Oddly enough, its the complete opposite for me. I never played an online game until 2007-2008. I was chugging away at SP games for 18 years. I'm enjoying the evolution.
-
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.
Are single-player AAA games on the way out?
- Thread starter Bronx-Man
- Start date
Oddly enough, its the complete opposite for me. I never played an online game until 2007-2008. I was chugging away at SP games for 18 years. I'm enjoying the evolution.
My major worry is the message being sent to the publishers that we usually consider better than EA/Activision tier. I expect Bethesda to adjust in light of multiple games in a row disappointing, and that's horrible
Square Eidos received that message last year, which is why Deus Ex is dead and IO was jettisoned.
Square Eidos received that message last year, which is why Deus Ex is dead and IO was jettisoned.
OrbitalBeard
Member
For some reason people don't feel like it's insult to their favorite movies or directors if they don't have an enormous budget, but for games you have somehow mortally wounded their pride if you imply their games don't have AAA budgets.
And when AAA games are now having staffs of 1000+ employees creating games over 5 year periods you do not see the difference? It's really not an insult to Nintendo that they create the quality experiences they want to very efficiently...
Renna Hazel
Member
Oh I don't want Nintendo or anyone to spend 200 million dollars to put a game out there. I just recall things like the GBC 'AAA launch titles' to be Zelda LttP and Tetris. Nintendo has definitely used the term to describe inexpensive games. I also believe they were the first company to use the term.
The fact that there is still no real definition of AAA makes the term pretty meaningless to me. If games like Zelda BotW and The Witcher aren't AAA but Mass Effect Andromeda is...well yeah. The budget isn't showing there.
Soul of the Beast
Member
You are telling me Breath of the Wild, Yakuza and Bloodborne are all AA games just like Hellblade? Give me a fucking break. They are called ''Japanese AAA'' and they are advertised and marketed just like western AAA games in here Asia, stop being so ignorant and maybe use your brain.
Does Skyrim counts as a AAA game? It cost 85 million dollars to make in total right, but wait......GTAV cost fucking 263 million dollars! Wow! How are these two games all AAA, the difference is just huge! How about we start calling games like GTAV ''AAAA games''?
*sigh*
Bethesda's job postings suggest they've been expecting these games to do poorly and have been adjusting in advance.
It's just when you're two years through a three year development cycle, sometimes it makes more sense to finish the product.
That said, some studios seem to be getting accelerated along this path. Like Arkane didn't seem to have online job postings unlike some of their other studios, but got some a month or so after Prey bombed.
Then AAA has no meaning. It apparently covers every budget from $10+ million to the several hundred million the bigger publishers are spending. We apparently only have AAA and indie at this point.
oldsnakebro
Member
Sony is still here so no worries...
OrbitalBeard
Member
For the high end AAA I think that is absolutely the case.
Which, to be fair, I'm totally fine with.
Most of my favourite games of this year have not come from the EA/Ubi/Activision scale of things. It's games like Divinity:OS2, Persona 5, and smaller PC niche games that have given me the most hours and fun this year.
Single player games aren't going anywhere. While the top dogs look at 4 million sales and go "meh not worth my time" there are plenty of smaller scales developers out there who would kill for those numbers.
Which, to be fair, I'm totally fine with.
Most of my favourite games of this year have not come from the EA/Ubi/Activision scale of things. It's games like Divinity:OS2, Persona 5, and smaller PC niche games that have given me the most hours and fun this year.
Single player games aren't going anywhere. While the top dogs look at 4 million sales and go "meh not worth my time" there are plenty of smaller scales developers out there who would kill for those numbers.
Yes, but in that comparison Nintendo would be making a $50 million dollar movie. They are intentionally not making big budget movies. Hollywood has a lot of different budgets, and every budget over $20 million is not conflated with big budget $100 million+ movies as people here are advocating for video games.
Soul of the Beast
Member
Jeronimo Jones
Member
OrbitalBeard
Member
He would consider both AA productions.
The more I think about it the more incredible it is to me that Horizon: Zero Dawn was released without multiplayer. For Sony to take a risk on a new IP and AAA game with a massive budget and be absolutely fine with the studio not implementing a multiplayer component and putting all their resources and the majority of the budget into Single Player is absolutely commendable.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with multiplayer components because there are many which are fun and well implemented, but for Sony to be willing to make that move and be comfortable with their developer going all in on the Single Player experience on an untested IP of that budget is something rare these days. Let's hope they continue to do so.
As for the overall market trend I think unfortunately it is moving towards games as a service from most of the major publishers and to the detriment of many other gaming experiences at the AAA level.
Look at the rumours that Bioware is pulling resources off of Dragon Age 4 and moving them to Anthem to get that pushed out the door quicker. I know that that happens at studios sometimes but with giant names like Mike Laidlaw, David Gaider and Aaron Flynn all leaving the studio it makes you think they didn't like the direction the studio was headed. Again that is all speculation but most of what we talk about here is anyway.
You know what the ideal would be honestly.
The publishers get their games as a service game at each studio and each one is wildly successful and these publishers are now comfortable and happy enough with the revenue rolling in that they are willing to let these studios work on awesome Single Player experiences as well
I am not saying there is anything wrong with multiplayer components because there are many which are fun and well implemented, but for Sony to be willing to make that move and be comfortable with their developer going all in on the Single Player experience on an untested IP of that budget is something rare these days. Let's hope they continue to do so.
As for the overall market trend I think unfortunately it is moving towards games as a service from most of the major publishers and to the detriment of many other gaming experiences at the AAA level.
Look at the rumours that Bioware is pulling resources off of Dragon Age 4 and moving them to Anthem to get that pushed out the door quicker. I know that that happens at studios sometimes but with giant names like Mike Laidlaw, David Gaider and Aaron Flynn all leaving the studio it makes you think they didn't like the direction the studio was headed. Again that is all speculation but most of what we talk about here is anyway.
You know what the ideal would be honestly.
The publishers get their games as a service game at each studio and each one is wildly successful and these publishers are now comfortable and happy enough with the revenue rolling in that they are willing to let these studios work on awesome Single Player experiences as well
Soul of the Beast
Member
Except AA games cost $40, not $60.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Depends on what you mean by single-player AAA games and what you define GaaS as.
Is Uncharted 4 a single-player game? Uncharted 4 is not strictly a single player game. The game offers a multiplayer that is continuously supported with free new content but also has microtransactions.
What about GTA V? Again a robust singleplayer experience that also happens to have an online mode that is receiving continuous support and content.
The same could likely be said about the upcoming Last of Us 2 and Red Dead Redemption 2. Willing to bet both will have strong singleplayer content, but will also have a GaaS-like multiplayer roadmap to keep the player coming back.
Then there are games like Hitman, a singleplayer game that encouraged the player to return to the game on a weekly or bi-weekly basis thanks to the Elusive Targets.
Games as a service will be defined differently publisher to publisher, but GaaS does not mean that every game under the GaaS umbrella has to be an online only, lootbox ridden mess of a game which has the only function of roping in the weak willed into spending thousands on hats.
Is Uncharted 4 a single-player game? Uncharted 4 is not strictly a single player game. The game offers a multiplayer that is continuously supported with free new content but also has microtransactions.
What about GTA V? Again a robust singleplayer experience that also happens to have an online mode that is receiving continuous support and content.
The same could likely be said about the upcoming Last of Us 2 and Red Dead Redemption 2. Willing to bet both will have strong singleplayer content, but will also have a GaaS-like multiplayer roadmap to keep the player coming back.
Then there are games like Hitman, a singleplayer game that encouraged the player to return to the game on a weekly or bi-weekly basis thanks to the Elusive Targets.
Games as a service will be defined differently publisher to publisher, but GaaS does not mean that every game under the GaaS umbrella has to be an online only, lootbox ridden mess of a game which has the only function of roping in the weak willed into spending thousands on hats.
Who's making these rules?
More_Badass
Member
It's a mid budget game. Otherwise known as AA. Bloodbourne fits in the same category. It's the reason both of these games exist for $60 without loot crates and insane amounts of DLC to make up the budget shortfalls. It's the reason BotW can exists on the small install base of the Wii U and Switch without Nintendo going deep into the red.
So it had the budget of a 360/PS3 title then? That was generally considered the break even point of AAA games last generation. I guarantee that mark has been obliterated by the big budget DLC season pass loot box fests we get this generation.
Gamegeneral
Member
I think AAA as a whole is going to die in the next 10 to 20 years.
Seriously, it's becoming increasingly hard to sustain without hammering in hamfisted attempts to grab more money. 60 dollar games becoming 95 dollar games becoming 95+please buy these cosmetics+boosters+content in 5 dollar chunks from us.
Seriously, it's becoming increasingly hard to sustain without hammering in hamfisted attempts to grab more money. 60 dollar games becoming 95 dollar games becoming 95+please buy these cosmetics+boosters+content in 5 dollar chunks from us.
Soul of the Beast
Member
I hope (and expect) Sony and Nintendo keep up their single player efforts. With less of them of the market, I am sure these type of games can do very well in the future still.
Furthermore, developers like Ninja Theory may pave the way to AA-experiences that fill this void in the AAA singleplayer space. There might be no need for massive budgets and huge marketing campaigns to deliver a satisfying cinematic title as tech keep evolving.
Furthermore, developers like Ninja Theory may pave the way to AA-experiences that fill this void in the AAA singleplayer space. There might be no need for massive budgets and huge marketing campaigns to deliver a satisfying cinematic title as tech keep evolving.
For how long though? MP/microtransactions/loot boxes/GAAS bullshit will creep up in more and more of their games down the road, especially if their upcoming SP only games fail to meet expectations.
AAA just means budget. So yes for Neir. Watchdogs would be AA.
Baron_Calamity
Member
This industry is always running towards a cliff chasing trends.When Quake hit is big, we had an endless sea of quake clones. When World of Warcraft his, it launched a 1000 copy cats that all failed. Each time companies start chasing trends, they mass cancelled games in development that the last trend chased.
So now we are going to have a bunch of Battle Royal clones that all will fail. Nothing ever changes.
So now we are going to have a bunch of Battle Royal clones that all will fail. Nothing ever changes.
Soul of the Beast
Member
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I tend to agree that the AAA label is not really well-defined. If, say, AAA is this tier:
- Call of Duty
- AssCreed
- Destiny
- GTA
- Horizon
- Uncharted
- Skyrim
And AA is this tier (note, I am not sure of their respective budgets, roughly estimating them to be way below the above tier though, but I typically still consider them AAA games for the most part):
- Hellblade
- Dark Souls games + Bloodborne
- Nioh
- Nier Automata
and A is this tier maybe?
- Telltale games?
- Ys series (and other Falcom games? including Kiseki 3? hmm, not sure)
- Dragon's Crown (and other Vanillaware games)
- Styx: Master of Shadows
- Gravity Rush?
- Elex?
- Divinity: Original Sin?
- Life is Strange?
Then what tiers are games like Dishonored, Borderlands, Zelda, Dark Souls, Yakuza, Resident Evil? AA 1/2?
I'm being facetious of course, but it seems like even AAA needs its own subcategory to distinguish the ultra-big productions from the more modest in comparison, but still fairly high-budget productions like those. Also, I don't actually have numbers about budgets for all of those games, so I'm purely guessing/estimating with those tiers, but I could be wayyy off. Gravity Rush for example has surely not such a huge budget, being fairly niche, but it does have support from Sony, being first-party. So... *shrugs*
Even indies could be said to have budget tiers. Ori and the Blind Forest, or hell even Divinity: Original Sin or Stories: Path of Destinies can be called indies, but they're not nearly in the same budget category as Cosmic Star Heroine or Salt & Sanctuary or Valdis Story, which are also not in the same category as your even more modest games like RPGmaker games you can find on Steam.
- Call of Duty
- AssCreed
- Destiny
- GTA
- Horizon
- Uncharted
- Skyrim
And AA is this tier (note, I am not sure of their respective budgets, roughly estimating them to be way below the above tier though, but I typically still consider them AAA games for the most part):
- Hellblade
- Dark Souls games + Bloodborne
- Nioh
- Nier Automata
and A is this tier maybe?
- Telltale games?
- Ys series (and other Falcom games? including Kiseki 3? hmm, not sure)
- Dragon's Crown (and other Vanillaware games)
- Styx: Master of Shadows
- Gravity Rush?
- Elex?
- Divinity: Original Sin?
- Life is Strange?
Then what tiers are games like Dishonored, Borderlands, Zelda, Dark Souls, Yakuza, Resident Evil? AA 1/2?
I'm being facetious of course, but it seems like even AAA needs its own subcategory to distinguish the ultra-big productions from the more modest in comparison, but still fairly high-budget productions like those. Also, I don't actually have numbers about budgets for all of those games, so I'm purely guessing/estimating with those tiers, but I could be wayyy off. Gravity Rush for example has surely not such a huge budget, being fairly niche, but it does have support from Sony, being first-party. So... *shrugs*Even indies could be said to have budget tiers. Ori and the Blind Forest, or hell even Divinity: Original Sin or Stories: Path of Destinies can be called indies, but they're not nearly in the same budget category as Cosmic Star Heroine or Salt & Sanctuary or Valdis Story, which are also not in the same category as your even more modest games like RPGmaker games you can find on Steam.
Soul of the Beast
Member
RE7 cost so much less than RE6, only 120 people worked on it as well compared to RE6's 600 people.
I guess Resident Evil went from AAA to AA too..???
AAA's definition is flawed, the way I see it, if two games priced the same and are treated the same in a game store, it's pretty much in the same category.
Who cares if there's only two category, ''AAA and indie'', there are expensive indies games like Unravel and Journey, and there are cheap AAA games like Mario and Dark Souls.
I guess Resident Evil went from AAA to AA too..???
AAA's definition is flawed, the way I see it, if two games priced the same and are treated the same in a game store, it's pretty much in the same category.
Who cares if there's only two category, ''AAA and indie'', there are expensive indies games like Unravel and Journey, and there are cheap AAA games like Mario and Dark Souls.
Renna Hazel
Member
Whoever is speaking at the moment. This is, by far, one of the silliest ways to categorize something. The industry is obsessed with AAA though, and it seems to have an ever changing criteria.
Papacheeks
Banned
I agree actually. They can't seem to make a Single player game without muddying it up somehow.
This fall kind of shows that with the MT, Loot craze. I do hope studios who have been successful in making single player games and are under one of the big publishers don't have to put stupid paid models in their games. I hope the backlash shadow of war has got, helps Rocksteady in making some smart decisions and not ruining their next big project.
More_Badass
Member
AAA has to do with budget but it doesn't have everything to do with budget, just like indie game budgets can range from under $100 to multi-million dollars.
AAA is in regards to publishers and distribution and team size and such, more so than budget IMO. Modern Warfare 2's development cost around $50 million, and GTA V's dev costs were around $140 million. They're still both AAA games.
Plague Doctor
Member
Precisely. AAA refers to marketing and budget and not a direct reference of quality and reception of said game. I am totally okay with SP games not having Taco Bell tie in deals anymore.
It seems more like people are finding AA to be some kind of mark of disrespect to games they like. It literally just refers to the budget of the game. Most of my favorite games ever are AA games, and it's sad to see that market contracting so much. Luckily indie games seem to be finding their way into that space somewhat.
The gaming market is worse off for all the minor publishers that have gone under taking most of the AA market with them.
That's fine, but then it means the term AAA just fades into irrelevance. It'll slowly just morph into "published by a reasonably sized publisher." If that's the case then it's tough to discuss anything about AAA gaming since it's all encompassing.
CrichtonKicks
Member
Probably better to define it in terms of sales expectations*.
If you expect 5 million+ lifetime then you are probably AAA.
If you expect 2 million lifetime and pop champagne at 4 million then you are probably AA.
*Expectations, not break even. Expecting 5 million lifetime sales doesn't mean you need that to turn a profit.
If you expect 5 million+ lifetime then you are probably AAA.
If you expect 2 million lifetime and pop champagne at 4 million then you are probably AA.
*Expectations, not break even. Expecting 5 million lifetime sales doesn't mean you need that to turn a profit.
Soul of the Beast
Member
Another question for people who said budget defines AA and AAA:
What if I made two identical games with only a development budget of 10 million. One has a marketing budget of 2 million, so the total cost is 12 million. Another one has a marketing budget of 70 million, so the total cost is 80 million. Does that make one of them AA and another AAA? Keep in mind that they are literally the same game.
I don't have problem with ''Japanese AAA'' being called AA games, I just don't understand how it works.
In here Asia, all Japanese AAAs are advertised like western AAAs, and to most of us they are the same shit that cost the same to buy, the only difference being the Japanese ones focus more on gameplay while western ones focus more on fancy presentation. Who knew they are entirely different category of games...
What if I made two identical games with only a development budget of 10 million. One has a marketing budget of 2 million, so the total cost is 12 million. Another one has a marketing budget of 70 million, so the total cost is 80 million. Does that make one of them AA and another AAA? Keep in mind that they are literally the same game.
I don't have problem with ''Japanese AAA'' being called AA games, I just don't understand how it works.
In here Asia, all Japanese AAAs are advertised like western AAAs, and to most of us they are the same shit that cost the same to buy, the only difference being the Japanese ones focus more on gameplay while western ones focus more on fancy presentation. Who knew they are entirely different category of games...
Mr.Deadshot
Member
Many of them still habe great campaigns. Like CoD, Titanfall 2, hopefully Battlefront 2 ... even the Need for Speed and sports games like FIFA habe story driven campaigns.
anothertech
Member
Sony and Nintendo will save us all.
Make sure to let them know this Holiday where you stand too.
Make sure to let them know this Holiday where you stand too.
RichiRamjag
Member
Bethesda needs to realize that their review policies arent helping matters either.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
Thankfully we still get great AAA and AA single player games from Sony, Nintendo and Japanese games.
But from Ubisoff, EA and Activation we might see less single player from them but honestly I couldn't care less about them. Most of their games feels like very heavily focus tested boring games, the only game I ever liked was Dead Space from EA and they killed it.
But from Ubisoff, EA and Activation we might see less single player from them but honestly I couldn't care less about them. Most of their games feels like very heavily focus tested boring games, the only game I ever liked was Dead Space from EA and they killed it.
Quantic Dream and Sony were really happy with Heavy Rain's performance. Hopefully Detroit will end up great. Development has streched a bit, we still dont have a release date.
Heavy Rain cost developer Quantic Dream $21.8 million to make, and with Sony's marketing budget added in, production costs topped out at $52.2 million (based on a mid-range euro-dollar exchange rate of $1.31), Quantic CEO Guillaume de Fondaumiere tells Eurogamer. It was worth it in the end Heavy Rain made Sony more than $130.6 million.
https://www.engadget.com/amp/2013/0...2-million-but-made-130-million-you-do-the-ma/
According to a new report from French newspaper Le Figaro (via CVG), the production budget for PlayStation 3-exclusive Beyond: Two Souls was 20 million (£16.8 million/$27 million).
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/beyond-two-souls-budget-was-27-million-report/1100-6414844/
Heavy Rain cost developer Quantic Dream $21.8 million to make, and with Sony's marketing budget added in, production costs topped out at $52.2 million (based on a mid-range euro-dollar exchange rate of $1.31), Quantic CEO Guillaume de Fondaumiere tells Eurogamer. It was worth it in the end Heavy Rain made Sony more than $130.6 million.
https://www.engadget.com/amp/2013/0...2-million-but-made-130-million-you-do-the-ma/
According to a new report from French newspaper Le Figaro (via CVG), the production budget for PlayStation 3-exclusive Beyond: Two Souls was 20 million (£16.8 million/$27 million).
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/beyond-two-souls-budget-was-27-million-report/1100-6414844/
JimiNutz
Banned
I think there will always be space for them and if VR takes off then I think that could really revive cinematic SP only games due to how incredibly immersive VR technology can be.
If you look at the market though and you look at the biggest selling and most popular games you can definitely see a trend with online/multiplayer focused games being more popular currently.
If you look at the market though and you look at the biggest selling and most popular games you can definitely see a trend with online/multiplayer focused games being more popular currently.
Nintendo was the console manufacturer that introduced 4 player multiplayer as a standard, of course many of their games have also multiplayer modes.
The single player however is usually quite meaty and fun too.
Even Splatoon which is Nintendo most online focused franchise offer some sort of single player mode.
I suspect linear, heavily cinematic ones are mostly finished. It's a lot of money to sink into something that for most people is either burn through once then trade in or rent for a few days. Not when games like Skyrim and Horizon give you a lot more to do as SP games, or you can keep playing with others for a long time like Overwatch.
And hell, you can probably more easily integrate MP into some of these open world games one way or another, whether it's another player coming in to fuck around alongside you or something like GTA Online where you're making double use of that game map.
And hell, you can probably more easily integrate MP into some of these open world games one way or another, whether it's another player coming in to fuck around alongside you or something like GTA Online where you're making double use of that game map.
darth_infamous
Member
We are in 3rd gen chasing WoW money. First developers were making WoW clones, then then tried to corner the market with a MMO for consoles (Destiny), and now companies are following suit.
DeathbyCheerios
Member
I prefer single player because if I walk away from the game for a week I don't have to "catch up".
I stopped playing Overwatch for a bit due to time constraints, went back and holy shit. Not enjoyable at all because of the skill difference.
I stopped playing Overwatch for a bit due to time constraints, went back and holy shit. Not enjoyable at all because of the skill difference.