[kg]

This presumes that people will have the time and the patience to wade through the slop and find the gems. Right now people do that with the tide of low quality human-authored games to find the gems but when there's 10x or 100x as many low quality games will people still have the patience? I hope so, but I don't know. We're already seeing a huge uptick in the number of games being released every year on Steam and most of them don't get more than a handful of reviews, positive or negative.

[theahura]

Not all the things that are good will rise to the top, but most of the things that rise to the top will be good. We've gotten pretty good at ranking systems as a species at this point, I'd say

[SpicyLemonZest]

It really depends on what kind of "good" you're optimizing for. I'd point towards Instagram as a good counterexample: their signup page says that you can "See everyday moments from your close friends.", but most Instagram users see very few such moments, because the algorithm points them towards ragebait reels and thirst traps. If there's a 100x explosion of games, I think it's very likely that organic discovery will simply stop functioning, and nearly all gamers will find themselves leaning on algorithmic recommendations that aren't aligned with what they'd really like to play.

[no-name-here]

But for your IG example, isn’t that probably because although most people may claim they want to see everyday moments from friends, people in real life actually click more on the “thirst traps” etc?

[SpicyLemonZest]

It is, but I don't think you can infer a revealed preference from that. It's perfectly consistent for someone to want to avoid thirst traps because they know they're too inclined to click.