• Cliff Bleszinski warns that triple-A game development is 'nearly unsustainable'
    59 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamer.com/cliff-bleszinski-warns-that-triple-a-game-development-is-nearly-unsustainable[/url]
Well when you constantly spend $200 million on each game, there will be a point where people stop being interested and you lose money. For some reason companies act like smaller budget games are bad and they keep putting all of their eggs in one basket.
It's really nothing new, game industry is very harsh. I've been playing a lot of older games these past few months and after I finish the game I check out what other games the developer/publisher has released and more often then not they either went bankrupt, or were bought by a larger publisher and went into obscurity.
I'd argue AAA is not only unustainable economically, but also from a human point of view. The horror stories are out there, and they're real, sadly
I feel like the AAA games industry is unsustainable due to the way they treat their developers though, as well. The number of "xy and z have quit major company to form small indie studio making games that they really want to make" stories I've seen is a *lot*. The games industry is going to collapse due to its own stupidity Add on to that, I have no idea why any new developers would want to join the AAA games industry when you could join a, you know, not shit small indie company doing what you want, for similar money, and 1000000x the creative fulfillment
[QUOTE=Icedshot;52134058]I feel like the AAA games industry is unsustainable due to the way they treat their developers though, as well. The number of "xy and z have quit major company to form small indie studio making games that they really want to make" stories I've seen is a *lot*. The games industry is going to collapse due to its own stupidity Add on to that, I have no idea why any new developers would want to join the AAA games industry when you could join a, you know, not shit small indie company doing what you want, for similar money, and 1000000x the creative fulfillment[/QUOTE] You make it sound like the indie scene is all milk and honey. It is a even more competitive field than AAA. Small studios are shutting down and new ones are opened every day. Also how many of these developers you mention who quit would even have a chance if their name wasn't attached to a previous successful AAA game or developer ? Even Cliff Blezinski himself is only still relevant because he worked on Unreal and Gears Of War. Also look at Kickstarter; basically every large successful Kickstarter that succeed was because of nostalgia and some well known developer in the team who built his name while working in the AAA industry.
Thinking about this, I wonder how long it will be before we hit "peak AAA development"? Or have we already passed that peak and we're seeing the start of the decline/plateau? I feel like we're still approaching that peak, but it's probably due to the emergence of certain "double-dipping" practices that are to the games industry what fracking is to the oil industry. With fracking, we're tapping into the more obscure sources since the main sources are running dry, and with things like pre-orders, season passes and microtransactions in full-price games, the industry is tapping into less scrupulous ways to accrue money from their products, since the old ways apparently aren't enough to feed their habits anymore. Honestly, I'd probably be fine with games looking like they came from 2007 if it means an end to overblown budgets and the overzealous double-dipping that usually ensues. So long as it runs well, and is an engaging experience, Squenix could make Deus Ex: Mango Cupcakes in the Unreal 1 engine, and I wouldn't be too upset. But of course, we've gone too far graphics-wise for AAA studios to make something that most people would view as a "budget title" or "shovelware". We're too deep in the next-gen graphics camp to make assets on the cheap and not get laughed off the shelves by graphics snobs and the electronic old men who still view Hollywood flashiness as a good thing to build games around. However, there's one "easy" solution when it comes to trimming some of the budget. Avoid using big-name Hollywood actors all the time (though use them where it really IS necessary, of course), go for lower-tier VAs with reasonable hiring fees, or maybe even test the voice talents of the dev team itself. After all, you might find that one of your main artists has a voice that really fits a boisterous old baron, so you don't have to shell out millions to get Brian Blessed into the recording booth. That said however, I imagine there's the issue of only being able to hire either unionized VAs or freelancers, and that you can't mix-and-match for some reason.
Maybe stop dumping all your cash into graphics and big-name actors and shit that doesn't affect the actual game then. I can't in good faith say that I've ever made a purchase decision based on graphics other than "I don't think I can run this, I'm not buying it."
Hell, this kind of thing is evident in the movie industry, you're seeing all these big Hollywood studios investing way more money that they need to into some mediocre/forgettable movie, but audiences are starting to get tired of the same shit over and over again (not to mention the other factors). Just look at the box office numbers from last year. I'm sure the same sort of logic could apply to the games industry as well.
[QUOTE=ironman17;52134190] Honestly, I'd probably be fine with games looking like they came from 2007 if it means an end to overblown budgets and the overzealous double-dipping that usually ensues. So long as it runs well, and is an engaging experience, Squenix could make Deus Ex: Mango Cupcakes in the Unreal 1 engine, and I wouldn't be too upset. But of course, we've gone too far graphics-wise for AAA studios to make something that most people would view as a "budget title" or "shovelware". We're too deep in the next-gen graphics camp to make assets on the cheap and not get laughed off the shelves by graphics snobs and the electronic old men who still view Hollywood flashiness as a good thing to build games around.[/QUOTE] I remember playing Shogun Total War in 2001. Back then the units were just 16 or maybe 32 pixel tall 2D sprites, and now in the latest games they have so much detail on them it simply blows my mind the game can render all that on so many units. And people still complained it has poor graphics. People say Fallout 4 has "poor graphics", while I played the first two in 2D in 640x480 and those are the best games I ever played. Watch Dogs 2 is also know for it's "poor graphics". For someone who's been playing games for over 17 years and experienced the progress, this is just ridiculous to me, people are spoiled. Not to mention it all also needs to run at 4K at 60 FPS.
[QUOTE=chemo;52134283]Hell, this kind of thing is evident in the movie industry, you're seeing all these big Hollywood studios investing way more money that they need to into some mediocre/forgettable movie, but audiences are starting to get tired of the same shit over and over again (not to mention the other factors). Just look at the box office numbers from last year. I'm sure the same sort of logic could apply to the games industry as well.[/QUOTE] By the sounds of it, Hollywood should be approaching peak Hollywood, but we don't know how far off that is. I haven't sat in a cinema for many MANY years, it's been so long I honestly can't remember the last film I actually went out to see. I remember seeing No Country for Old Men in the cinema, but I'm SURE that can't have been the LAST one I saw. Point is, while it's partially due to my sedentary, thrifty and annoyingly patient nature, it's been far too long since I've felt the urge to go out and see a movie, especially with the paltry offerings showing nowadays. Not only that, but concessions can go fuck themselves. Sure, it's one of the few ways that theatres can turn a profit without jacking up ticket prices, but why would I pay out the arse for a hotdog and/or popcorn when I could make my own BETTER stuff or get snacks from elsewhere, and just bring THOSE into the theatre? The only way I'd even consider concessions would be if you couldn't take your own food and drink into the cinema, and if a cinema ever pulled THAT on me I would probably just tear up my own ticket and walk right out of the building.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;52134307]I remember playing Shogun Total War in 2001. Back then the units were just 16 or maybe 32 pixel tall 2D sprites, and now in the latest games they have so much detail on them it simply blows my mind the game can render all that on so many units. And people still complained it has poor graphics. People say Fallout 4 has "poor graphics", while I played the first two in 2D in 640x480 and those are the best games I ever played. Watch Dogs 2 is also know for it's "poor graphics". For someone who's been playing games for over 17 years and experienced the progress, this is just ridiculous to me, people are spoiled. Not to mention it all also needs to run at 4K at 60 FPS.[/QUOTE] Sometimes I wish we would stop putting so much into things like polycount and texture quality and put graphical and cpu resources towards things that actually affect gameplay.
[QUOTE=chemo;52134358]Sometimes I wish we would stop putting so much into things like polycount and texture quality and put graphical and cpu resources towards things that actually affect gameplay.[/QUOTE] That reminds me of Hitman Absolution from 2012. In that game the 3D model of the main character probably has more polygons and textures than whole levels in the original game from 2000, but the AI is still basically the same like in that first game.
At the risk of a potentially unpopular opinion I think this is sensationalist as fuck. Its not going to go broke like the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikIeaCE3Ljc"]industry in North America in the early 80s[/URL], its more likely a culling of studios that push out the blandest, least imaginative games, more than likely as the trend for stuff like Early Access survival and open world action games dies out.
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;52134416]At the risk of a potentially unpopular opinion I think this is sensationalist as fuck. Its not going to go broke like the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikIeaCE3Ljc"]industry in North America in the early 80s[/URL], its more likely a culling of studios that push out the blandest, least imaginative games, more than likely as the trend for stuff like Early Access survival and open world action games dies out.[/QUOTE] Given the trend of open-world action-adventure and open-world survival being the "big things" nowadays, what do you think will be the next genre to fill the void once open-world is no longer the "go-to genre" for most projects?
[QUOTE=ironman17;52134432]Given the trend of open-world action-adventure and open-world survival being the "big things" nowadays, what do you think will be the next genre to fill the void once open-world is no longer the "go-to genre" for most projects?[/QUOTE] I honestly have no idea, it seems to be the norm in the industry that the next "big thing" usually comes out from nowhere made by people with the patience to see their concept succeed and as a result end up shaking current trends up.
[QUOTE=ironman17;52134432]Given the trend of open-world action-adventure and open-world survival being the "big things" nowadays, what do you think will be the next genre to fill the void once open-world is no longer the "go-to genre" for most projects?[/QUOTE] I don't think open world is going to go away. There's nothing wrong with them it's just that a lot of them(ubisoft) are very samey because they do the same things with them over and over. I disliked that Far Cry 3 and Watch_Dogs did a lot of the same things with their open world. Despite playing very different, I hated the same things about them both. WD 2 is a really enjoyable game which IMO makes up for the first game but that's because it broke away from the gritty shit that's in a lot of games and being fun, colorful, and not so serious. The open world worked for those type of games and they also work for games like Dark Souls and Nier: Automata which are completely different and use their open worlds in different ways. Going open world from a linear style has worked for games like Shadow Warrior 2 and MGSV(it's a flawed game that ran out of budget and the open world was empty but it worked with the gameplay)
Personally I hope we see a big-time resurgence of singleplayer campaign-focused FPS. Even though I don't think there are many ways that AAA dev-houses could "megamonetize" such a thing. And sadly, I doubt that strategy games are going to flood the market again any time soon. Though since "MOBAs" are a popular mutation on the formula, where you control a single unit and order them around, I'd be ok with seeing that formula translated more into a singleplayer/co-op format, where heroes go through campaigns and various adventures akin to an RPG. Basically, I want a hybrid of Dota and Dungeon Siege. MANY hybrids of Dota and Dungeon Siege.
If things keep going the way they are, we might have another video game industry crash. At least, that's one of my worries. Nowhere near as bad as the 1980s, but enough to (hopefully) push development in the right direction.
[QUOTE=ironman17;52134520]Personally I hope we see a big-time resurgence of singleplayer campaign-focused FPS. Even though I don't think there are many ways that AAA dev-houses could "megamonetize" such a thing.[/QUOTE] Well I mean, Bethesda seems to be committed to such a thing what with the the recent Wolfenstein and DOOM reboots and the upcoming Prey, though I guess it's still debatable what with them wanting Quake to be a multiplayer-only franchise. Come to think of it though, that also means that they're probably the only AAA house to risk releasing an Arena shooter, a genre we only see from indies nowadays.
True, though at the end of the day Bethesda's kind of the main publisher of those in the AAA space, and I haven't really seen the likes of EA and Ubisoft falling over themselves to jump on that gravy train. Rainbow Six: Siege sort of counts for Ubi, though that's more in line with Counter-Strike than Wolfenstein. Not to mention, while Valve used to put out some good FPS, it's been too damn long since they put out something on par with Half-Life 2 or Left 4 Dead. CS:GO came out nearly 5 years ago, and while The Lab is only a year old it's not as solid as what Valve could be putting out.
Commenting on what you said about Strategy games though, I noticed that SEGA has been having lots of success in the RTS market (especially with Total War), Firaxis/2K are raking in mad cash with Civilization and XCOM, and Fire Emblem is starting to become one of Nintendo's "mainline" franchises. As you mentioned though with Bethesda and how they occupy the niche of single-player FPS in the market, it seems like no other AAA company wants to copy the successes of all the popular Strategy games. I guess it kinda goes to show how out of touch many gaming executives are.
[QUOTE=megafat;52133981]Well when you constantly spend $200 million on each game, there will be a point where people stop being interested and you lose money. For some reason companies act like smaller budget games are bad and they keep putting all of their eggs in one basket.[/QUOTE] As much flak as a company like Ubisoft is getting you gotta give them props for actually using the big AAA bucks to release smaller, but extremely compelling titles like Rayman Legends which seem to exist purely for the love of the medium than for the love of numbers.
Big game studios need to take stuff from the movie industry. Have a few big games and a ton of smaller games. There is a reason film studios have Transformers 2 and The Avengers along with the Saw and Paranormal Activity films. Have as many options as possible. [QUOTE=Ganerumo;52134761]As much flak as a company like Ubisoft is getting you gotta give them props for actually using the big AAA bucks to release smaller, but extremely compelling titles like Rayman Legends which seem to exist purely for the love of the medium than for the love of numbers.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but the higher ups still can't quite get away from stupid decisions though with things like UPlay and releasing the odd buggy as shit game.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52134761]As much flak as a company like Ubisoft is getting you gotta give them props for actually using the big AAA bucks to release smaller, but extremely compelling titles like Rayman Legends which seem to exist purely for the love of the medium than for the love of numbers.[/QUOTE] They have several smaller titles like Child Of Light, Grow Home or Valiant Hearts, but also their bigger titles offer something new. They released Steep, may not be perfect, but it's something different, not to mention For Honor, it's a pretty unique take on multiplayer when comparing it to other AAA publishers. [QUOTE=megafat;52134762]Yeah, but the higher ups still can't quite get away from stupid decisions though with things like UPlay and [U]releasing the odd buggy as shit game[/U].[/QUOTE] Didn't that stop with AC Unity ? I remember their recent games like Watch Dogs 2 actually were praised for having great PC ports.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;52135055]They have several smaller titles like Child Of Light, Grow Home or Valiant Hearts, but also their bigger titles offer something new. They released Steep, may not be perfect, but it's something different, not to mention For Honor, it's a pretty unique take on multiplayer when comparing it to other AAA publishers. Didn't that stop with AC Unity ? I remember their recent games like Watch Dogs 2 actually were praised for having great PC ports.[/QUOTE] That's why didn't say all, just the odd one out.
I don't even buy AAA games really anymore. Not like how I used to, and I even have more money to do so now. The last game I bought I guess was overwatch last year, and a few years before that Witcher 3
[QUOTE=Karmah;52135133]I don't even buy AAA games really anymore. Not like how I used to, and I even have more money to do so now. The last game I bought I guess was overwatch last year, and a few years before that Witcher 3[/QUOTE] last full price game I bought was GTAV, since then all I've bought is tabletop simulator and a few like 50 cent indie games. other people have gifted me a few games (including a few full priced ones) as well since then I just don't have any draw towards any of the new AAA games. very few of them look any good. [editline]22nd April 2017[/editline] hell before gtav the last full price game I bought was black ops 2, and before that maybe skyrim?
Quality also depends on the skill of the developers. Just compare Mass Effect: Andromeda with Nier: Automata. ME:A took 5 years to make and had EA money behind and is at best, mediocre, N:A was made in 3 years with scraps of budget and no faith from the the publisher considering Squeenix put their money into Tomb Raider, FFXV, and DX:MD. Squeenix was also extremely hesitant to give Nier a sequel since it wasn't well received or made a lot of money but the skill and passion of the devs showed through and it's likely going to be the best game of 2017 and it sold extremely well for a niche title
Maybe they should spend less on marketing and make games good enough to be spread word-of-mouth
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.