BrokenEchelon
Banned
No surprise. All the B-tier studios with AAA budgets are dead.
-
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.
Epic: About 1/3rd as many AAA games in dev this gen, but each with 3 times the budget
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Unless you're expecting the sequels to take place in that year, it isn't.
...they're not talking about what they consoles might do, gameplay wise?
And sometimes they don't.
Is it me or has EA Sports titles have been visually unimpressive for a long time now? Their current-gen releases, even knowing their launch titles, didn't exactly flair any better and I'm not sure they're going to push the envelope to something to even GTA's visual fidelity.
I suppose "best" is another way of saying "passable".
So them blowing up is basically a when now and they're unable to figure out how to grow that audience spontaneously.
Seriously, Vanquish and Bayonetta are not considered "AAA"?
Another serious: stop with the appeal of a AAA collapse; those who work below those who have golden parachutes are human beings too (god damn you, Conservative Supreme Justices). You really wish for those out of a job just to to have an off-set chance that more enriching games will emerge?
Tatersalad
Member
Pretty much, it's the AAA games that usually push the limits of a console.
prag16
Banned
It's absurd to base anything on this. Saving people's jobs at all costs with no other considerations isn't good for anybody, long term.
By your logic, everyone who once worked in the buggy whip industry never got any other job ever again ever? Keeping industries that are failing or in need of massive restructuring artificially intact (e.g. auto industry and financial sector in the U.S.) is NOT a good thing! Sure, a few jobs are saved for the short term, but really what's needed is for the work force to be allocated in a more efficient manner, which can't happen if you fight to keep the buggy whip industry booming even though nobody uses horse drawn carriages anymore, and we're all driving cars...
See also the rise of the internet, the cloud, streaming, etc, etc. BUT WAIT! Some Comcast employees will lose their jobs if the cable stranglehold is broken. Can't have that...
LegendofLex
Member
The question is... will they actually have more players?
Software sales are down YOY, so no I don't think so. Hence why most are looking at an industry contraction
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
Everyones collections will start to look same-y this gen. Ugh.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Are any indie games using the power of new hardware to innovate gameplay in ways that couldn't be done on the PS3 and 360?
To be fair (and slightly contradicting myself from earlier!), there's an ease-of-implementation factor, at least for the PS3 (Probably less-so on the 360). That's of interest to indies, but it's something that may not cause obvious benefits at the consumer side.
However, that's more an advantage that comes from the change of architecture, not from the system's power in itself.
The more we head in that direction, the better.
I for one love triple A huge blockbusters. Hell, those are main games i play and look forward to. If all gaming went mid-tier, that'd be super sad.
LegendofLex
Member
It was intentionally hypothetical. It's not hard to imagine the cost of early-gen software and see that this gen isn't picking up where the last one left off (or that it is, depending on how you interpret last-gen).
The thing is, AAA would never go away. The problem we have is that there's no diversity now, we only have AAA (which are going down in number, hence the topic) and indies, which are great, but sometimes they're not big enough like mid-tier. What's great about mid-tier is that they have to take more risks like indies because they don't have the budgets of AAA, but have more than indies, so they can make it a lot more polished and big. It's the perfect balance.
I suppose "best" is another way of saying "passable".
In terms of sales they are undoubtedly among the "biggest and best" (which is a figure of speech BTW) your opinion of their quality is subjective and irrelevant to the point.
Interficium
Banned
So is backseat modding, but hey, do you.
As for the rest of your comment, it doesn't deserve much response. Accept for this bit:
Ok, sure.
This is you cluing me in on AAA development? So you're saying that having to develop incredibly complex systems that are designed to be used 7-10 years across multiple games are not expensive. You don't think that could perhaps add a lot of cost to the first game of such IPs as Watch_Dogs and The Division that normally wouldn't be there in a sequel? Am I taking crazy pills?
It is true that the engine costs for a first game are higher. However Watchdogs 2 and The Division 2 being sequels would have to be bigger and better than the first game. In other words the graphics would be better and there would be more of them. This increase in asset costs of sequels will dwarf any savings made on the programming side, possibly by tens of millions.
I don't understand how an entire class of games could fail to meet someone's standards. That doesn't make any sense.
Agreed, but again I am not seeing what this has to do with the ownership status of the developer.
I feel like you are being intentionally difficult. I relish their disappointment because they prejudge large swaths of games based on nothing but an "indie" or "not indie" designation.
Once again, no, they can simply be more open to exploring more games without being mad about "indies" being "indies".
I think i am intensely optimistic. I am excited about new games no matter what they are classified.
You'll never see me say something like this:
I don't have expectations on what a game has to look like or play like for me to enjoy it or be impressed by it (or for it to communicate something to me or make me feel a certain way). I enjoy AAA but I don't think it is "sad news" if they collapse under their own weight. I don't see how this is cynicism. This is optimism!
Interficium
Banned
Just to be clear, you pulled this number from your ass.
Problem with this, is that Xbox 360 has been out for 8 years, & PS3's been out for 7 years. People are tired of last generation now. Software sales have proven that just about every cross gen game that has came out so far has been selling more on Xbox One (& especially on PS4) than on PS3 & 360.
Sooner or later, Microsoft & Sony will stop production of PS3's & Xbox 360's (probably by next year). They're gonna want people picking up more PS4's & Xbox One's, now.
Also, with PS4's better GPU of 1.84 TFLOPS & 8 GB's of unified GDDR5 RAM (along with much more easier development due to Sony using the x86 architecture), it makes it much more easier for indies (as well as with 3rd party developers) to make great looking games for PS4 than with PS3 (which only has a pitiful 192 GFLOP GPU, a measly 512 MB's of shared RAM, & the cell processor).
I don't believe this, when artist make the assets they spend the same time if it was PS3 or PS4 there is no way they add so much more assets that it costs 3 times more. programers? how? did PC games go up in cost by 3X? do you build your own Engine or use something like Unreal I cant see where this 3X cost is coming from. If they build new engine for next gen then next games should be cheaper so its just a investment.
for example Last of Us do you guys think it costs extra 2x more for the PS4 version?
for example Last of Us do you guys think it costs extra 2x more for the PS4 version?
"Being tired of last generation" is a statement I'm generally sceptical of, but even allowing that to stand, how have the combined sales of 4/One and 3/360 compared to the sales of 3/360 of a previous equivalent title? That's the relevant metric here.
We don't have all that many points of reference yet, of course, but I suspect the total sales are down - on average - across the board. Certainly, I recall hearing that COD:Ghosts and AC4 didn't sell as well as previous titles. I can't find sales figures for Need for Speed, unfortunately,
And I acknowledged that. It's nice. As a coder, I appreciate the convenience. The problem is that the costs associating with the coding side of development aren't actually that high. Obviously that varies from game to game, but the bulk of development cost is generally asset generation, and being able to write lovely convenient x86 code doesn't actually help asset generation much.
Mauricio_Magus
Banned
It's kinda sad considering they are also SAFE as hell and completely unappealing for me.
The only AAA games that I've bought since 2013 have been Dark Souls 2, Metal Gear Rising, and TLOU(and many Nintendo games that are also AAA).
So outside of Nintendo the AAA industry just seems boring for me, aside of one or two amazing titles that come out every year.
The only AAA games that I've bought since 2013 have been Dark Souls 2, Metal Gear Rising, and TLOU(and many Nintendo games that are also AAA).
So outside of Nintendo the AAA industry just seems boring for me, aside of one or two amazing titles that come out every year.
The gaming industry is headed for a soft crash/implosion. When we reach a point were Tomb Raider sells 4 million copies and "fails" (I know it has reached better sales since then) there is a problem. Costs are way too high and the industry is not very diverse.
Even big developers are not doing great. EA Sports used to bring NCAA Football and most of their other sports games to 7-8 different platforms every year. The last year they did NCAA it went to PS3 and 360. EA altogether is releasing less than a 1/3 of the games they released at the start of last gen. They are doing ok but there isn't that diversity in their portfolio they once had. Capcom is hurting every day with bad game sales (although part of it has to do with some dumb decision making). Konami used to be one of the biggest in the 90's now they are forced to milk their only golden child (metal gear) to make money. I don't have to explain SquareEnix. Outside of Activision, EA, Rockstar, and Ubisoft (although I have a feeling they are only a Watch Dogs flop and an Assassin's Creed drop away from trouble) most of the industry has serious problems. I don't count Valve and Nintendo because they are in their own little world and they will be around long after we are dead.
Look at this past generation. The majority of games released were either from the same dozen or so franchises or crappy FPS games trying to take down CoD. Yes there have been great games from smaller companies and a few surprise success stories along the way (Ni No Kuni anyone?) but the diversity that was there before isn't there as much anymore. Yes there are indie games but for many gamers indie games aren't good enough for them.
I want the industry to thrive. I've been gaming since I could walk back in the late NES days. The problem is that I can't see mid-tier studios pop up right now due to entry level costs. I think the most likely scenario is an indie studio creating a massive hit and making enough to open up a bigger studio but that is unlikely.
Even big developers are not doing great. EA Sports used to bring NCAA Football and most of their other sports games to 7-8 different platforms every year. The last year they did NCAA it went to PS3 and 360. EA altogether is releasing less than a 1/3 of the games they released at the start of last gen. They are doing ok but there isn't that diversity in their portfolio they once had. Capcom is hurting every day with bad game sales (although part of it has to do with some dumb decision making). Konami used to be one of the biggest in the 90's now they are forced to milk their only golden child (metal gear) to make money. I don't have to explain SquareEnix. Outside of Activision, EA, Rockstar, and Ubisoft (although I have a feeling they are only a Watch Dogs flop and an Assassin's Creed drop away from trouble) most of the industry has serious problems. I don't count Valve and Nintendo because they are in their own little world and they will be around long after we are dead.
Look at this past generation. The majority of games released were either from the same dozen or so franchises or crappy FPS games trying to take down CoD. Yes there have been great games from smaller companies and a few surprise success stories along the way (Ni No Kuni anyone?) but the diversity that was there before isn't there as much anymore. Yes there are indie games but for many gamers indie games aren't good enough for them.
I want the industry to thrive. I've been gaming since I could walk back in the late NES days. The problem is that I can't see mid-tier studios pop up right now due to entry level costs. I think the most likely scenario is an indie studio creating a massive hit and making enough to open up a bigger studio but that is unlikely.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
It was also tested by Sony w/ Sly 4 and a few other games on PS3. Don't know yet if they'll do that again.
why cant devs like Konami give a few teams a small budget and make something with that at least maybe they can make some profits off that and make a few big games a year. Are they just greedy? cant they go back to say PS2 style games with just higher resolution graphics who said games have to be the most realistic looking? Investing in only large budget games when you have no other real source of profits is dumb you need to diversify your games so you can do the big budget games without ending up bankrupt.
Did Tomb Raider make profit? or where they greedy and predicted more profit then they made? can that same game be made cheaper?
I really hope this turns out okay or even better we end up with more variety in games
Did Tomb Raider make profit? or where they greedy and predicted more profit then they made? can that same game be made cheaper?
I really hope this turns out okay or even better we end up with more variety in games
Astral Dog
Member
That can be very difficult because customers expect great graphics for console titles at $60, a game with mediocre graphics its often ridiculized even if its good and can have a hard time selling on the current market competing with the marketing campaign of AAA titles , and some of these games represent a risk with publishers instead dedicating more resources to best selling ips, downloadable and portable games are an option, but unless Sony/Microsoft try to do something to educate their customers to spend their money on lower budget games, the retail console market will continue to shrink
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Yeah, it's actually pretty funny.
Programmers might get paid more but you get sooo much out of them. Unless you're dealing with a PS2 with no debugger and shoddy documentation they don't tend to get hung up as often as the art side. We can spend 30 hours making sure a chair looks good in the right lighting. Or letting our ambition get the best of us and making a car out of 200,000 polygons... for an open world game.
Most of the horror stories out of the programming side are usually about external forces. Taking over for someones inefficient codebase, shoddy documentation, lofty unrealistic goals by those in charge, that can't be met and must be compromised.
Artist types tend to be crazy enough to think a 4096x4096 pixel texture will fly for a gearshift.
People just seem to forget the mid-tier market when talking about games made in the past console generation. There were plenty of games that wouldn't be classified as "AAA" or independent endeavors that people love.
Anything by Platinum Games
Anything by Suda 51
FromSoftware could possibly be ranked as AA -- not sure about Dark Souls 2
Nier
Earth Defense Force
Deadly Premonition
XSEED tends to be a AA publisher
Anything by Platinum Games
Anything by Suda 51
FromSoftware could possibly be ranked as AA -- not sure about Dark Souls 2
Nier
Earth Defense Force
Deadly Premonition
XSEED tends to be a AA publisher
From's a good example of how it's not quite dead yet, but the rest... Platinum has only really seen commercial success with one title, Nier killed Cavia, both Suda51 and XSEED are deliberately niche rather than midrange, and EDF was a budget series and will probably return to that. I'm not familiar enough with DP to comment on it.
I don't think commercial success has anything to do with whether they exist or not though -- didn't realize cavia went defunct-- but I mean platinum still churns out quite a few games despite there commercial track record, and while XSEED and Suda51 do make more niche titles, they fall in the mid-tier budget range which is where most niche titles are because budget must reflect commercial success of these games. Of course you're going to be a "AA" developer if your making a title that only appeals to an audience of 100k-250k.
hodayathink
Member
Tomb Raider's biggest problem budget wise, from what I remember, was that it was in development for like 3-4 years, as opposed to the 2-3 that most publishers would like to see for their AAA games (and they really would rather be closer to 2 than 3). That, I think, was why it wasn't necessarily a success with over 3 million copies sold in it's first month on the market. It's basically the same reason that Bioshock Infinite killed Irrational, not because 4 million in sales isn't enough for a AAA game, but when a game starts to take too long to develop then you start having to have astronomical sales numbers that only few franchises can actually live up to. It's also why Sony killed Stig's game, because it was walking down the same oft-delayed path.
I think that's broadening it a bit much, especially on the 100k end (and Suda51 or a lot of Xseed titles can probably swing -lower-.) Mid-tier to me says something in the million range, say, enough to pay 50ish guys for two years (envelope math: 60m gross becomes 30m net to pub becomes 15m to developer becomes 300k a head becomes $150k direct compensation and $150k benefits, taxes, office space, utilities, etc becomes $75k a year.) At 500k units sold, it's high-30s average salary, which is entry level across the board. That's still nowhere near the thousand-man Ubisoft armies, but there's still the potential for a vast difference in scope compared to the five or ten guys for two years a 100k seller supports.
And commercial success has everything to do with whether they exist longterm. Critical acclaim only pays the bills as long as there's a pool of publishers who want to convert money into street cred rather than money into more money, and that's not an endless list.
I know. What I'm basically saying is, is that developers can get better graphics out of the system much more easier without spending a lot of time & money (unless they're trying to push out very high end graphics from it).
Some Nobody
Junior Member
I never know where to stand when topics like this come up. I have never played CoD in my life, and while Assassin's Creed: Unity looks neat, I've never played an AC either. I've enjoyed Uncharted quite a bit, but aside from that I tend to lean towards RPGs (hype for The Witcher 3, "X", and FFXV for instance) and miscellaneous open-world games (Second Son, Sleeping Dogs). I think that's AAA still, but some people say it isn't AAA unless it's GTA, CoD, or Assassin's Creed.
What I do know is nothing puts me to sleep faster than another game that looks like it should've come out 10-15 years ago. Of course, not all indies look like that (far too many that pop up in new GAF threads do, though) and I have a feeling that some of the moves made regarding asset stores and making engines cheaper to use will eventually lead to small teams being able to make games with acceptable progression in terms of AI, graphics, and even scope. Hopefully this means 15 years from now I can still enjoy games even if I don't care for nostalgia the same way many gamers do.
What I do know is nothing puts me to sleep faster than another game that looks like it should've come out 10-15 years ago. Of course, not all indies look like that (far too many that pop up in new GAF threads do, though) and I have a feeling that some of the moves made regarding asset stores and making engines cheaper to use will eventually lead to small teams being able to make games with acceptable progression in terms of AI, graphics, and even scope. Hopefully this means 15 years from now I can still enjoy games even if I don't care for nostalgia the same way many gamers do.
SkeptiMism
Member
Informing someone of a bannable offense doesn't equal backseat modding. Backseat modding, as an example, would be a situation in which someone posts something questionable and another person would say "ban this guy!".
And yes, of course the engine brings a lot of costs to the first game. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be other major factors to the cost of the game and those major factors would remain on the sequels.
The consumer wants this. The consumer demands 60FPS/1080p with sophisticated visual effects and high quality detailed art. The consumer wants games that are bigger than life, and publishers have taken notes. They are not making video games anymore; they are making prophets.
The consumer voted with his/her wallet, and will continue to vote with his/her wallet for AAA. As expectations and costs increase, games will become too expensive to be made at one point, and thus, too expensive to buy. This will eventually lead to an AAA market crash.
Here's how I read Epic's statement; "AAA games are too risky. Expect fewer games with little to no innovation, for innovation is even riskier."
The consumer voted with his/her wallet, and will continue to vote with his/her wallet for AAA. As expectations and costs increase, games will become too expensive to be made at one point, and thus, too expensive to buy. This will eventually lead to an AAA market crash.
Here's how I read Epic's statement; "AAA games are too risky. Expect fewer games with little to no innovation, for innovation is even riskier."
maneil99
Member
But the numbers being down =! lower software sales per title. If less games are coming out but the percentage going down is not the same ratio that means that theory isn't true. Also now we don't get software sale from most sources besides publishers
Metal Gear?!
Member
Notch can consider whatever he wants, but Minecraft had no publisher, it is technically "indie"
Cave Johnson
Member
The only "safe" investment AAA at the moment are franchises that have met critical acclaim. At this point, innovation or no innovation is just as likely to not meet sales expectations this gen. Gamers are a finical bunch and they are now more spend conscious this gen compared to the last. You think games like The Order:1886 will reach the audience it expects to match? They have it all: Graphics, TPS mechanics, QTE gameplay and focus on cinematically to boost. Clearly the "safe" game to release, right? I'd wager they'll sell at least 2-3 million copies. Tops. Considering the reception recent shooters (including the legendary Titanfall) impact this gen.
That was already the case since about 2005. Boxed retail AAA releases have been bland generic shit for nearly a decade. Nowhere near as much variety as in the previous gen.
yup
at some point it will crash entirely. Either this generation or next generation. Next generation it will probably be at least twice the costs again. It just won't work at some point.
Bedameister
Member
I would really like a situation like this. There are too many AAA games out there. I hope we see a rise in quality and a decline in quantity
bigboss370
Member
I'm not really seeing it...to me it seems like we get as many or more AAAs than ever. What did the first year after 360's and PS3's launch look like?
This year we get:
-Destiny
-Watch Dogs
-Assassins Creed
-Battlefield
-Call of Duty
-The Order
-Sunset Overdrive
-Batman (Does this one count?)
-Dark Souls II
-Titanfall
-Infamous
etc...
And we're still getting the "mid-tier" titles too, that don't quite seem to count as indie. Obviously not all are priced at a "mid tier" level.
-Wolfenstein
-Evolve
-D4
-Lily Bergamo
-Plants vs Zombies
-Thief
-South Park
-Ninja Gaiden
-Bound by Flame
-Lord of Fallen
etc...
And then of course got our delicious indies. Seems like more variety than ever, across the whole spectrum.
This year we get:
-Destiny
-Watch Dogs
-Assassins Creed
-Battlefield
-Call of Duty
-The Order
-Sunset Overdrive
-Batman (Does this one count?)
-Dark Souls II
-Titanfall
-Infamous
etc...
And we're still getting the "mid-tier" titles too, that don't quite seem to count as indie. Obviously not all are priced at a "mid tier" level.
-Wolfenstein
-Evolve
-D4
-Lily Bergamo
-Plants vs Zombies
-Thief
-South Park
-Ninja Gaiden
-Bound by Flame
-Lord of Fallen
etc...
And then of course got our delicious indies. Seems like more variety than ever, across the whole spectrum.