Just because low-budget games like Lethal Company and Peak are popular and played with friends doesn’t mean they’re slop.
Game Developer Xalavier Nelson added to this article:
I think one underdiscussed reason that people are gravitating towards these games is because they ask so little of your life going forward, too.
Most of them don’t have XP, or battle passes.
For almost any larger multiplayer effort that’s coming out these days, who could claim the same?
Not every game like this is friendslop, but the vast, vast majority are.
And, sure, some of these games are kind of sloppy—R.E.P.O. never managed to justify its existence for me,
That’s sad. R.E.P.O. can feel sloppy but the devs are putting in the work: beta branch with new content, consistent weekly videos (about development and community questions) of higher than standard “slop budget” value.
But overall it’s like Lethal Company as described: emergent storytelling is possible because it’s sometimes scary and sometimes very funny.
R.E.P.O. is a much more polished experience than LC, so not sure what the author is on about. LC can be more funny, but R.E.P.O. is a better actual game IMO.
I’ve grown to resent the term “slop”
I think for a lot of larger publishers, they want the lock in and monetization that comes with stuff like battle passes or other such things that require an ongoing commitment.
But they also want the benefits of being “co-op” or other wise a cooperation focused multi player game. Namely that if you get one person in a friend group, you might drag in the rest of it as well. They also want the manipulative lock in, that if that is all your friends are playing, you’re kind of forced to play as well. Holding relationships hostage to maximize retention.
And that works to an extent, but it’s largely just wanting to have your cake and eat it to. If the game is commitment heavy, or heavily monetized, it’ll be much harder to get friends to start playing it let alone stick with it.
A game that has a low barrier to entry and does not insist upon commitment, will be much easier for a friend group to pick up. Big publishers salivate at the virality and broad adoption of these games, but also insist upon including the kinds of systems that work against it because including them is industry wisdom for how to “have a successful live service game that makes lots of money.”
