Keihart
Member
i've been there at lan parties and grew up playing fighting games at arcades and everything, GAAS being bad for any game is a boomer take, is just looking at old times with rose colored glasses.
Last edited:
-
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.
Square Enix claims Crystal Dynamics was the wrong fit for ‘disappointing’ Marvel’s Avengers
Green_Eyes
Member
Ah, my bad. Maybe CD does also suck then.
Ribi
Member
but destiny 2 was the expansion!
Wildebeest
Member
You mean Square Enix JP has no faith in ex-Eidos or that ex-Eidos is just terrible to developers?
Bragr
Banned
Even if Control had a 30 mill budget, it still was a success when it sold 5 million. I don't see your argument. It was not 5 million that Square was disappointed with, it was 3.4, I remembered wrong.Shawn Layden said their games costed as much as 100M$. Ghots of Tshumia from linkedin posts is suppsoedly aroudn $60 million from someone boasting about budgeting for the game. Even if it was more. the margins are still significantly better and 6.5 Million doesn't seem much more than 5 million but once you past the break-even point everything is like gravy. Their first 3,4, or sometimes even 5 million could even not be profitable.
30 million dollar is a super small budget and again Remedy brags about it in their investor presentations. Here's a quote from them directly "Control was developed in three years with a budget of less than €30 million. We don’t quite require the same huge lifetime numbers as many other games with bigger development budgets. Therefore, even though Control didn’t have chart-topping sales right from the get go, we are in a good position with steady sales. We always take the long view here".
In regards to Doom, U looked it up and the numbers floating around is revenue.
Non western games and smaller budget games want 1-3 million. Japanese studios overwork their employeees more and pay developers as much as janitors so they get tiny budgets and are very happy with few million in sales.
$50-100M+ budgets aren't monster budgets, they are just big budgets. You use "AAA" to describe all these smaller budget games but "AAA" is supposed to refer to how the size of the budget. There's a reason why Square Enix was disappointed with 5 million copies sold and that's because it probasbly didn't make them very much money for the risk they had to take.
Listen, If you think most triple-A games need over 5 million sold to be a success, you need evidence, you would need a 70-80+ million dollar budget to have to sell over 5 million, that's not normal. Even TLOU2 apparently made money after selling over 3 million. The games that need to sell over 5 are the games that have been in development for a long time with a massive team and absurd promotional campaigns, like Cyberpunk, or God of War.
Returnal was considered a success by Sony. That game didn't sell anywhere near 5 million. Not sure it crossed a million yet. There are tons of games like that, like Dead Space back in the day, that sold 1-2 million and become a franchise.
jakinov
Member
As I've said many time and in my original post 5 million is not great for a big budget western game. 30 million is not a big budget game , it's below average. Also we need to also make clear being succesful isn't simply just breaking even it's also profiting enough so that the risk was worth it. You don't risk 50 or 100 million dollars for a chance to make an extra 10,20,30,40,50 million in profit. The purpose of increased risk to someone trying to make money is to get higher reward. As I said in my other post companies have complained about selling more because their expectations were to sell more million of copies to justity how much money they put on the line and risk
budgets of 50,60,70...100 million are very normal for AAA games and becomes more normal over time. The "AAA" designation is used in the industry to refer to big budget games. Games like Kena or We Happy Few don't need to sell a lot of copies but most of the games that Ubisoft, EA, Sony, Microsoft and Take Two put out are very high budget and do. Microsoft and Sony again have a little more wiggle room though as digital is huge nowadays and they are the platform owners and so royaltieis and digital cuts go back into their bank accounts.
Where did you read that the TLOU made moeny (I'm assuming you mean profit) after selling 3 million?
In regards to Returnal they were probably just happy regarding the circumstances. The type of game isn't the most popular and they have a tiny install base. It probably isn't even a high budget game.
You ring up back in the day but you forget or neglect that game development costs have risen since Dead Space from a super long time ago. Even for Dead Space 2, they said they needed 4 million copies to breakeven.
Pagusas
Elden Member
I would. I wanted more than “simple” and “decent” from them. So did Square
Fuz
Banned
TonyK
Member
1 like for you Vs +100 likes for the boomer you're making fun. You've been decimated.Not true but ok i guess?
Last edited:
Bragr
Banned
Where do you get it from that 100 million is normal? 50, 60, or 70 is somewhat normal, 100 is not normal unless it's a game that is expected to sell 10 million-plus lifetime. What you said is 5 million is not a success, but rather a disappointment, "far from a big success" is what you said. And when you look at some of the big games from last year it rings completely false, Doom Eternal, Star Wars Squadron, Nioh 2, Ghost of Tsushima, Ori and the Will of the Wisp, Half-Life Alyx, Crash Bandicoot 4, Resident Evil 3 Remake, Yakuza Like a Dragon.
It's only the massive games like COD or Assassins Creed where such numbers make sense, not the majority at all. Most games are a success if they reach 5 million sold.
Keihart
Member
As if i cared about popularity. here have a like too.
BlackM1st
Banned
Genshin is the biggest game of our time man. It's ain't happening.
Wildebeest
Member
Yeah, sure, games as a service are not popular. The numbers don't lie.
jakinov
Member
50-100 million is normal for a AAA. Analyts, journalist who ask developers and even some of the management have given similiar numbers.Sony says that their games cost around/close to 100M too and that they were around 20-40 million during the ps3 days and like everybody else agrees that video game costs go up alot of time. During the PS3 days take two says their games were costing theme $60M. Of the budgets we do hear about they range from 50-100 sometimes even more. The ones greater than 100M and less than 50M are the rare ones but the ones above $100 are more and more common. The budgets you seem to have in mind are the budgets of AAA games back dujring the PS3 days.
Again I said western games. Japan has way lower standards for games developed there because you can severrely under pay japanese devs by paying them as much janitors and overwork them to the point that they sleep at work. You also mention a bunch of games that have hardly proven to be a big success or that likely have a very small budget liek crash badicoot and Ori and would be hardly classified by many as AAA or high budget.
This is what I said:
"5 million is good for an indie game or a Japanese game but it's not that great for big budget western game, espcailly one from California."
"A big budget $60 game selling 5 million copies in west is usually either okay or disappointing. Far from bad. Far from a big success."
"big success" or "success" isn't measureable but from business point of view no company wants to make shitty returns when they put a shit ton of money into a project that has signficantly more risk than putting your money into a high interest savings , stocks or bonds or wahtever. Unless they are playing the long game and hope to make a lot more money later. Most big-budget/AAA games are not a success if they reach 5 million sold because the average budget very high and it keeps going up. This is why companies get disappointed in sales and also why they keep trying to find money elsewhere. Also disappointing does not mean they lost money, it means that they aren't happy and exepceted more.You can get a raise from work or a cash prize that leaves you disappointed because you expected more for what you did to earn that prize/raise.
BlackM1st
Banned
Some people just can't accept changes.
I'm pretty conservative with my games, but for example I was all digital since PS3 days and never looked back. I still bought disk version of PS5 just in case, but overall industry has moved on.
Same goes for GAAS games. No way industry is turning back.
Max Payne’s Baretta
Banned
Has this ever happened before? The whole throwing a dev under the bus thing??
The formula for a successful Marvel console games seem to be single player, story heavy games that are paced well with high production values - basically what people like from from other Marvel media properties.
Avengers (the game) isn't any of that. It's a cash grab wrapped around a highly forgettable YA story.
I'll say this though - Eidos Montreal got my attention again with GotG - a single player game, while the next game from CD will probably be an easy skip based on how the Avengers has played out.
Avengers (the game) isn't any of that. It's a cash grab wrapped around a highly forgettable YA story.
I'll say this though - Eidos Montreal got my attention again with GotG - a single player game, while the next game from CD will probably be an easy skip based on how the Avengers has played out.
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
This is the dumbest shit I have read today.
The fact we *still* have people playing and loving older FPS games like Halo, Quake, Unreal Tournament while newer titles like SplitGate and Overwatch are dying should speak volumes.
GAAS being good for any game is a spoiled millennial take.
megreotsugua
Banned
Keihart
Member
Yeah, you might be right, i remeber that time that online MP used to get updates and high population for over 6 years, right? Or do you remember that time when your fighting game of choice had an update every couple of months? oh right, i sure don't either, because that didn't used to happen and games died as fast as they came.
the GAAS model fits perfectly for some genres, this games would have been made exactly like that years ago if technology allowed it, that's why as soon as it did features like it started to crawl in, like fighting games getting revisions when cabinets started to allow it meanwhile you were stuck at home with your old version without patches or new content.
Or how about we look at something more organic like MOBAs? Dota had GAAS like features before it could even make money and while it was a fucking mod.
Stop being dumb please.
Wildebeest
Member
We can talk about being old school, but those old school PC multiplayer devs like Blizzard, Valve, Epic and Digital Extremes all led the charge into games a service. John Carmack was making rocket ships and magic glasses, so he doesn't count.
Last edited:
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
I get it. You have probably spent hundreds of hours in an unfinished, broken product and thanks to sunk cost fallacy, you are desperately trying to defend that choice and I feel for you. It is always hard to admit when you fucked up and supported shitty design choices - but its time to finally admit to just that to yourself.
There is a reason why games like Super Smash Bros Melee, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, Street Fighter 3rd Strike, Marvel Vs. Capcom 2, Halo 3, and countless others have maintained popularity while all these modern GAAS titles have quickly fallen out of player’s memories and have no real reason for anyone to return to. They actively make games more temporary and prevent people from actively developing a community. They are utterly disposable. And you are promoting and defending the disposability of games. It’s sad and pathetic.
There is also a major difference between DLC and GAAS. To use your terminology, “Stop being dumb please” and learn the difference.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Public grilling. lol
Bragr
Banned
What games in 2020 and 2021 fit under your category of games that need to sell over 5 million?
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
I agree.
Square Enix claims Crystal Dynamics was the wrong fit for ‘disappointing’ Marvel’s Avengers | VGC
Company’s president says it needs to learn lessons from the much-criticised game’s performance…www.videogameschronicle.com
The head of Square Enix has claimed that Crystal Dynamics was a bad fit for Marvel’s Avengers, given its lack of experience with the games as a service model.
Keihart
Member
"while all these modern GAAS titles have quickly fallen out of player’s" this is just putting your head under the sand, as if League of Legends and CSGO aren't some of the most profitable and long running online games to date.
Constant DLC support is games as a service but you seem to love hyperbole too much to notice since you try so hard to sound smart with frases like "sunk cost fallacy" or a fucking hyphen in a post explaining shit that is obvious to everyone but yourself instead of a coma, for no real reason.
DLC is a crucial part of GAAS, constant and sustainable delivery of GAAS over a long time is the pilar to keep people playing and paying, every game that survived a whole generation with season pases is part of the GAAS model, like SFV, TEKKEN 7 and Rainbow Six Siege, all new entries that were able to hold massive player bases during the whole generation and started pushing them to the new one.
Try again fellow shit poster.
Last edited:
Buggy Loop
Member
While Eidos Montreal had a nice concept for a Final Fantasy made by a western dev house, when the new SE CEO got in with the big ego, canceled it, while their Japanese divisions were oh so struggling with FF15. Maybe they were not a good fit.
jakinov
Member
You use the word "need" but it's not about "need" it's about "want". Companies "need" to break even. They "want" good returns on high risk investments and whent hey don't break even or get shit returns they get disappointed and the game is far from a big success for the business.
The category of games is pretty much things not made cheaply which is what AAA means which is really "high-budget". Games you already mentioned like COD, Battlefrield, Cyberpunk,. But others too like Deathloop, Far Cry, Assassins Creed, Outriders, Doom etc. Games like Kena and Ori made by small teams and inturn small budgets is not what I'm talking about.
Games like The Last of Us 2, Ghosts and Halo you would also want somewhere more than 5 million generally speaking because they are expensive to make but because they are owned by platform owners the cost structure is way better i.e. they profit selling less coppies than a third party making the game with the same budget. They also have other goals with the games which is to encourage additional console sales and ultimately more royalties and subscriptions (gamepass or +/live).
Shadowstar39
Member
What was wrong with ff7 remake? I never finished it (ps4 overheats and not spending $400 to replace a 9 year old console and ps5 is nowhere to be bought)... but I thought it was already about 2 hours in.