Support NeoGAF

[ArtHands]

Well, I bought like 20 games on Steam sale this week so I can't say I am affected.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

For $300 million, risk free games?

Feels like it. They might be only one pumping those out unless GAAS takes over their studios completely.

to me, a platform holder has one responsibility every generation:

to make one new IP that can be as successful/big as the previous one.

sony has always delivered.

regarding GaaS, that pivot is already a failed one.

 

[daclynk]

Spiderman 2 hasn't even been out a year. It seems the problem is these companies want an immediate RoI and profit within a release window. While new games probably have front loaded sales, they can make money well after their initial release date and then there are streaming rights or service based revenue for putting on gamepass or psn.

Stop preaching to your core demographic;
Stop acting like you hate them;
Stop making games longer and bigger - your players don't want this;
Stop developing games you think will work, and develop games the market wants;

There's a massive disconnect here. We want to make what we want, and take the risk people might not like it. As opposed to we will make what the market wants and it will sell well.

It reminds me of the last few years before the PS4 and XB1 where a lot of games became stale because they all felt like reskins. We're back here now imo.

 

[AngelMuffin]

I remember reading in a computer gaming magazine of the '80s complaining about the lack of innovation and creativity, saying that almost everything were fighting, puzzle or racing games.

Since then, people kept complaining every single generation about lack of innovation and creativity. When the reality is that every new generation we got more genres, subgenres and game types, new game types, new business models or even new platform types to play games differently.

Obviously companies want to have profit, so they normally do what they think will sell more. And human beings normally reject new and different things, normally prefer things they already know. So big companies, who invest a lot of money typically bet on safer stuff, what already works. But there's always small innovations or creative mixes, plus also some kamikaze devs or people who wrongly assume their crazy new idea is going to work and even if very different new ideas normally tank, a few succed. So later they are used as reference for future games.


Because most of the top performing games have them. If most top performing games would have pink elephants, then some time later every game would feature pink elephants.

Plenty of shitty games out there with MTXs. It’s another revenue stream where they don’t have to raise the retail price of the games It’s either MTXs or games start costing more at retail. I’d rather have optional MTXs than pay $89 for a game.

 

[Fafalada]

Looking to rise of the ronin people depend more on state of the Art tech as they admit.

It's table-stakes though - not a differentiating factor. Basically middleware exists as an entry point - you use it to get started, not because it will help sales.

It reminds me of the last few years before the PS4 and XB1 where a lot of games became stale because they all felt like reskins. We're back here now imo.

Yea the industry has been cyclical that way for decades now. It's no coincidence that the same cycles are also punctuated by rise in middleware usage - UEs hype cycles are almost exactly following the pattern too.

 

[yurinka]

Plenty of shitty games out there with MTXs. It’s another revenue stream where they don’t have to raise the retail price of the games It’s either MTXs or games start costing more at retail. I’d rather have optional MTXs than pay $89 for a game.

There are always have been tons of shitty games. With or without mtx.
And way less great games, but still a lot of them. With or without mtx.

Considering inflation, retail games are cheaper now than they ever have been in gaming history. Even if ignoring that the percentage of games that end being discounted or price cutted is way higher and end getting way lower prices. Or even included in game subs. And well, many current games are even F2P.

But yes, mtx are an additional and optional revenue source.

 

[Darsxx82]

The industry has been in a crisis of identity, innovation and always playing it safe and squeezing out IPs for years now..... I understand this to mean that things are going to get worse then.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

.regarding GaaS, that pivot is already a failed one.

 

[poodaddy]

Two extremely easy ways to reduce costs/risks:
Always attempt to ensure that the writing of a game isn't politically charged or biased in a heavy handed manner. In the 90's and 00's, honest effort was put towards writing material that would not alienate entire demographics. Today, conversely, these writers seem almost proud to alienate entire demographics of game buyers, quickly summoning claims of racism and imagined prejudices if a player commits the unforgivable sin of disliking unsubtle messaging being shoehorned into titles, implying they're more interested in the political and social aspect of writing, not unlike an activist, who then seem flabbergasted when they're laid off as a result of the public not being interested. They're forgetting that games are commodities; they must sell, first and foremost, and that should be priority above your activism, so alienating entire demographics, regardless of whether you like or agree with their politics, is just bad business.

Secondly, and I've said this in other threads and will continue to say it: Cut out these superfluous consultants, these extracurricular grifters, from the development process entirely. Spend the budget on where it needs to go: programming, art, sound, and design, not someone with a master's in the socioeconomic ramifications of 70's blacksploitation films. These consultants introduce extremely myopic world views, completely lacking in nuance, to a product, directly detracting from its potential profitability, (see my first point about alienating demographics), while contributing absolutely nothing of value to the product as their contributions did not improve the sound, design, art, controls, or general fun of the title in any manner. When you pay a consultancy, you have added a sunk cost immediately to the project, as you've paid money for something that will demonstrably never help with recouping the costs of development, in fact it demonstrably does the opposite of this, and when you're dealing with budgets quickly approaching half a billion dollars you cannot afford any sunk costs that are easily avoidable, and consultancy fees very much are. In short, stop paying grifters to make your product better when all they did was sit around a table with overpriced coffee talking about how to alter the game in minute ways that will, again, alienate potential demographics. There is absolutely no need to pay these people to do this when you can just have internal writers do everything that consultancies do.

TLDR; It's Business 101 man, try to have all aspects of the company's daily work performed in house, as things start getting incredibly expensive when you start paying for consultancy fees and external work that could have been done to the same degree in house. Also Business 101, if something isn't making you money you cut the cost, period. A very simple concept that even a taco stand owner comprehends perfectly, yet the game industry seems to have a tough time comprehending this.

 

[Kokoloko85]

Spiderman 2 hasn't even been out a year.

Spiderman 2 has made profit already and will bring in more money.
Alot of these big AAA games are making profit. Well on Sony’s part they are/ Baldurs Gate did. Some arent because they just arent good enough.

Stop making games longer and bigger - your players don't want this;

I love longer games when the combat/core gameplay is good, give memore.
Baldurs Gate, Pikmin, Zelda, Bloodborne, TLOU2. GOWR length over GOW 2018. More time with great gameplay for me

 

[IAmRei]

Players’ increasingly high demands for graphics and game play

Players who demands highest graphic is not problem player find themselves.

Graphic wars fueled them and i too was one of few people who also insist graphic focused will led to this day. But thats not the only problem. Graphic is one problem, scope of the game is also problem. Graphic focused is led by (surprise) company themselves. Especially hardware manufacturers. Keep pumping new tech which equal to pricing to compete with new tech.

They consider that graphic is the easy way to secure success. And keep pumping with funds that way. And now they at their limit. They reap what they sow.

Now, as scope of the game project is rises, they will stuck with what they can do back to since beginning before: lets bring creativity by limitation of xxx budget. Ironically, indie game way of budgeting. Graphic can be pretty with less than xxx millions. But had to be planned with clever scoping.

not the graphic, not the content, not cinematic or actor, but i think the scope has to be limited to certain degree. Im sure they can think for that. In the end, well received game is not restricted to graphic.

Just saying btw.

 

[FinalBossWithTheMostPower]

It costs a lot to make a good AAA game. Any AAA game, for that matter. I’m not sure where you’re going with this.

And like he’s said, we’ve seen some good AAA games fail to sell very well.

So good games have to be AAA? I'm confused.

The very idea of AAA implies huge costs. Either make them good or don't make them at all.

Stop cherry picking what I've said to try make your point.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

to me, a platform holder has one responsibility every generation:

to make one new IP that can be as successful/big as the previous one.

sony has always delivered.

regarding GaaS, that pivot is already a failed one.

What are you trying to say here?

Should I expect something like The Last Guardian made with $300 million budget from them?

Or something we have seen before but a new lick of paint.

If i were to bet, it would be latter they will come up with.

 

[Ozriel]

So good games have to be AAA? I'm confused.

The very idea of AAA implies huge costs. Either make them good or don't make them at all.

Stop cherry picking what I've said to try make your point.

No. The thread title and much of the OP is about spiraling costs of AAA games leading to publishers and devs choosing to play it safe. That’s the context, and you’re the one cherry picking and going off point.

Either make them good or don't make them at all.

I promise you, nobody goes into making a $100m - $200m game Intending it to be a bad game.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

That's no new IP.

 

[ByWatterson]

The clowns, man:

1. No crunch!
2. Hire 1000 human resources people!
3. Unionize!
4. No AI!
5. Boo corporate risk-aversion!

Idiots.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

but what is considered a "good" game?

Alot of good games dont sell.

A good game is the one that gives people what they want.

Execs and devs just need to get out of their bubble, interact with ACTUAL gamers, learn from their target audiences, and act accordingly.


This is why the most profitable gachas are making hundreds of millions. They are constantly in touch with their communities, even before releasing the game. If they have to make an overhaul, they do it. Another example is Helldivers 2. That's the right approach. Compare that to Rocksteady / Suicide Squad.

Arrogance makes you broke.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

For $300 million, risk free games?

Feels like it. They might be only one pumping those out unless GAAS takes over their studios completely.

GaaS won't take over completely. It's in addition to AAA, to create revenue for continued funding of said AAA production and to keep people playing within their ecosystem in between AAA releases.

Why are some people still obtuse to everything Sony said?

 

[lh032]

A good game is the one that gives people what they want.

Execs and devs just need to get out of their bubble, interact with ACTUAL gamers, learn from their target audiences, and act accordingly.


This is why the most profitable gachas are making hundreds of millions. They are constantly in touch with their communities, even before releasing the game. If they have to make an overhaul, they do it. Another example is Helldivers 2. That's the right approach. Compare that to Rocksteady / Suicide Squad.

Arrogance makes you broke.

So they should make more GaaS games you mean?
I rather play indie games if thats the case

 

[Skull-Knight]

How do they count? Now, thanks to the easier use of the tools, making games should lower cost. CDPR made Witcher 3 with 60-70 million dollars, just don't say because it was in Poland. On the other hand, Spider man 2 was a copy paste of sp1, but they budgeted something like 300 million dollars for it. These numbers are not logical.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

That's no new IP.

AAA single player is reliant on big IP to sell.

Multiplayer live service is not.

 

[FinalBossWithTheMostPower]

No. The thread title and much of the OP is about spiraling costs of AAA games leading to publishers and devs choosing to play it safe. That’s the context, and you’re the one cherry picking and going off point.



I promise you, nobody goes into making a $100m - $200m game Intending it to be a bad game.

Correct, and then from that context my response was that if these studios are bemoaning the costs they should either not make AAA games or make them good like the studios/pub I listed.

You don't have to promise me anything, this has nothing to do with your insight and more to do with some devs/studios over-ambitious nature or mismanagement of resources.

Again it doesn't take 300M to make a great game. At one point in time, a game's budget was no where near that figure. They have noone to blame but themselves for trying to keep with the other power houses that consistently show its possible to profit even with larger budgets.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

What are you trying to say here?

Should I expect something like The Last Guardian made with $300 million budget from them?

Or something we have seen before but a new lick of paint.

If i were to bet, it would be latter they will come up with.

I'm saying a new IP as big(if not bigger) that the previous, that somewhat defines that Gen for Play Station.

PS1: Gran Turismo
PS2: GoW
PS3: Uncharted/TLoU
PS4: Horizon
PS5: New IP from santa Monica/ND or another studio?...we shall see

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

"The gaming industry has not grown to accomodate budgets"

Vs.

"We need to push harder and come up with new ways to surprise and delight that don't always rely on going bigger and more expensive. Video games can be many things and there is much room to experiment in order to appeal to a larger crowd".

The second (paraphrased) was said over a decade ago by a much wiser CEO who both understood and cared about the business.

“We want to do big, new things,” Vincke said on a panel.

We don't believe in innovation unless it's prohibitively expensive. We lack the imagination to innovate in ways that don't bankrupt us.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

AAA single player is reliant on big IP to sell.

Multiplayer live service is not.

yet Sony keeps creating new AAA single player IPs.

I dunno what's your point.

 

[U n i o n 0015]

Players’ increasingly high demands for graphics and game play

Bullshiiiiit. Some of the most popular games have very simple graphics. AAA has been chasing a graphical level that hasn't evolved since PS4 era, while the gameplay experiences are stuck in the PS3/360 era.

Smaller, less demanding, and more frequent titles are the answer to this industry "crisis."

 

[Represent.]

This is what we get for shitting on and criticizing games that release and aren't fucking 40+ hours.

If gamers didn't shit on games for being 8-10 hours long, we would not have this problem.

But nope, games have to be 1million hours long, provide millions of hours of entertainment, for 70 bucks.

Now everything has to be a 1million hour long Open World. Hell, even Resident Evil is going open world now.

We deserve this.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

yet Sony keeps creating new AAA single player IPs.

I dunno what's your point.

Sonys production of "new AAA single player IPs" has slowed to a crawl. Their last was...Days Gone in 2019? Their next will be in 2025 or 2026 from Naughty Dog or Santa Monica?

We're going to exit the PS5 generation where 90% of Sonys big new IP will be multiplayer Live service games. AAA single player isn't worth the risk.

 

[Rat Rage]

Hardware power is the problem here.
We don't need MORE hardware power we need LESS.

More hardware power = creative bankrupcy, no risk taking, BECAUSE erveryone expect the hardware to be maxed out - but the only way to do this is to produce more creatively bankrupt AAA cinematic experience walking simulators or dark souls clones.

Less hardware power = limited hardware space and limited possibilities create an environment in which developers are not forced to do AAA cinematic experience walking simulators.

So basically, in an odd way, the biggest next generation competitor is gonna be Nintendo - since they will focus on affordability and upscaling to 4K on their Switch 2 - and nothing more. I won't be 10x the hardware power of the Swtich 2. This will create a safe-haven for all kinds of developers who can't or just don't want to partake in the 100 of millions of dollars development race. Pair all of that with a competitive price (max 400 dollars) and I can guarantee you Nintendo Switch 2 is gonna be a MASSIVE success.

The age of hardware power is OVER my friends. You'll see it.

 

[SmokedMeat]

AAA has been nothing but safe sequels with Remasters/Remakes scattered in.


It’s why I focus more on AA and indies, and buy AAA when it’s cheap. I don’t see the point in dropping $60-$70 to experience the same shit over and over.

 

[vpance]

This is what we get for shitting on and criticizing games that release and aren't fucking 40+ hours.

If gamers didn't shit on games for being 8-10 hours long, we would not have this problem.

But nope, games have to be 1million hours long, provide millions of hours of entertainment, for 70 bucks.

Now everything has to be a 1million hour long Open World. Hell, even Resident Evil is going open world now.

We deserve this.

Gamers want value which is fair, but they also have terrible standards. Eventually studios figured this out so they keep regurgitating the same tired formulas.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Sonys production of "new AAA single player IPs" has slowed to a crawl.

The entire industry has slow down their output of any kind of game, not only AAA single player titles

Their last was...Days Gone in 2019? Their next will be in 2025 or 2026 from Naughty Dog or Santa Monica?

so? everyone is in the same timeline. The second half of the PS5 Gen Sony should be able to release 2-4 of these games

We're going to exit the PS5 generation where 90% of Sonys big new IP will be multiplayer Live service games. AAA single player isn't worth the risk.

AAA single player is reliant on big IP to sell.

Multiplayer live service is not.

contradiction much?

 

[vaibhavpisal]

GaaS won't take over completely. It's in addition to AAA, to create revenue for continued funding of said AAA production and to keep people playing within their ecosystem in between AAA releases.

Why are some people still obtuse to everything Sony said?

Plans can change. Especially if their GAAS initiatives all exceed expectations. They would be fool to not pursue it.

Its a business after all.

I'm saying a new IP as big(if not bigger) that the previous, that somewhat defines that Gen for Play Station.

PS1: Gran Turismo
PS2: GoW
PS3: Uncharted/TLoU
PS4: Horizon
PS5: New IP from santa Monica/ND or another studio?...we shall see

They took risks in PS4 era with Horizon, Ghost etc new IP open world games from studios that dont make them.

I don’t expect something similar this gen though. Most of the studios have announced sequels and they tend to be safe. (HFW, GOW R).

New IP from SSM/ ND might come, how much new stuff they pack in remains to be seen.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I'm saying a new IP as big(if not bigger) that the previous, that somewhat defines that Gen for Play Station.

PS1: Gran Turismo
PS2: GoW
PS3: Uncharted/TLoU
PS4: Horizon
PS5: New IP from santa Monica/ND or another studio?...we shall see

Four years in and you can’t even name a new ip. Literally proves what everyone’s saying.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Perhaps things are less bleak for games made by East Asian studios? Most of them are not making big investments in tech using premade using engines like UE4.

Then there's also the benefit of I think much lower salaries compared to devs in the West, and higher potential to outsource stuff like asset creation to lower cost countries across Asia.

 

[MrRibeye]

Here's an uncreative, safe IP:

BIG GUNS + BIG TIDDIES

 

[violence]

AAA gaming needs to be like a Greatest Hits album. They need a AA game or Indy game with a unique idea to point to and say hey “this game made money and had this idea.”

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Plans can change. Especially if their GAAS initiatives all exceed expectations. They would be fool to not pursue it.

Its a business after all.

Yes, but this is just make-believe by GaaS-haters.

AAA will be the flagship system-selling titles, GaaS will be for continuous revenue and to keep people engaged within the PlayStation eco-system without having to rely too much on 3rd party.

That's smart business and something Sony should have been doing already.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Four years in and you can’t even name a new ip. Literally proves what everyone’s saying.

uh? cuz games are taking longer to make FOR EVERYONE.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Can’t wait to see our friends on the purple forum try to cope with AI saving the AAA games industry and all their favorite blue hair twitter accounts losing their jobs over it

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

New IP from SSM/ ND might come, how much new stuff they pack in remains to be seen.

that's why Herman said they need to revaluate how Playstation oparates

there was a tweet that compared the the writing team between SM1 vs SM2. it was like double the size.

we don't know how much of an impact all the DEI bullshit is having in these teams alongside other "normal" factors, but clearly actions are being taken

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

So they should make more GaaS games you mean?
I rather play indie games if thats the case

Only if that is what people want. In the case of Suicide Squad, it was the opposite. Fans wanted a new iteration in the Arkham series. Just give it to them.

I see a big disconnect between creators and consumers in video games and movies. Unsurprisingly, both industries are in shambles.

 

[splattered]

The answer is obvious... but people can't see past their own greed

 

[hemo memo]

Yeah let’s bring one game from the graveyard of failed GaaS games.

 

[Arsic]

Don’t worry. We have Suda51 and Kojima always ready to deliver risky games to give players fun.

Now more than ever Suda51 shows he’s well ahead of the curve and always has been.

I’d include Swery and Yoko Taro but Swery hasn’t delivered enough, and Taro is stuck in mobile game hell since Automata.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

So they should make more GaaS games you mean?
I rather play indie games if thats the case

If they can generate enough money with GaaS, chances are higher that they have enough to fund additional A and AA projects.

Shifting from AAA to A and AA might actually be counterproductive.

(Talking Sony)

 

[Hudo]

Taro is stuck in mobile game hell since Automata.

According to Saito, he's working on a real video game and they hope to talk about this some time this year. Dunno whether it's gonna be a new Nier or something else, tho.

 

[ByWatterson]

The biggest game so far this gen (Baldur’s Gate 3) only cost 100M to make, if some are paying more than that then they should really reflect on where their money is going.

This highlights what the actual problem is - the United States.

You can make a Baldur's Gate 3 for $100M in Belgium, where the standard of living and salaries are much lower than in talent labor markets in the United States. You can do it in Korea, in Japan, in Britain, and maybe even Canada.

But you simply can't do it in America.

And so....the future of AAA means a gradual hollowing out of the American AAA development environment.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

At this point I can't wait for the AAA market to crash and burn of its own hubris and then blame gamers.

Baldur's Gate 3 budget including marketing must have been beyond $100M and isn't the biggest game of this generation.

It's the biggest game of the generation in terms of creativity impact I'd argue, and that matters for a lot. It's also been selling pretty well, 15+ million so far in little over half a year. It put several AAA games to shame, including Starfield, on a fraction of the budget and team size.

GTA6 is probably the only other game this gen that'll surpass it in both creativity impact and sheer dollar sales, but at 10x the budget. It'd be nice to see Sony put out another big game with massive creative impact like The Last Of Us in its day but, well, I guess we'll have to wait and see on that front :/

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The entire industry has slow down their output of any kind of game, not only AAA single player titles

Nah. In days of yore, PlayStation would regularly create new AAA single player IP which would become big. That has since slowed to a crawl.

contradiction much?

AAA single player is reliant on big (established) IP to sell. Think: Star Wars, Spider Man, Harry Potter, Zelda etc.

Multiplayer live service is not. That's where new IP regularly become big. The disparity between the two is night and day.