool at random when I first got my phone.

2 hours ago, trjh2k2 said:

I'm not taking the chance - not because Apple has done anything to their store, but because there's so much garbage out there now

It's not really taking a chance when you can see the review. You can read other peoples opinion and see from it if downloading the game is worth it.  There is also game critics, who we as developers should support, as they go out of there way to take chances with games, they inform there communities and the players don't have to take risks.

It should also not be possible for the average player to even find a game with less than 200 downloads, you have to go look for games with lower downloads.

If a game advertises it self well, it won't be just dependent on players stumbling on the game in the store, and it won't be a risky investment as people would know about the game.

Then there is the developers who start by publishing bad games. Scott Cawthon is a good example. The developer is well known for his Chipper And Sons that didn't even make it to steam because of critique. This lead to the much lesser known() Five Knights At Freddy's.

If a developer just uploads a game to steam, never tells anyone about it or markets the game, and hopes for the best. How is that different from a developer who never uploads a game at all?

That's all fine and great, but review scores aren't reliable.  My point isn't that there are ways to tell if a game is any good, my point is that for some users (myself included) the confidence that any given app or game is going to be of any quality is pretty low, so when I want to be entertained, I'll go elsewhere.  At one point you could just search the app store for interesting things and stumble on some cool stuff- now I don't expect much from app stores anymore- and regardless of the fact that there are ways to tell if an app is ok, it's the lack of confidence- and that element of discovery that no longer exists- that I'm getting at.

Just my two cents, either way.

Caveat emptor.

That is true, reviews aren't reliable. You may not like a game, even games that get good reviews may not be fun for you.

As for quality, if you aren't sure about a game's quality (from either a lack of reviews or lack of quality brand) then buy from somewhere that has a good return policy and post your own reviews when you've tried it out.

I feel like this whole discussion is missing my point.  My point is not that I want to find games on my phone, it's that potential customers looking for entertainment are going to look elsewhere if they have no confidence in the overall quality level of the stores offerings - which has an impact on the market.  We've admitted that steam has a bunch of issues that impact devs, but it's not just steam - the mobile app stores have similar issues like being full up on garbage that discourages people from using the platform (IMO).  I've never even heard of anyone buying games from the Windows Store- but I know there are games on there.  What it ends up meaning is that people won't bother with using those platforms for discovery - they'll only ever really search for known quantities, which means you have to work that much harder to get your stuff in front of customer eyes outside of the platform.

Things like asset flips, lack of curation, or people exploiting these systems (like to make money from steam cards or whatever else) in whatever way are exerting a force on the market.  Sure, we can take Unity out of the discussion, but regardless, those forces are still there.

2 hours ago, trjh2k2 said:

the mobile app stores have similar issues like being full up on garbage that discourages people from using the platform (IMO).

What Unity does is provide a game engine that any one can use, is that a bad thing? No.

Unity provides a platform where developers can share assets, sell and buy assets, is that a bad thing? No.

Is developers uploading complete games for other developers a bad thing? No.

The Steam and app stores provide a easy way for publishers to get there games to players, is that a bad thing? No.

Is making games for money a bad thing? No. Most of the best games where made for money.

Is the huge amount of games available hurting the players? No. The stores adapt and the only way you get burned is if you go diving into the indie pile. Then you have to ask is loosing that $15 really a bad thing, if it helps that developer to improve.

Is selling half made games wrong? For me this is a yes and a no. You shouldn't sell something if you personally wouldn't buy it or games like it. Selling a game you felt worth it, only to find players don't like it isn't wrong in my opinion.

Is exploiting a system designed to give developers a chance wrong? Yes. Actively abusing asset stores, abusing market places and abusing licenses to make money. This is wrong on so many levels.

There is only one way, that I can see ,to solve the problem within the indie community. Improve the quality of the indie developers. So that they have the means to make the games they want to make, instead of resorting to quick cash grabs.

Those are inherent to online distribution, and have been discussed to death in other forums. 

It really is not a problem, though you may not like that.  It is the nature of distribution.  The options are to have curated, gated, and limited product selection, OR to have unlimited selection.  Both have their merits.

In the physical marketplace there are barriers to the market. Stores have limited room so they curate the content. They tend to choose only from among major publishers, and those publishers curate their content.  All these steps cost money, which is another barrier to the market.  Some online communities are like this as well.  As a result, the products that are available to customers are highly vetted. They include both the best products and the cheap-yet-okay products, and remove all the garbage that you point out.  Real people reviewed them and decided they were good.

Most online distributors accept any product.  Anyone can get on Amazon, or Google Play, or the Apple App Store, there are minimal hoops. Steam used to have some barriers, but they are trivial to get over.  On the positive side if you are a developer, it is very easy to get your game out to the masses.  On the negative side if you are a consumer, there is an enormous amount of trash and even harmful material out there. Products are only reviewed by real people if they start receiving complaints, and by then some damage has been done.

If you want curated products then use portals that are curated. But you'll live with the consequences that you'll only get the the mainstream stuff that is mass-market popular or that has money to spread.  On the flip side, if you want all the options and obscure stuff use the non-gated communities, but remember buyer beware, there is a lot of bad stuff out there.

Neither type of marketplace is in error, neither type is wrong. Some people love the flea market, a place in the physical world where anybody can sell goods, new and used, amazing and trash. Other people hate the environment and only shop where there are return policies and legal protections for buyers. 

You have made it clear: You want the vetted market, the place with gatekeepers, the place where the bad actors are blocked from attendance.  There is nothing wrong with that.  But don't discount that many people prefer the other kind of marketplace, the one where anybody can publish, and where there are many amazing gems that have limited appeal, which would never make it past the traditional gatekeepers.  

If you want Steam to do more vetting, then talk to steam and join the discussions they have on the matter.  But don't advocate to have the other markets shut down.  We need all kinds, they serve different groups.

I can't speak for discussion about it on other forums, cause I've not been part of those discussions, I don't spend any time on most gaming forums.

I know "Unity" is in the title, but try to ignore that- I'm not trying to point at everyone and go "look!  they're all bad! they're letting bad games get made!"  I'm simply trying to make the point that the things were are discussing are valid market forces.  I'm not advocating for any change - I'm just saying that the difference is not nothing.  Steam's low barrier to entry has had an impact on their users opinions of the shop, which is going to prevent them from feeling confident enough to use the discovery features that could have otherwise led them to titles by smaller devs- that's an impact on the little guys.  Having storefronts flooded with poor quality goods is going to have an impact on that market- whether it's great that they've been given the equal opportunity or not.

I get that we have an appreciation for a system that offers a low barrier to entry - there are benefits to that - but it's not without a cost.

Take something like a record store - if I went into a record store and >50% of the CDs available were actually the same 3-chord template songs with just a different cover art, and you had a 1/10 chance of not even getting a CD in the package, and another 1/10 chance you're picking up someones first attempt at a 4-track cassette recording - you'd stop going to that store unless you had to because they're the only ones that stock something specific you want.  It's great that the store gave the little guys a chance, but you've defeated any chance of discovering your next favorite band here.

Most record stores are full of awful music. It doesn't get bought. Just like most people are not buying these hypothetical games you worry about. I have literally never seen a single complaint from anyone about buying such a game by accident. I have never myself even accidentally clicked through to one of their pages. To suggest that "you've defeated any chance of discovering" anything is ridiculous hyperbole of the highest order. If I open the Steam store now, everything on the front page is either AAA stuff, things recommended by highly-regarded curators, and down the bottom, some new-and-trending stuff which covers a range of genres, looks interesting, and is completely devoid of 'asset flips'. All of these games are new to me and none are objectively trash.

The Steam discovery system was awful to non-existent back when it was a mostly closed shop, and now it's slightly better than awful. That's all. When most people talk about Steam "discovery" they mean the disproportionate benefits of being one of only a few hand-picked titles on there - and that's a benefit that does not spread to all developers that deserve it, nor does it offer the wide range of titles that the market would like to buy. Throwing in some clones buried down on page 17 of a search is not having a significant effect on the market.

3 hours ago, Kylotan said:

Most record stores are full of awful music

Not in the same sense.  I'm not talking about taste.  The barrier to getting something into a record store tends to be much higher - there's a general expectation that even if there's nothing there for your taste, the majority of what's there will have gone through a proper mastering process, will have a commercial quality packaging, etc.  Even if there's a bunch of non-professional content, it's usually set aside in a "locals" or "indie" bin somewhere, and not mixed in with the label releases.

I disagree that there's no significant effect, and "it's buried 17 pages down" doesn't reflect my experience with steam, or either of the mobile app stores.  I don't know how else to make my point.  I guess nobody else cares. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯