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.