Cliff Bleszinski warns that triple-A game development is 'nearly unsustainable'
59 replies, posted
[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]
Open world Battle Royale games, because they have tons of streamer appeal and give people a reason to buy skins and crap.
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;52135248]Open world Battle Royale games, because they have tons of streamer appeal and give people a reason to buy skins and crap.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the heads-up, I'll go build the bunker now in preparation for the impending clone wars
With $200 million, you could have made dozens of games that covered different markets and wouldn't have to worry as much about making your money back.
I'm gonna be honest here: I think Nintendo is on the right track with their Switch regarding this problem. In like 15-20 years, the games will be so expensive, no one will be able to invest into them anymore. We will get less "blockbuster" kind of games like Uncharted 4. Naughty Dog's employees already overwork a lot (story writer worked 80 hours every week). We already hit a steep wall, graphically. Ever since Crysis, the jumps in graphics have become smaller and less noticeable.
So, in 15-20 years, games will have less emphasis on graphics and much more on (innovative) gameplay. And the Switch currently does exactly that. It's not a strong console but offers variety in terms of usability. It's portable and offers two ways to enjoy gaming. The games released for it, will not be graphically demanding but put more emphasis on gameplay. And in about 15-20 years, other developers and most importantly publishers will realize that this is the way to go. Or else they pump in billions of dollars into productions that will fail horribly.
One huge problem about just making lower-budget games though is that there's contradictory interests in the gaming community about what they what. It's easy to say "I don't care about graphics", but when those lower budget games are released, it gets Crowbcat-icized and then attacked by the community for sub-optimal graphics and missing attention to detail. People say "nobody had any passion while making this game, that's why it's bad", when in reality, it's because they didn't have the resources or time to make it better. Obviously because the publisher wouldn't give it to the devs, which sucks but it makes sense because if they did for every game they published, they'd quickly go out of business.
People will pay for really high quality games like the Witcher 3, true. But CD Projekt Red is such an outlier in its practices (with its harsh working conditions and meager pay for the amount of effort devs had to put in) while holding what was essentially Poland's pride in their hands, it's not at all fair to compare them to Western developers and say "just make games like they did"
The gaming industry gradually set themselves up for the state they're in because of increasing their budgets to stay up to date with better technology, hyping up the consumers with huge and often misleading marketing that leaves them disappointed when the final product inevitably doesn't deliver. And because the gaming community is younger in comparison to other forms of entertainment, it just results in an immature and toxic reaction that doesn't solve anything (like comments on Crowbcat videos).
The problem is that the industry set up the culture so that it would be really hard to readjust and make several smaller lower-budget titles. The Rayman games, for instance, are really fun, but you can't show that at E3 alongside several other small games with only one or two large-budget games, and then expect the audience reaction to be positive. The reaction would be "wow that presentation sucked, where was [next installment in a massive AAA franchise]???"
It's been a long time since I bought a AAA game at full price too, I just wait for most of them to go on sale for 75% off. But the solution isn't as easy as just going "make several smaller games and make a minor profit off all of them" because the culture is so ingrained by now. Small games don't get hyped the same way AAA games do. For every successful indie, there's a thousand failures, and the same's mostly true for small-budget games backed by publishers. You don't really see games like Unravel, White Night, Necropolis, etc. getting popular despite getting a decent bit of marketing. It'd be a huge risk to change their strategy and I don't think any major publisher is bold enough to do it.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;52135377]I'm gonna be honest here: I think Nintendo is on the right track with their Switch regarding this problem. In like 15-20 years, the games will be so expensive, no one will be able to invest into them anymore. We will get less "blockbuster" kind of games like Uncharted 4. Naughty Dog's employees already overwork a lot (story writer worked 80 hours every week). We already hit a steep wall, graphically. Ever since Crysis, the jumps in graphics have become smaller and less noticeable.
So, in 15-20 years, games will have less emphasis on graphics and much more on (innovative) gameplay. And the Switch currently does exactly that. It's not a strong console but offers variety in terms of usability. It's portable and offers two ways to enjoy gaming. The games released for it, will not be graphically demanding but put more emphasis on gameplay. And in about 15-20 years, other developers and most importantly publishers will realize that this is the way to go. Or else they pump in billions of dollars into productions that will fail horribly.[/QUOTE]
What Nintendo offers is also very limited not just in graphics, but also in gameplay and story. They release great and polished games, but those are also all a bit... you know, "kids" games. For example look at what Switch offers in the racing genre; Mario Kart and Fast Racing Neo. Cool and fun games, no doubt about that, but people also want Forza Motorsport, Gran Turismo, [enter racing simulation title here]... that demand not just realistic graphics, but also high processing power to simulate realistic environments and all the physics. Then we have titles like Zelda BOTW, cool game, but Nintendo offers nothing like Witcher 3 or Red Dead Redemption both in graphics department or story wise. And there still is a huge market for it.
Don't think I am criticizing Nintendo. I just wanted to point it out that Nintendo is in a VERY lucky position that the games they offer and the market they serve, don't require the amount of resources other games do. But it's also a very limited market.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;52135377]So, in 15-20 years, games will have less emphasis on graphics and much more on (innovative) gameplay. And the Switch currently does exactly that. It's not a strong console but offers variety in terms of usability. It's portable and offers two ways to enjoy gaming. The games released for it, will not be graphically demanding but put more emphasis on gameplay. And in about 15-20 years, other developers and most importantly publishers will realize that this is the way to go. Or else they pump in billions of dollars into productions that will fail horribly.[/QUOTE]
I'm hoping this is the case for the most part, but for every game like Breath of the Wild (keeping the budget relatively modest while giving more player freedom) there's someone like Hideo Kojima who says that "games and films will merge in the future" while getting multiple Hollywood actors in Death Stranding and probably getting a blank check from Sony. And people are eating it up and will probably make the game a massive success when it comes out (and I'll probably be part of the problem) despite it going in the complete opposite direction that most people want gaming to go as a whole.
I don't know, time will tell I guess
[editline]22nd April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=AntonioR;52135465]What Nintendo offers is also very limited not just in graphics, but also in gameplay and story. They release great and polished games, but those are also all a bit... you know, "kids" games. For example look at what Switch offers in the racing genre; Mario Kart and Fast Racing Neo. Cool and fun games, no doubt about that, but people also want Forza Motorsport, Gran Turismo, [enter racing simulation title here]... that demand not just realistic graphics, but also high processing power to simulate realistic environments and all the physics. Then we have titles like Zelda BOTW, cool game, but Nintendo offers nothing like Witcher 3 or Red Dead Redemption both in graphics department or story wise. And there still is a huge market for it.
Don't think I am criticizing Nintendo. I just wanted to point it out that Nintendo is in a VERY lucky position that the games they offer and the market they serve, don't require the amount of resources other games do. But it's also a very limited market.[/QUOTE]
Actually yeah this is really true. Nintendo games have been good recently, but are largely unrepresentative of what the mainstream community wants. Nintendo's playing it really safe with production (they're only producing and shipping Switches on a kind of on-demand basis so they don't overspend, afaik) and that's definitely not how Western publishers want to operate.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;52135465]What Nintendo offers is also very limited not just in graphics, but also in gameplay and story. They release great and polished games, but those are also all a bit... you know, "kids" games. For example look at what Switch offers in the racing genre; Mario Kart and Fast Racing Neo. Cool and fun games, no doubt about that, but people also want Forza Motorsport, Gran Turismo, [enter racing simulation title here]... that demand not just realistic graphics, but also high processing power to simulate realistic environments and all the physics. Then we have titles like Zelda BOTW, cool game, but Nintendo offers nothing like Witcher 3 or Red Dead Redemption both in graphics department or story wise. And there still is a huge market for it.
Don't think I am criticizing Nintendo. I just wanted to point it out that Nintendo is in a VERY lucky position that the games they offer and the market they serve, don't require the amount of resources other games do. But it's also a very limited market.[/QUOTE]
Sorry for this big answer:
There are still people who call Nintendo games "kids" games? I thought we were over this? In the end it's all about having fun. An unfun game is something that nobody wants to play.
Your whole post is about how the Switch can't handle stuff and that's not the point I tried to make. Don't focus so much on the [I]now[/I]. I said that Nintendo was heading into the [I]right direction[/I] with the Switch. Of course the Switch doesn't have titles like Forza or Witcher 3 which are too demanding for the console but that's not important right now. Even the console isn't important here, it's the concept/idea.
What I meant is that in 15-20 years (and if Nintendo keeps the concept of the Switch for the future) we will see less graphically demanding games (universally from other devs too) and more games that put their emphasis on gameplay and story. At that point the games will still look better than what we have right now, but there won't be any jumps anymore, because no one will be willing to pay to make big games anymore. And the Switch 3/4 or whatever the Nintendo console will be called, will be at that point too.
You see, Sony and Microsoft are all in for "More horsepower" (Scorpio too) but with games taking such humongous amounts of money and resources, they won't be able to keep this up forever. We will reach a point where having top-notch graphics will cost a studio/publisher 800-1000 million dollars. Or even more. And that's where the line will end. Even IF the programs that are used steadily get improved, the games will still cost more to make. That's how it always has been.
The point I tried to make is the following: Nintendo has been always behind in technology (except for the gamecube) and with the Switch a portable yet home console-like device they are heading into a direction of less graphically demanding games but offering new comfortable ways to play. This is the future. Playing wherever you are, anything you want. And other devs will probably jump onto this too. Not in the next 5 or 10 years though. In 15-20 years people won't freak out anymore when they see how realistic a game can look (Uncharted 4). Such things won't be happening anymore (or maybe once or twice) and only the gameplay dominates. The Switch currently won't have any realistic titles because it can't handle them. But imagine if we were in the future and the Switch 4 exists. The graphics won't be any different to any other consoles power. Because no one will pump a billion dollar into the production of a game. I'm sure Sony and Microsoft will see it too in many years. Expensive, realistic looking games will be less and less, gameplay and story will dominate and playing everything you want and everywhere you want (like the Switch) will continue to be big.
This is what I imagine the future to be. There is just no way that billion dollar productions will be made left and right. Currently top notch devs like CD Projekt and Naughty Dog are completely exhausting their employees just to deliver big and good tiles like Uncharted 4, Last Of Us and The Witcher 3. Imagine how it will be in 20 years. This will probably be gone because no one will be able to keep this up forever. And the Switch concept is something that I can see completely working with no disadvantages in 20 years.
Didn't the film industry have a similar issue in its early years?
[QUOTE=download;52135526]Didn't the film industry have a similar issue in its early years?[/QUOTE]
I don't know much about that. I'd need to research what happened back then.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;52135523]There are still people who call Nintendo games "kids" games? I thought we were over this? In the end it's all about having fun. An unfun game is something that nobody wants to play.
...and the rest of the post[/QUOTE]
You need to understand that there are still many (don't have proof but I believe it is MAJORITY) gamers out there who are (I don't know the actual terminology) "silent gamers", who are your average consumers who rarely partake in game culture and prefer to just visit their local gamestop once a month to check what's new. These people don't care what's behind the scene, what they want, is what's the latest and hottest and what their friends are playing. And the most convincing way to identify what's the newest best shit? The game that looked the best.
I don't feel like typing a long one but there's a problem with the AAA industry: the obsession in the "latest". Technology is always evolving, and constantly chasing it without first mastering old techniques will result in high cost in training and experimenting. This not only apply to consumer hardware such as new powerful and gimmick hardware (VR for example), but also the hardware and software used during production pipeline. They often don't get the time to master an old tool before a new toy shows up.
Nintendo has the right mind to stagnant themselves in terms of technology and focus on the "fun", which they are very, very good at. But the production cost continues to go up, as tools eases production, the standards, expectations and scope goes up. With every big boys out there wanting to be top dog, the race never ends. Games only get bigger and better, so do the burden of developers.
Restraint is difficult to exercise when competing.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;52135523]The point I tried to make is the following: Nintendo has been always behind in technology (except for the gamecube) and with the Switch a portable yet home console-like device they are heading into a direction of less graphically demanding games but offering new comfortable ways to play. [U]This is the future. Playing wherever you are, anything you want. And other devs will probably jump onto this too.[/U] Not in the next 5 or 10 years though. In 15-20 years people won't freak out anymore when they see how realistic a game can look (Uncharted 4). Such things won't be happening anymore (or maybe once or twice) and only the gameplay dominates. The Switch currently won't have any realistic titles because it can't handle them. But imagine if we were in the future and the Switch 4 exists. The graphics won't be any different to any other consoles power. Because no one will pump a billion dollar into the production of a game. I'm sure Sony and Microsoft will see it too in many years. Expensive, realistic looking games will be less and less, gameplay and story will dominate and [U]playing everything you want and everywhere you want (like the Switch) will continue to be big[/U].[/QUOTE]
Not saying I agree or disagree with your post, I just want to mention that Microsoft already has launched their "Play Anywhere" program last year. Even at the stage at E3 they showed you can buy their titles once and play it on Xbox, PC or a Windows tablet. So, they are thinking even ahead of the Switch, because there are no hardware limitations. Sony is most behind here, since you are stuck with a console connected to a TV.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;52135597]You need to understand that there are still many (don't have proof but I believe it is MAJORITY) gamers out there who are (I don't know the actual terminology) "silent gamers", who are your average consumers who rarely partake in game culture and prefer to just visit their local gamestop once a month to check what's new. These people don't care what's behind the scene, what they want, is what's the latest and hottest and what their friends are playing. And the most convincing way to identify what's the newest best shit? The game that looked the best.
I don't feel like typing a long one but there's a problem with the AAA industry: the obsession in the "latest". Technology is always evolving, and constantly chasing it without first mastering old techniques will result in high cost in training and experimenting. This not only apply to consumer hardware such as new powerful and gimmick hardware (VR for example), but also the hardware and software used during production pipeline. They often don't get the time to master an old tool before a new toy shows up.
Nintendo has the right mind to stagnant themselves in terms of technology and focus on the "fun", which they are very, very good at. But the production cost continues to go up, as tools eases production, the standards, expectations and scope goes up. With every big boys out there wanting to be top dog, the race never ends. Games only get bigger and better, so do the burden of developers.
Restraint is difficult to exercise when competing.[/QUOTE]
You are right. But at one point it will be just too much to deliver the "hottest" thing and I hope publishers, managers and the portion of non-gamers that you are talking about will learn to see it in the future. The amount of stress put onto devs will be too much at one point. 80 hours is considered "normal" and I wonder how it will be in 20 years and if they will still continue to try to make the greatest thing to surprise people. My expectation: It will probably end sooner than later. I think bringing the hottest thing just won't be happening anymore. People already are mostly unimpressed with the latest movies with huge CGI effects and such. They just take it as normal and this point is already almost reached currently in gaming.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;52135605]Not saying I agree or disagree with your post, I just want to mention that Microsoft already has launched their "Play Anywhere" program last year. Even at the stage at E3 they showed you can buy their titles once and play it on Xbox, PC or a Windows tablet. So, they are thinking even ahead of the Switch, because there are no hardware limitations. Sony is most behind here, since you are stuck with a console connected to a TV.[/QUOTE]
I see. Didn't know that.
While Microsoft offers their take on it first, you'd still currently required to own either one of them or all three to experience the whole concept. The Switch being both (stationary and portable) is a step ahead. But good seeing both heading into the direction. I think this is just the right way to go.
If I had known that Microsoft launched it (I'm not that much into Xbox) I would have included it into my post.
Personally speaking I think the film industry is past it's current/local peak, what with the current thing being "REBOOT. REBOOOOOT. PLS DEAD CASH COW GIB MORE MONIEZ PLS.". We're even seeing this a little bit in gaming with some of the more recent reboots. Now mind you, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to try and give some series new life and whatnot but it seems like the media/games/content industry's "big box of originial ideas" has been dry for a while. I mean honest to god, the last notable major AAA game I bought was Fallout 4 (that I didn't return. I bought GTAV but it was such/ran like such dogshit that I ended up returning it) and before that I hadn't really bought anything triple A for atleast a year or two.
My purchases of semi/pseudo indie games has gone up a bit though.
SECOND VIDEO GAME MARKET CRASH HYPE
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;52135829]SECOND VIDEO GAME MARKET CRASH HYPE[/QUOTE]
Honestly, Gaming Industry needs to be re-organized.
Yeah priorities need to be shuffled, marketing for example needs to stop being half or even more than half of the budget of an AAA game, it's ridiculous, extreme marketing isn't going to help in anything more than some extra sales on release, although I am aware initial sales count a lot to shareholders and all the higher-ups, or so I've been led to believe, it's still a problem that they're more worried about short-term profit than long-term, if the game is shit it's gonna be shit no matter the amount of marketing done, good indie games manage to end up selling more over long-term than over-marketed shit games.
Seems like Hollywood is going through the same problems. Massive budgets, mass marketing of poor quality products, brand name appeals and remakes. But the games industry also has terrible conditions for development staff and ever-increasing development times to contend with.
[QUOTE=rebel1324;52139824]Honestly, Gaming Industry needs to be re-organized.[/QUOTE]
yes with a larger emphasis on microtransactions, paid mods, always online multiplayer experiences, VR peripherals and harsh piracy countermeasures, this cow is going to milk again soon enough!
I just wish they stopped making games for the lowest common denominator.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;52135641]
I see. Didn't know that.
While Microsoft offers their take on it first, you'd still currently required to own either one of them or all three to experience the whole concept. The Switch being both (stationary and portable) is a step ahead. But good seeing both heading into the direction. I think this is just the right way to go.
If I had known that Microsoft launched it (I'm not that much into Xbox) I would have included it into my post.[/QUOTE]
I see you praising the switch a lot and I feel I should just add a counter-point.
In my opinion? The switch could have been far better, and I feel it could have been the first real foray into what I believe is going to be the real next generation of gaming consoles.
Consoles have already tried their hardest to be accessible machines that can replace a home media center; they can play music, movies, and games, they can stream anything from Netflix to network TV now-a-days. The next step? Creating a console that can tackle as many markets as possible.
When I first saw the switch, with it's nvidia developed chip (same one as the Shield) I was ecstatic, I thought that maybe Nintendo finally found it, they would develop a consumer tablet that could do tablet things, and then pop in a cartridge and instantly turn into a console.
Of course it never happened, but imagine if it did? A tablet like the nvidia shield but with actual AAA exclusives pushing it forward? Portability, usability, and all of the benefits you gain from a tablet; plus you get games too.
It would have rocked both the tablet market and the console market, it wouldn't just be a console you buy for games, it would have been a tablet you could buy for the rest of your life.
I mean sales pitch aside I would have killed to get a beefier nvidia shield k1 with some joycons stuck to the sides and nintendo exclusives, thing would have been perfect.
[QUOTE=Toyhobo;52140783]I just wish they stopped making games for the lowest common denominator.[/QUOTE]
It's a market first and foremost. Everybody has to make generic mass-appeal stuff at some point.
I mean, if you want a film example look at Jackie Chan. Every western film he produces is a pretty wide-audience action flick. He uses funds from that (or used to) to fund more projects that he actually wants to do back in the Chinese market where he was known for that kind of stuff, rather than Rush Hour.
[QUOTE=Toyhobo;52140783]I just wish they stopped making games for the lowest common denominator.[/QUOTE]
But sadly, that market is apparently larger than us elders who want more than just cookie-cutter iterations on the same old shit. Thus, the "lowest common denominator" is what governs the shifting whims of the industry, despite us wishing that WE were the majority to which big money had to pander.
[QUOTE=ntzu;52141317]I see you praising the switch a lot and I feel I should just add a counter-point.
In my opinion? The switch could have been far better, and I feel it could have been the first real foray into what I believe is going to be the real next generation of gaming consoles.
Consoles have already tried their hardest to be accessible machines that can replace a home media center; they can play music, movies, and games, they can stream anything from Netflix to network TV now-a-days. The next step? Creating a console that can tackle as many markets as possible.
When I first saw the switch, with it's nvidia developed chip (same one as the Shield) I was ecstatic, I thought that maybe Nintendo finally found it, they would develop a consumer tablet that could do tablet things, and then pop in a cartridge and instantly turn into a console.
Of course it never happened, but imagine if it did? A tablet like the nvidia shield but with actual AAA exclusives pushing it forward? Portability, usability, and all of the benefits you gain from a tablet; plus you get games too.
It would have rocked both the tablet market and the console market, it wouldn't just be a console you buy for games, it would have been a tablet you could buy for the rest of your life.
I mean sales pitch aside I would have killed to get a beefier nvidia shield k1 with some joycons stuck to the sides and nintendo exclusives, thing would have been perfect.[/QUOTE]
But isn't it the first real foray for the next generation of games? I was praising the Switch because it's heading into the right direction. Not that it's already the god thing that we all hoped would be. You can't just expect everything from the start. Netflix and other stuff comes later. Its main use currently is just playing games. But if the Switch becomes a huge success the things you want will come sooner or later. Maybe not everything with the current version but maybe with its successor. And in 15-20 years it might be the complete norm and Sony and Microsoft might do the same what Nintendo did.
AAA games do tend be a lot better than big budget hollywood blockbusters. Just this year we've had BoTW and Horizon: Zero Dawn which received a ton of praise and had large budgets. When was the last time we had a big budget game that ended up sucking ass and being a failure?
I think that instead of focusing their budgets on a few huge games that come out around the same time, they need to start focusing more on niche games. FPS and open world sandbox weren't always what they were today, they used to be called doom and GTA clones. Even Resident Evil 4 was a big change from the previous games and we pretty much got third person shooters out of it.
On top of focusing on niche games, start making hybrid genres to see how the audience responds to something new while at the same time minimizing risk by giving them something familiar
[QUOTE=ntzu;52141317]
Of course it never happened, but imagine if it did? A tablet like the nvidia shield but with actual AAA exclusives pushing it forward? Portability, usability, and all of the benefits you gain from a tablet; plus you get games too.
It would have rocked both the tablet market and the console market, it wouldn't just be a console you buy for games, it would have been a tablet you could buy for the rest of your life.
I mean sales pitch aside I would have killed to get a beefier nvidia shield k1 with some joycons stuck to the sides and nintendo exclusives, thing would have been perfect.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, look at how the xbone tries to be the "one in all, all in one" machine
it's really, REALLY better if consoles stopped trying to be an "All in one" machine, and just focused on being a console
if the Switch tried to be a tablet and console it'd just end up being neither and doing neither well. If you want a tablet, get a tablet, stop trying to turn everything into a multi-tool.
they really need to add more programs like netflix and shit but they really are better off avoiding being another Xbone but for tablets.
[editline]23rd April 2017[/editline]
And you say this, but if it tried to be a tablet, it really would fail hard. Apple and Android already dominate that market, what is a nintendo tablet going to do in that market??? it isn't going to outdo either
The handheld market is really empty outside of nintendo. You have some good stuff here and there, but nintendo is really the one that dominates that market.
[editline]23rd April 2017[/editline]
When you try and make a device that does everything all at once
it does nothing at all
I might be completely insane but I almost feel like the indie scene is going through similar, strange fluctuations. There have been so many indie games lately that have been nearly (or equal to) the price of a AAA title.
I don't believe the consumer is dense enough to be reamed both ways for too long.
[QUOTE=dotch;52142713]I might be completely insane but I almost feel like the indie scene is going through similar, strange fluctuations. There have been so many indie games lately that have been nearly (or equal to) the price of a AAA title.
I don't believe the consumer is dense enough to be reamed both ways for too long.[/QUOTE]
Over priced indie games are the worst
there are a ton of VR games that are just blatantly at higher cost to cash into the new market
blockbusters and AAA games are both inherantly unstable, hollywood just has a much more stable business with much more stable financial system while game developers can completely fail if they have a bad game
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.