-
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.
Former SIE WWS boss Shawn Layden says AAA development is "unsustainable"
- Thread starter Jubenhimer
- Start date
- News Game Dev
turtlepowa
Banned
Also the advertisement. They spent 10 million dollar on a single Spider-Man commercial just in the USA. You can only imagine the worldwide costs for their game advertisements.
FranXico
Member
Care to ellaborate?
D
Deleted member 775630
Unconfirmed Member
Ori is of a very high quality, it would be insane if each game is of that standard. That's like saying every PS game needs to be of the standard of TLOU or GoW, that's just not possible. BUT you can still get good games, like Days Gone for example.
Nintendo generated more profits than Sony gaming division, Capcom, Ubisoft, Square Enix, and Sega combined because of 1st party softwares. Sony generated more on 3rd party royalty money than 1st party softwares as Sony 1st party games are usually dirt cheap a few months after the released.
MastaKiiLA
Member
Nintendo made what might be a wise decision to get out of the power creep, and stick to a more sustainable model on both the hardware and software side. I think Sony and MS have opened Pandora's Box, and can't close it now. They're at the point of photoreal graphics that mandate a minimum amount of investment for big titles, that they can't retreat from. Future console iterations might provide more incremental improvements in power, which would help make console manufacturing a bit easier on their budgets, but the software will always need lots of assets to be created for use in games. Mo-cap and the like as well. They already share assets between games, but it's still not enough of a budgeting move at this point.
Hopefully AI will allow them to streamline the game-creation process. Maybe we can get to a point where level modeling can come down to just taking a camera to a location, and capturing video of the location, then have an AI generate all the 3D models for you, as well as performing the required animation scripts and models. The army of designers and developers right now make game development way too costly.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
I'd love to have more 10 hours concentrated playtime AA experiences that cost around 20 bucks.
gamerforever
Banned
No, they’ll be 60 ‘bucks’, which is why I don’t want these lower quality titles. I do find it a bit ridiculous how publishers get away with charging the same for titles. An annual fifa update with small enhancements is the same price as the last of us 2.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
But then the problem is the pricing.
SaucyJack
Member
I do think there needs to be a balance. I'd be more than happy to have a few more big games that are sub-20 hours.
I don't have time in my life to play all of the games I want to, not least because many of them are absolutely huge - I'm looking at you Assassin's Creed Odyssey. If I think back to the PS3/360 generation there were definitely a lot more games that were smaller, so I played more variety and just had one or two like Skyrim that took hundreds of hours.
I don't have time in my life to play all of the games I want to, not least because many of them are absolutely huge - I'm looking at you Assassin's Creed Odyssey. If I think back to the PS3/360 generation there were definitely a lot more games that were smaller, so I played more variety and just had one or two like Skyrim that took hundreds of hours.
mejin
Member
more profits now when PS4 is at the end of its life cycle and Sony has PS5 coming. Nintendo needed to reset cause wiiu was a complete failure.
They are just in different momentum.
Relativ9
Member
It's obviously a different caliber of game that takes tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to make, but given just how much can be done by small teams on engines like Unity and Unreal, it's always been a mystery to me how games that aren't that revolutionary and use more or less the same gameplay features and not to mention engine as the last entries in their series, can somehow need thousands of people to work on them (Assassin's Creed). Any game that is open world with non-linear storytelling will always need quite a bit more time/people working on it, but holy shit. Compare for example Sucker Punch which has a bit over 200 people working for them and make open world games very similar to Assassin's Creed, 200 is still a lot, but it's nowhere near the 1000+ people Ubisoft as working on any given AC game.
AAA development isn't unsustainable, but studio's have definitely gotten VERY bloated and I'd argue that 200 people over 5-6 years can deliver a much better product than 1000 people over 2 years...and for much less.
AAA development isn't unsustainable, but studio's have definitely gotten VERY bloated and I'd argue that 200 people over 5-6 years can deliver a much better product than 1000 people over 2 years...and for much less.
Last edited:
Sony
Nintendo
I partially agree with you. The thing is, over the past years/gens, AAA game development has become more complex with significantly more people involved developing a game. From dev teams to subcontractors. I ask myself, has the quality of AAA games increased proportionally to the increase in development costs. I'm inclined to say no.
Last edited:
Kenpachii
Member
Shawn Layden, former chairman of Sony Interactive's Worldwide Studios division, stated that he feels current AAA development is an unsustainable model.
Former PlayStation Boss Says AAA Game Development Is Unsustainable
With AAA games costing as much as $150 million to develop, Shawn Layden says the model is "just not sustainable."www.gamespot.com
He also says he'd like to see 12-15 hour AAA games return.
I can see where he's coming from, and don't disagree to an extent. AAA development is risky, and increasingly expensive. But that doesn't mean they should go away. People like big games, and big games will always be made. I'd personally hate to see AAA games go away.
That said, I think the solution is very simple, diversify the investments. Betting all your eggs on on a $80 million beast isn't very wise. Make sure you have less costly, but still profitable games to help bring in revenue that can continue to make these AAA releases. I hate EA, but credit where credit is do, they have one of the better setups for a major publisher, having a Main label for expensive AAA titles, and an EA Originals label for smaller, independently developed games.
I also think there should be less AAA games each year as well. Have something like the film industry, where either the Summer or Holiday is where nearly all the AAA games get released, then have the rest of the year filled with different kinds of games. A system like this can maintain variety, without compromising quality.
Reason why sony also has to go multiplatform with there games at some point. It's simple not doable to focus on a single platform.
Hypereides
Member
No shit, it honestly baffles me why they haven't divided the gargantuan budgets into smaller AA capable projects. We've reached a point where diminshing returns are very noticeble and ray-tracing, aside from being technologically impressive, isn't going to significantly improve the overall quality of a game. The creative concepts implemented into that game will do that.
They should focus on Improving the neglected areas that have gone overlooked for far too long instead and trim down the budgets. Stop mindlessly expending on hiring Hollywood actors and focusing on costly high fidelity graphics. Otherwise, expect retail/digital prices to increase subtantially, business models more egregious and similiar to GAAS to become a main standard, despite your protests/complaints, and that you'll eventually be forced to pay up more just to satiate your junkie fix for extra crispy graphics while getting equally or less meaningful content.
They should focus on Improving the neglected areas that have gone overlooked for far too long instead and trim down the budgets. Stop mindlessly expending on hiring Hollywood actors and focusing on costly high fidelity graphics. Otherwise, expect retail/digital prices to increase subtantially, business models more egregious and similiar to GAAS to become a main standard, despite your protests/complaints, and that you'll eventually be forced to pay up more just to satiate your junkie fix for extra crispy graphics while getting equally or less meaningful content.
Last edited:
Jubenhimer
Member
No, Sony can still focus on exclusives. But I think they should diversify the scale of their games to compensate for the longer AAA development times.
Jubenhimer
Member
This. Ubisoft in this case needs to learn that you don't need an Assassins' Creed game every other year. In fact, yearly franchises aside from Sports games, is a concept that should just die already. It's clearly not a sustainable business model, and having a much smaller team work on a game for a longer period of time will usually, yield better results.
AnkitDanger
Banned
I'd agree with him tbh
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
They're pretty much the only games that get widespread public advertisement outside of the specialized press and websites, so for all intents and purposes, AAA are in fact the only games that "matter" in the public view.
And this is why in the public's eye, video games are now all about the great cinematics experiences and open worlds of Ubi and Sony, plus the usual heavy hitters from Nintendo.
Unfortunately the gap between AAA and everything that isn't AAA has widened immensely during the last two generations, and it's not going to get narrower any time soon. The best talents in the industry inevitably end up in the big studios that get all the funds. Nobody can compete, and the bulk of the market is the people who buy those very expensively AAA games.
AAA production has backed itself into a corner. The only way is up, but the improvements in tech mean that they'll need more and more resources - time, people, and money - to keep that up, while lesser devs are just now reaching the level of 7th- Gen output.
CrysisFreak
Banned
How is it not sustainable when Spiderman, Horizon, God of War and Uncharted are all profitable and fun? Forza Horizon too I hope.
I think the way things are right now is very sustainable.
Except a few studios really shoot for the moon and overdo it probably.
Most famously RDR2 and TLOU2. Now don't get me wrong the quality there is mind boggling.
What the fuck are those production values.
But you don't need those. I didn't have more fun with RDR2 than in Sekiro just because of RDR2's out of the world tech.
So AAA has many different levels effectively. Generally speaking, things are fine imho.
I think the way things are right now is very sustainable.
Except a few studios really shoot for the moon and overdo it probably.
Most famously RDR2 and TLOU2. Now don't get me wrong the quality there is mind boggling.
What the fuck are those production values.
But you don't need those. I didn't have more fun with RDR2 than in Sekiro just because of RDR2's out of the world tech.
So AAA has many different levels effectively. Generally speaking, things are fine imho.
Beer Baelly
Al Pachinko, Konami President
Byebye Naughtydog!
DeltaPolarBear
Member
In the end, only 1st Party can truly afford AAA game development. Because the goal of first party is to sell the console, selling the game is just gravy. Third Party on the other hand, is increasingly stretching their output so they make more money out of a single game rather than making sequels. Hence GTA and Elder Scrolls got their sequels delayed so much.
GHG
Gold Member
If the quality is high enough then I don't have an issue with the pricing.
Jubenhimer
Member
Several of this generations most well known titles actually are indie games. Minecraft, Rocket League, Undertale, Celeste, among others don't fit the traditional mold of "AAA" game, yet they're often just as popular.
The gap is actually narrowing when you consider that indie developers are capable of a lot more than they were in the 7th generation. This is because development tools and storefronts are much easier to use now. I mean, some of the stuff indies can do these days is pretty insane.
Last edited:
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Umm...and what's that?
Relativ9
Member
I almost wonder what came first, the big teams or the yearly releases? With teams where each individual member might be so highly specialized or segregated from the larger gameplay design process (only focusing on a single area/discipline) it's probable that a large number of the developers only actually spend about 50% of the games full development time working on it themselves...after this these people still need to have a job and something to do, so I'd imagine that for the time between each game we the players wait, any one developer at Ubisoft will have worked on 2-3 upcoming Assassin's Creed games. So to not keep the train going and release a game every year or every other year, would likely mean firing a bunch of people. So I guess hats off to Ubisoft for keeping people employed? Honestly i don't know if this is way off or not, but I'm too lazy to research it now and it feels like it's probably close to the case so let's go with it
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
I for one would welcome shorter and tighter AAA experiences. No reason for any SP campaign to exceed 20 hours.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The reason why companies tend to focus on single "big bets" over multiple smaller ones is that production cost tells only part of the story.
If your smaller game has an equally smaller advertising budget, its risking getting drowned out of public perception either by a rival's AAA blockbuster with marketing blitz to match, or by the sheer amount of noise generated by numerous smaller titles trying to take advantage of the brief window's of opportunity BETWEEN AAA launches.
Making something good just isn't enough when there's so much competition for attention.
If your smaller game has an equally smaller advertising budget, its risking getting drowned out of public perception either by a rival's AAA blockbuster with marketing blitz to match, or by the sheer amount of noise generated by numerous smaller titles trying to take advantage of the brief window's of opportunity BETWEEN AAA launches.
Making something good just isn't enough when there's so much competition for attention.
nowhat
Member
$49.99 in 2005 → 2024 | Inflation Calculator
The 2.43% inflation rate means $49.99 in 2005 is equivalent to $78.94 today. This inflation calculator uses the official US consumer price index published by the Department of Labor.
www.in2013dollars.com
They were more expensive then (assuming games are currently $59.99).
Last edited:
martino
Member
me too because more causes more problem than anything else especially in narrative corridor ones.
Bryank75
Banned
I'd say it's more to do with costs than anything, Nintendo manages their costs well, their games and hardware are cheap to make and as you say they do not lower the price of their software... even the remaster of Donkey Kong was full price and didn't lower..... whereas Sony released SOTC remake at 45 dollars or something like that.
On the hardware side, the Switch I first bought for my son had parts chipping and falling off because the plastic was so cheap.... I almost blamed him until I looked it up online and saw that chips near the power button and breaks near the vents and corners were common with the first unit.
So I have now bought 3 Switches...... it's not a very ethical way to increase business.
Yep it be stupid for Sony to go multiplatform to trade full 60 dollar sales for more 20 dollar sales minus steams 30 percent would be foolish. Sony should learn from Microsoft. If it ain't on steam and lord gabe gets his cut it don't sell for the most part. Also PC gamers are by far the most patient, cheapest and creative to get games for pennies on the dollar. If there is no muliplayer they will wait until they can get it from stream in a 3rd world country for 2 dollars. Keep exclusive and sell more consoles make more money or become Microsoft.
PlayerPurple
Member
I think the key point you're missing is what we've had to sacrifice (as consumers) in order for those sales to "skyrocket."
Higher sales are due to both the market itself being bigger and games needing to appeal to as many buyers as possible for financial stability. The more buyers your game requires, the less risky and more casual friendly it needs to be, and the less variety we have to choose from as consumers. There's a reason many core gamers claim to enjoy modern indie more than AAA.
That's because in the AAA space, "hardcore gamers" don't really matter anymore. They're a tiny fraction of a wide target audience, who pay the same paltry $60 as everyone else and aren't willing to budge on it. In that respect, can you really blame publishers for "dumbing down" their games, even the franchises built on core gamer appeal? Why would they make more innovative, better designed games when the only audience who'd buy them isn't willing to pay more for them?
And the funny thing is, I bet they want to appeal to a more dedicated audience of hardcore gamers, who are a much safer guarantee of promotion and repeat business than casual gamers are. Emotional reverence to a brand is the key difference between the two groups: it's why core gamers will generate word-of-mouth for games they like, while casual gamers might buy one game but not show up for its equally good sequel. Casual gaming's just a very volatile business, but with core gamers largely being stubborn on price, publishers unfortunately need to depend on it.
As for digital games, I'm shocked you didn't mention how anti-consumer they can be (especially on console). They're sold for the same price as physical games, despite having much lower production costs, no resale value, more expensive prereqs (large hard drive, internet connection), and no guarantee of future access. Yet gamers largely prefer downloading anyway, a statistic mostly padded by casual gamers.
How much better would our games be if core gamers were willing to meet publishers halfway, like they used to?
Last edited:
Pallas
Gold Member
$49.99 in 2005 → 2024 | Inflation Calculator
The 2.43% inflation rate means $49.99 in 2005 is equivalent to $78.94 today. This inflation calculator uses the official US consumer price index published by the Department of Labor.
They were more expensive then (assuming games are currently $59.99).
I mean sure, but that’s everything with inflation. What I am saying is that this may cause games to go from $59.99 to $69.99 brand new.
Isa
Member
The funny thing is that there are so many variables at play here. The gaming market is so big now, and there is a LOT of competition and external factors. Not everybody wants the same type of game, with most "gamers" on my friends lists barely if every touching anything that isn't free-to-play and if they do they get it on sale. I think these companies have been lucky to foster a customer base that will pony up the cash on day 1, especially considering the quality of titles on day 1 of release and the egregious tiers of product editions. The later of which has soured many of my friends from trusting these companies until well after launch, and my best friend has stopped buying games he feels is incomplete with content hacked away to try and sell gold editions and season passes.
The other side as well is that most of these guys also tend to only want to buy a game that is long, even if they don't know or care about the bloated filler content. Partially explains the rise in open-world by-the-numbers filler in most open-world games. And to think how bad it is for niche devs and publishers. I recall the Atelier guys saying they had to release a game yearly or risk bankruptcy. I do wish that an acceptance of more "artistic" games would prevail, as I think a lowering budget and needed return would help gaming drastically. However many talk about disliking anything that isn't "realistic". But with such a stagnating industry its not surprising to see how many were unimpressed by next-gen, as so few companies are willing or able to take a risk outside of what is known to sell. So what we're left with is great expectations from all sides with exorbitant barriers of entry.
The other side as well is that most of these guys also tend to only want to buy a game that is long, even if they don't know or care about the bloated filler content. Partially explains the rise in open-world by-the-numbers filler in most open-world games. And to think how bad it is for niche devs and publishers. I recall the Atelier guys saying they had to release a game yearly or risk bankruptcy. I do wish that an acceptance of more "artistic" games would prevail, as I think a lowering budget and needed return would help gaming drastically. However many talk about disliking anything that isn't "realistic". But with such a stagnating industry its not surprising to see how many were unimpressed by next-gen, as so few companies are willing or able to take a risk outside of what is known to sell. So what we're left with is great expectations from all sides with exorbitant barriers of entry.
KingJ2002
Member
He's right, and it's clear within the industry
- Nintendo making numerous comments about the house power race providing diminishing returns
- This generation started off with the "experiment" of online multiplayer only games
- The advent of season passes and f2p on consoles
- The rise of indy titles
- More talk about downloading "pieces" of the entire experience.
When i look at the trailers of next gen games, I'm wowed, not just by the visuals but also thinking of the budget to create an experience like that.
I think the mindset of game creation is shifting for the benefit of industry. Episodic content allows for game studios to keep players engaged, and with backwards compatibility a requirement for next gen, its clear that studios need to not only thinking about the user experience, but also take into account how their game can scale across multiple generations while keeping costs low.
For me, i'm grateful. The irony of this approach of scaling down and having seasonal passes (ex. Destiny 2) has led me to buy more games than I ever have. My backlog is huge, but i know as long as I have a system in the family, I can get to it eventually, even if it means its a year or 2 away from its original release.
- Nintendo making numerous comments about the house power race providing diminishing returns
- This generation started off with the "experiment" of online multiplayer only games
- The advent of season passes and f2p on consoles
- The rise of indy titles
- More talk about downloading "pieces" of the entire experience.
When i look at the trailers of next gen games, I'm wowed, not just by the visuals but also thinking of the budget to create an experience like that.
I think the mindset of game creation is shifting for the benefit of industry. Episodic content allows for game studios to keep players engaged, and with backwards compatibility a requirement for next gen, its clear that studios need to not only thinking about the user experience, but also take into account how their game can scale across multiple generations while keeping costs low.
For me, i'm grateful. The irony of this approach of scaling down and having seasonal passes (ex. Destiny 2) has led me to buy more games than I ever have. My backlog is huge, but i know as long as I have a system in the family, I can get to it eventually, even if it means its a year or 2 away from its original release.
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
Minecraft and Rocket League, sure. Because of low requirements, low entry price, great affordability, virtually endless gameplay, and availability on practically everything that has a screen.
Undertale and Celeste? Actual niche products for gaming connoisseurs not afraid of pixelly graphics and unusual gameplay. The audience of typical gaming advertisements have never heard of these games, probably never will, and 99% of them would dismiss these games at first glance. These titles being somewhat celebrated in the hardcore gaming community doesn’t make them “well known”, and even many gamers just scoff at them and go “hurr durr indie shit with NES graphics, what’s wrong with you people why do you play these?”.
Still, no indie studio with limited workforce and funds can make a game on par with the technical expertise and the scope of Ubisoft with their staff of hundreds of people and virtually limitless budget. I mean, games like Hollow Knight are just insane, but the only place where a game like Hollow Knight is getting any public recognition is in a trailer reel together with dozens of other games, and it’s never going to steal the spotlight from a bona fide AAA game. Minecraft is a one-of-a-kind exception, and nobody would dream it would get so big at the start.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Not sure if that’s a good idea. They will probably sell less games and make less money if the prices take longer or rarely drop in price. I do not want a future where it will take GOW6 or whatever years to drop in price.
Last edited:
Rhazer Fusion
Member
I was always concerned about next generation development costs and developmental time frames. It’s bad enough it’s generation, but I predicted awhile back that things will get much worst. DLC and season passes will probably be even more of a nightmare next generation and that’s really saying something.
Honestly, I rather just have smaller or shorter games than having to pay even more for games or seeing less price drops. I don’t need every game to be 50 to 100 hours for me to get enjoyment out of it. I’m probably in the minority, but I’m satisfied with a 6 to 15 hour game on average.
Honestly, I rather just have smaller or shorter games than having to pay even more for games or seeing less price drops. I don’t need every game to be 50 to 100 hours for me to get enjoyment out of it. I’m probably in the minority, but I’m satisfied with a 6 to 15 hour game on average.
Last edited:
Humdinger
Member
He knows what he's talking about, and what he's saying makes a lot of sense.
Personally, I've been bored with most AAA offerings for the past several years. Lately, I've been gravitating to games that harken back to an earlier era. For instance, I've been playing the SpongeBob remake, and I'm looking forward to Kena and the Kingdoms of Amulur remake. I may pick up a Switch eventually, since Nintendo is less concerned with the tech race.
Personally, I've been bored with most AAA offerings for the past several years. Lately, I've been gravitating to games that harken back to an earlier era. For instance, I've been playing the SpongeBob remake, and I'm looking forward to Kena and the Kingdoms of Amulur remake. I may pick up a Switch eventually, since Nintendo is less concerned with the tech race.
Jubenhimer
Member
Obviously not, but it's still a lot easier for indies to make a fuller experience today than it was in 2010.
Shinobitron
Member
Oh come on, that's like a Hollywerid film director saying we can't make big budget blockbusters anymore.
ZywyPL
Banned
Start making good games again, and the profit will follow. No wonder they are having hard times when they try to sell us half-product for full 60$ and actually finish it on the fly, and sell the cut out content separately for another 15/30/45$, people just got just sick and tired of that bullshit already.
JerryinSoCal
Member
Most games already take less than 15 hours to complete, why is he acting like every game is an open world game that's play time is padded a lot by in game travel time? TLOU2 took me 25 hours to beat but a good 10 hours of that is cinematics. He has no real point here other than prices are likely going to have to go up at some point OR people will just have to get used to back end monetization.
JerryinSoCal
Member
There are tons of online games that flop too
JerryinSoCal
Member
I'm old enough to remember paying over $70 for some N64 games, cartridge based games had variable pricing a lot of the time instead of this one size fits all approach that started once games went to disc.
JerryinSoCal
Member
Basically they need to be better at planning things out before development starts, the issue is problems always come up during development, people find out things they planned on aren't working out etc. It's not an easy thing I'm sure but I don't think Layden makes much sense when most games really aren't more than 15 hours.