I can refute that easily – See Duke Nukem 4. Years in production by big name(s); Massive budget; Name recognition; Total fail in the market place. Compare this with Goat Simulator which was done as a joke.
[/QUOTE]
Cherry picking two examples isn’t refuting a point. You’ve also cherry picked badly.
I’m going to assume you mean Duke Nukem Forever. That was a critical failure for a number of reasons, in part because it had been in development hell for so long and had completely failed to keep up with the times. Nevertheless, it’s a terrible example because the game made a profit regardless of it not being very good. Gearbox didn’t pick up that game on the off-chance it might make some money - they did their research and worked out what it would take to break even before even buying the rights.
Goat Simulator was not luck either. The game was a game jam game, whose trailer was made as an April Fool’s joke that went incredibly viral. Coffee Stain wisely used the enormous viral success of that trailer to turn it into an actual product. Once again, it’s not luck, they made the game in response to demand for the game.
The shovelware storm is hitting Valve’s bottom-line really hard, they are losing money because consumers are losing confidence in their platform and buying fewer games (and a number of successful mid-tier developers no longer even use their storefront). It’s more or less an exact mirror of the games market crash 82-85 - when consumer confidence is low, consumers stop buying. In the early 80s this almost completely wiped out the console games industry, and it was caused by an over-saturation of low budget, poor quality releases. Atari allowed almost complete freedom for third parties on their platform - it cost Atari everything and they never recovered. Nintendo on the other hand were highly selective, and went on to massive success. This isn’t a coincidence, it’s an important consideration in market economics.