• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Is Modern AAA Game Development Sustainable?

ReBurn

Gold Member
100% right. The high-end AAA side of the industry will consolidate to fewer publishers and studios and release. The Remedys, Crystal Dynamics, Volitions, and Rocksteadys etc will be pressed to survive with economics as they are. Ubisoft will be mostly an Assassin’s Creed company. BioWare gets what could be its last shot with DA4 and maybe another Mass Effect. High prices, lower cost alternatives, and poor quality contributed to this.
Thats why indies and smaller games are so important. If AAA is a bubble and it bursts those smaller experiences and ongoing live service games are what we're going to be left with. I don't think we'll see an end to the mega productions we get from the big publishers, but I think we'll see fewer of them.
 

ABnormal

Member
This.

But..

Smaller scale games. Focus on the right things. We no need no 20 200+ hour games a year.
Well, there's no need to cut one of the two. Both are needed, and some games are better suited to be smaller, while others thrive when they are enourmous. There's value in both, if they are well executed. Surely not when you have gigantic games made of bloated and repetitive material.
I agree that bigger games should be less. If they are so many it's surely more difficult for the market to digest them and make them sustainable.
 
Yes*

What doesn't seem as sustainable are new ip's sadly.

We're in an era where AAA mostly means either an "easy" sequel (Forza Horizon, Horizon:FW, GoW for example), games with a very famous license (we get a Star Wars, a Harry Potter, a DC and some Marvel games this year, all of them AAA) or remakes, lots of remakes.

That's on the single player side at least.
 

Puscifer

Gold Member
I thought development would get easier as the generations moved on, you have toolsets like UE that just get better and better and can seemingly make any type of game not to mention surely when artists create assets etc they do so at insane details anyway regardless of generation and then downsample to suit the hardware limitations not to mention you have vast pools of cheap resources in India/China that you can utilize for repetitive content and then there's is the absolute waste that goes on, take for example Cyberpunk, they spent years building an insane world with so much detail and it's gonna be utilized in 1 game!?! That's crazy for me, how come they couldn't lease it out to other smaller Devs to create other types of games stories set in that incredible world?? Seems a shame that these incredible open world environments, Red Dead, GTA are all one and done
There's an article about a call of duty character modeler mentioning that there's more detail in a pocket on a character model for a PS4 level character than there was for the entire model of ones in the original Call of Duty.

C'mon, this is too much don't you think?
 

RickSanchez

Member
Yes*

What doesn't seem as sustainable are new ip's sadly.

We're in an era where AAA mostly means either an "easy" sequel (Forza Horizon, Horizon:FW, GoW for example), games with a very famous license (we get a Star Wars, a Harry Potter, a DC and some Marvel games this year, all of them AAA) or remakes, lots of remakes.

That's on the single player side at least.

Well put. I can't remember the last time i played a great single-player AAA game which was a new original IP or a fresh new concept...........Cyberpunk 2077 maybe ? That came out more than 2 years ago......same with Death Stranding.........Returnal perhaps, although i haven't played that one yet. I don't know if Elden Ring counts, because it heavily derives from previous Souls titles.
 

RickSanchez

Member
100% right. The high-end AAA side of the industry will consolidate to fewer publishers and studios and release. The Remedys, Crystal Dynamics, Volitions, and Rocksteadys etc will be pressed to survive with economics as they are. Ubisoft will be mostly an Assassin’s Creed company. BioWare gets what could be its last shot with DA4 and maybe another Mass Effect. High prices, lower cost alternatives, and poor quality contributed to this.

100% agree with you. Ubisoft is basically being run on Assassin's Creed and Far Cry now. Bioware........may survive if DA4 and the next Mass Effect is good. Bethesda and Rockstar don't look like they're going anywhere any time soon, but they both take 10 years per game now, sheesh.
 

SSfox

Member
You can make great with much less, Plague Tales, Guilty Gear are some examples.

Western companies are just greedy whiny bitches, they just always want "more and more", they complain that they sold "only 10 millions" and then fire staffs after that, while companies like Capcom, SE are always happy and thankful with 3 or 5 millions
 

Bo_Hazem

Banned
Sustainable as fuck.

God Of War Perfection GIF by Santa Monica Studio
 

feynoob

Banned
Yes it is
Did you see the wages, and cost of hiring that much people? Not to mention marketing and hiring outsource workers? Then you have the production cost, which cost more than what they did in the past? Its alot of money.

The higher that money, the lower the return.

If your budget is $80m for normal AAA game, you will need to sell 2m copies in the first month at the price of $60 in order to get even. But we know most sales arent $60 due to global currency. So they will need at least 3m or higher in the first month to get that money. That is impossible for a lot of games.

Imagine how much big AAA games cost, and how much sales do they need to get those money back.

For example, God of war ragnorak had 5m sales, and managed to bring $325m at the price of $65 average., not counting global currency, or other % cut sales from disc sales.
 

Go_Ly_Dow

Member
Secure partnerships with top tier external studios in Asia and outsource a chunk of the work to them, then you can save a lot of wonga and increase development output. I presume that's how the likes of Capcom, Square Enix and a few others are producing so many mid and big budget games so quickly.
 
Last edited:

Go_Ly_Dow

Member
Did you see the wages, and cost of hiring that much people? Not to mention marketing and hiring outsource workers? Then you have the production cost, which cost more than what they did in the past? Its alot of money.

The higher that money, the lower the return.

If your budget is $80m for normal AAA game, you will need to sell 2m copies in the first month at the price of $60 in order to get even. But we know most sales arent $60 due to global currency. So they will need at least 3m or higher in the first month to get that money. That is impossible for a lot of games.

Imagine how much big AAA games cost, and how much sales do they need to get those money back.

For example, God of war ragnorak had 5m sales, and managed to bring $325m at the price of $65 average., not counting global currency, or other % cut sales from disc sales.
I'm curious, from a $60-70 game sale, how is the the revenue broken down between platform holder, retailer, developer/publisher?
 
Last edited:

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Yes, just spend less on stupid marketing and just like that your budget could be half or even less. Case in point KC: D cost around ~35 mil USD back then, but budget on the whole thing from Deep Silver was 50 mil USD, so just to give an example. And I am not sure where it went, because I didn't see much of an marketing. But those are infos I don't have access to.
 

Bo_Hazem

Banned
With how many people post those cringy Sony gifs unironically, you can never tell.
And in all honesty, I'm still not sure if you're being ironic.

GOW:R made hundrends of millions back to Sony's bank account, what's ironic in that? If devs don't know how to make good games that's not our problem. Also Starfield gonna suffer so hard from GamePass day1 rule so yes it's unsustainable in that fashion unless it's filled with MTX and has enough following.
 
Last edited:

T4keD0wN

Member
If it wasnt sustainable companies wouldnt do it as they exists only to make profit, nothing else.
I couldnt care less as a consumer and you shouldnt care either unless youre an investor. The more money they have on the line the better, its in your best interest if you play games.
If anything you should want the games to take much longer and cost way more to make since most of them cost you the established 60-70usd or 80-90eur.
Look out for your own interests and not for Bobby Koticks wellbeing.
 
Last edited:

brian0057

Banned
GOW:R made hundrends of millions back to Sony's bank account, what's ironic in that? If devs don't know how to make good games that's not our problem. Also Starfield gonna suffer so hard from GamePass day1 rule so yes it's unsustainable in that fashion unless it's filled with MTX and has enough following.
Oh, you were serious about the gif? Then my Pickle Rick comment stands.
I don't care about the sales of Ragnarok. Those Sony manufactured memes are the most unfunny thing on the internet.
 

EDMIX

Member
An amazing thread and love the points you bring up.

I believe its 100% sustainable.

It is wild to see teams grow in the thousands, but with what gamers are expecting from AAA games these days, that is now to be expected. As in, RDR2 may have been in development longer and worked on by more people, they also sold a premium product at full price and moved 46 million units, that is before any PS5 or Series X patch btw, that is before any remaster of the title either...

We have more gamers today then any other time in history.

This time at $70, by the time RDR3 or what ever they call it releases, those fans I doubt will skip it based on a $10 increase, which means it will still move massive, massive units.


Even the point of companies taking less risk, do some of you think with a shorter cycle you'd have MORE risk? Where is the evidence to even support that? I'd argue more would suggest you'd get less risk with a yearly or bi yearly release, is that not the fucking shit some of you cry about regarding Call Of Duty? Assassins Creed?

So taking the time to put out a quality game based on the advancements in gaming is bad....

but shit, yearly release or bi yearly is also bad....

So we got some trilogies in 1 gen btw, its simply that folks choose to cherry pick and pick and choose when they want to acknowledge the talent that is able to do that. =)

So the industry will be just fine. More then enough gamers exist that want AAA games to keep the industry afloat and you'll see the cost go down based on new technology, innovations, AI etc.
 

feynoob

Banned
I'm curious, from a $60-70 game sale, how is the the revenue broken down between platform holder, retailer, developer/publisher?
Most are 30% cut for digital sales on each prespective platform, 70% is breakdown between publishers and developers.

As for phsyical sales from 2010 data.
- The US Official Xbox 360 magazine revealed the revenue breakdowns of a typical $60 Xbox 360 game.

* $12 - Dealer or Retailer
* $12 - Microsoft royalties and production cost
* $7 - Marketing
* $20 - Development cost
* $9 - Publisher

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/the-60-game-breakdown-aka-how-to-get-got.202829/

All these can change, depending on the relationship between publisher and platform holder.
 
Last edited:

22•22

NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
Well, there's no need to cut one of the two. Both are needed, and some games are better suited to be smaller, while others thrive when they are enourmous. There's value in both, if they are well executed. Surely not when you have gigantic games made of bloated and repetitive material.
I agree that bigger games should be less. If they are so many it's surely more difficult for the market to digest them and make them sustainable.

Yes. It's context depended and my initial post wasn't detailed enough.

I could engage regarding this matter but I'd rather indulge in drinking more wine, progressing in Demon's Souls and shit posting. Because in the end, why spend my time analyzing and cross referencing games on said criteria when no one will read or response

Robot Wtf GIF
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Banned
GOW:R made hundrends of millions back to Sony's bank account, what's ironic in that? If devs don't know how to make good games that's not our problem. Also Starfield gonna suffer so hard from GamePass day1 rule so yes it's unsustainable in that fashion unless it's filled with MTX and has enough following.
What you have is $ estimate, but not other cutdown, or actual cost of those games. Not every game is gonna cost $60 or $70 maximum.

You also have to account the total sales. Sony games have huge followers. That is not the same for other developers.
 

HL3.exe

Member
It's sustainable from a financial standpoint.

It's unsustainable from a creative and boundary pushing design standpoint.

Risk aversion and conventional design tropes comes with the natural set back of the current 'make or break' size budgets, selling/communicating your idea to incredibly large teams and planning years ahead of actual production (instead of experimenting with interesting ideas with a smaller/flexible team)
 
Last edited:

Bo_Hazem

Banned
What you have is $ estimate, but not other cutdown, or actual cost of those games. Not every game is gonna cost $60 or $70 maximum.

You also have to account the total sales. Sony games have huge followers. That is not the same for other developers.

That huge following is fully justified, and Sony as well doesn't cheap out in marketing. They're the best in that regard by a large margin. Only CyberPunk2077 came close in that regard. But also they have a wonderful network of quality control and collaboration to make sure that their games aren't crap like Haaland today.
 

feynoob

Banned
That huge following is fully justified, and Sony as well doesn't cheap out in marketing. They're the best in that regard by a large margin. Only CyberPunk2077 came close in that regard. But also they have a wonderful network of quality control and collaboration to make sure that their games aren't crap like Haaland today.
Not everyone has that privilage.
 
It’s sustainable but it’s not practical…games getting more expensive haven’t lead to an increase in quality. Production value is up but story telling isn’t, game design philosophy for AAA is stagnant and once every couple of years we get a AAA worth the wait but I think FROM has the best concept to product pipeline compared to say Naughty Dog. It reminds me of film with how the big marvel films have big reach but none of them will ever be “Oscar” quality films due to being too formulaic.
 

Knightime_X

Member
i dont think so. These A.I. solutions are not running by the power of science-fiction
AI in the way it's being used now was definitely science-fiction several generations ago.
I would love to see what gaming and AI looks like 20 years from now.
For better or worse, time will tell.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
AI in the way it's being used now was definitely science-fiction several generations ago.
I would love to see what gaming and AI looks like 20 years from now.
For better or worse, time will tell.
I am talking about how people are talking about A.I. right now.

But yeah. A.I./algorithms/procedural/neural shit/model/Quantum/cloud whatever.

is here to stay.
 

Knightime_X

Member
I am talking about how people are talking about A.I. right now.

But yeah. A.I./algorithms/procedural/neural shit/model/Quantum/cloud whatever.

is here to stay.
AI, the way it's currently being explored, is in its infant stage and most certainly not all that beneficial at the moment.
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Banned
Sony is just good, mate, the best in the business. I would quit gaming if not for Sony, seriously speaking. Their games have soul, passion, they mean something. It's a business, but I love Sony products because they have a soul in them. You can still make money while doing something good.
They aren't immune to failure
 

JimmyRustler

Gold Member
Sustainable yes… but at what cost? Fewer releases every year and each game getting longer support.

I was all for technical for technical improvement but lately I’ve come to the conclusion that it would have better for us to stay at the PS3/360 level. Game looks better and are bigger in scale, yes, but it’s just not worth it. The state of the industry is straight out depressing.
 

Killer8

Member
Development tools have improved and made things easier yes.

How are things becoming less bloated though?

Companies think bigger = better (gigantic open worlds, at the expense of solid tight pacing of a game.

Companies don't think this, gamers do, which in turn means companies have to design their games in such a way to appeal to gamers - otherwise their games won't sell. If a company could get away with not creating bigger and more detailed games, they would (see: Pokemon). Expectations from players have become astronomical. The market wants their AAA games to be 50+ hour long, open world epics (even though barely anyone actually finishes them according to trophy/achievement data).

Back in the PS3 gen, a linear <10 hour long single player game with no online multiplayer would get destroyed in user reviews and/or sales numbers. Not every game is suitable for multiplayer, so the solution was increasing the numbers - bigger world, more quests and filler, more cutscenes, better graphics etc. And not every game is suitable for a truly open world, so what's left of the truly single player games just get longer and longer (God of War Ragnarok is the lengthiest in the series yet).

The market is fickle and if gamers don't think they are getting a big enough leap to justify their new $500 box, they will ignore your game. Adam Sessler recently got a lot of shit for mocking gamers, but he just came at it from a retarded angle. Gamers deserve to get shit on because they don't know what they want and have increasingly unrealistic expectations.
 
If it truly takes this many people to create an AAA title, I do really fear for the future. Seriously, I wish these companies would go back to some smaller, more linear, focused and structured games. I really think this obsession with huge open worlds and hundreds of hours of gameplay is hurting companies and ballooning development costs and development time out of control.

Can you imagine how much Callisto Protocol would have cost and how many people would be necessary if it was open world and 80 hours? I feel it’s mostly gamers fault though. They think bigger worlds and more hours equal better game where in actuality it is pressuring companies to make bigger, more bloated games which generally leads to more expensive games and a bigger staff.
 
Last edited:
Companies don't think this, gamers do, which in turn means companies have to design their games in such a way to appeal to gamers - otherwise their games won't sell. If a company could get away with not creating bigger and more detailed games, they would (see: Pokemon). Expectations from players have become astronomical. The market wants their AAA games to be 50+ hour long, open world epics (even though barely anyone actually finishes them according to trophy/achievement data).

Back in the PS3 gen, a linear <10 hour long single player game with no online multiplayer would get destroyed in user reviews and/or sales numbers. Not every game is suitable for multiplayer, so the solution was increasing the numbers - bigger world, more quests and filler, more cutscenes, better graphics etc. And not every game is suitable for a truly open world, so what's left of the truly single player games just get longer and longer (God of War Ragnarok is the lengthiest in the series yet).

The market is fickle and if gamers don't think they are getting a big enough leap to justify their new $500 box, they will ignore your game. Adam Sessler recently got a lot of shit for mocking gamers, but he just came at it from a retarded angle. Gamers deserve to get shit on because they don't know what they want and have increasingly unrealistic expectations.

This is 100% right on the money.

👍
 
Top Bottom