So, essentially, you're saying that those that should fail along the way get to hit market and wonder why they're not making revenue?
Or is your point rather that all of the shovel ware makes it actually harder for quality games to turn up a penny?

My take on it is that since the barriers moved, and because of where they moved the consumer experience is worse. And because the vetting takes place later, the developer's experience is worse.

Before the barriers were at the cost of manufacturing and distribution. You could build a game on your own but achieving wide release meant you had to convince those with money or with power.

Now the barriers are moved all the way out to the end retailer. While it is good for the individual developers since they can get their goods more cheaply to market, it is horrible for the consumer. Where once the consumer had a small number of choices that had all been vetted and pruned to the high quality items, there is now an enormous pile of merchandise. Since no vetting has occurred the individual is left with the curse of too many choices. There is an enormous collection of choices, so many that they cannot sufficiently evaluate them to make a decision. A person who simply says "I want a game" can go to the marketplace, but there are over one thousand games added every day. There are many hundred thousand games already out there.

Since there is no way for the individual to evaluate the enormous piles of options themselves, the consumers turn right back to other sources of vetting. Instead of a financial barrier doing the vetting, they rely on the top-100 lists or the editor choice lists or whatever other vetting services to do the job.

So then the individual developers are kept in an even worse spot than before. Before they were usually stopped for vetting early, before they invested time and effort and money into the product. Now they are stopped for vetting late, after the enormous investments. Thus the marketplace is dysfunctional for the small developer as the market is more like a lottery for those who cannot afford the vetting process. And the market is dysfunctional for the consumer because they are faced with an overwhelming number of choices with no viable method to sort between the excellent products and the terrible ones, which are all presented with an icon, some screen shots, and a 99 cent cost.

Brilliantly articulated and accurate indeed.
Some say the mobile bubble is about to bust but I have my doubts.
Casual market went in decline because the demand simply decreased.
I don't believe the mobile market demand is in decline: just because suppliers find it less and less appealing does not mean there won't still be enough (short-lived?) studios to meet the demand. Perhaps then, when overall production quality keeps decreasing, will that bubble bust.

I had hopes the mobile market was going the other direction but it seems it is too big monster for its own sake.

How do you figure it all looks like 5 years from now?

I don't think there is a bubble, and therefore, it cant really bust.

A bubble would mean the market was in some way overvalued, and/or that people would just stop buying games through their devices.

Neither is true or very likely...

I also definitely do not agree with any production value generally decreasing... If anything else, the bar is constantly raised on what is acceptable quality for a success.

There will always be flukes like flappy bird, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the general trends.

There will though always be a big percentage of the releases that does not make money, but that has been true from day one.

It has, as others have pointed out, to do with the ease of releasing, and relatively low cost of distribution, compared to the old way of physically distributing boxes with your game on a piece of plastic to physical stores.

The problem is that even though it now is easy to distribute, its still just as hard/expensive as before to get people to know about your game.

Before this was rolled into one, you got a publisher deal, and they handled distribution and marketing. Now ju only get the distribution, and have to do most of the marketing yourself.

It might be hard, but it definitely is not impossible to be consistently successful on the app stores.

Several companies are. (I'm working at one of them)

It's even possible without spending fortunes on marketing, and without faking ratings/downloads...

So, essentially, you're saying that those that should fail along the way get to hit market and wonder why they're not making revenue?
Or is your point rather that all of the shovel ware makes it actually harder for quality games to turn up a penny?

Frob pretty much nailed it -- What I quote from you here isn't an 'or' at all, its one leading to the other. I wrestle over whether the complete openness of the platforms is a good thing -- yes, its good that anyone can enter the market and compete, on the other hand, there are so many people trying to game the system for a quick buck, that its hard for the rest of us to keep our heads above the waves. This visibility issue, along with people who are earnestly trying but are either not producing quality software or are simply being out-competed, forces the entire market into a race for the bottom. When these markets started, there was software at all kinds of price-points, then as people flooded the market 99 cents became normal, now free is normal. There are people--trolls, really--who will give your freemium game a very negative review if you have the audacity to put content or to cap progress behind a paywall, they'll be angry that they can't grind out your game in its entirety, no matter how tedeous.

I don't think its good for gamers either -- firstly because it precludes certain kinds of games from being able to monetize effectively, so they disappear from the marketplace, or they are so changed in awkward, unnatural ways that they cease to be what made them fun. Second, games that can be monetized in the new-school ways often have a conflict of interest, many games either actively annoy the player into paying, or make unpaid play a waste of time. Some will say that these products wouldn't exist if the market didn't bare it but I think that's a shallow understanding -- most of the market *doesn't* bare it, 90% of these games' revenues come from less than 5% of users. One could also make the argument that these 'whales' aren't really having fun either, but are being psychologically manipulated into addiction behavior, not unlike a compulsive gambler; often, they have sound effects very similar to vegas slot machines, stacks ofpoker chips, etc, even when it doesn't fit thematically. Its transformed these games from a shared expression of fun, to a cynical bleeding of human resources.

Freemium can be done well and ethically, but most games don't. I wish for a movement to bring back the old pay-to-own, sticker-price model. Maybe its a problem of public perception, maybe we should start marketing such games as One-Time-Purchase, and pitch it as a value-prop.

I agree that the barriers have moved, which means that although we get more people being able to release software, it's also far harder for any of them to get anywhere.

I don't think it's horrible for consumers though, it's good to have choice. Having barriers earlier doesn't necessarily mean higher quality.

I don't think things are worse as a consumer because there isn't any "vetting". Yes, years ago I could spend £30 on a game, and although it might be good or bad, it still had to pass some hurdles to be published. But there was also plenty of freeware (before Internet access, there were "PD libraries"), and I loved looking through that too. There was some rubbish, but when it's free you don't expect that, and the freedom today. I don't have a problem on Android when something free might not be great. The problem is when everything seems infested with ads, or it's crippleware with IAP to enable everything. And vetting doesn't help, because some the popular games coming from commercial companies rather than individual developers are the prime culprits.

The problem is a lot of people (myself included!) are lazy or don't have the time to try out lots of new games, so they only download what they hear about, and what's top in the search results. I don't think I'm worried that something lower down the list might be poor quality, rather with so many choices, there simply isn't the time to play very many of them at all.

It might be hard, but it definitely is not impossible to be consistently successful on the app stores.

Several companies are. (I'm working at one of them)

It's even possible without spending fortunes on marketing, and without faking ratings/downloads...

Getting that first good game out there so that people know your name really helps with consistency. We have people that download another of our games because they liked something else we put out.

But keeping people around in your games or getting new people in after you game has been out for a while without marketing is a bit harder. We can definitely tell when they start spending on marketing.