BrokenEchelon
Banned
No surprise. All the B-tier studios with AAA budgets are dead.
Unless you're expecting the sequels to take place in that year, it isn't.new franchises like cyberpunk 2077
...they're not talking about what they consoles might do, gameplay wise?Most gamers I know who are depressed by the state of affairs are those who can't justify the price of new hardware when a decreasing number of games are able to do justice to the hardware. Sure, some indie games do look great like Brothers: AoTS, but most of them are simply not taking advantage of the graphical capabilities of their respective machines.
And sometimes they don't.They don't have to do shit any differently because people are buying it. Publishers aren't in it to make better games, only better selling games. When the mass market wants different, then the publishers will respond acordingly.
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.graphics heavy games, the reason they go out and buy a new console for, AAA experiences like Fifa, CoD,
best games
Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty
So them blowing up is basically a when now and they're unable to figure out how to grow that audience spontaneously.And in amongst all this, the audience they're selling to isn't particularly growing. The well of consumer money to draw from isn't growing as fast as the costs are. That's not healthy.
Kinda makes owning a next gen system pointless if existing hardware can handle indies.
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?
The question is... will they actually have more players?
...they're not talking about what they consoles might do, gameplay wise?
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?
If this means we are heading back to the gc/ps2/xbos era then yes please.
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.I actually want a crash/implosion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to happen, so that we can go back to mid-tier, low budget, diverse library of titles, but I know that this won't happen and what we would get is mobile/f2p stuff, so RIP in peace gaming.
Software sales are down YOY, so no I don't think so. Hence why most are looking at an industry contraction
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.
That depends - do you consider F2P games built with the same budget AAA? Because this is the kind of titles that are growing in number at this point.Kansoku said:The thing is, AAA would never go away.
I suppose "best" is another way of saying "passable".
First of all, stop with the neogaf = hivemind thing. It's stupid and for your information, it's also a bannable offense.
Second, I don't think you have a clue about AAA development.
It's not because of the engine
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?
Let's describe it like this: Someone is looking for a certain kind of game and, for one reason or another (e.g., expense, time, developer pedigree), they feel the games marketed as indie they are coming across fail to meet their expectations based on previously set standards.
What's important is that this is simply what they feel when they come across a game; "this isn't what I wanted"/"this isn't as good".
You must relish in their disappointment because you think they are doing something wrong. I can only understand it as you are ridiculing their reaction to these unsatisfactory games.
So, what can they do right? Change how they feel so they are not longer unsatisfied? That's the disconnect right there.
You know, I can't help but characterize your posts with the tone of a defeated cynic, someone who is agitated by the hopeless/ignorant optimism of those who wants things to continue as they have with previous generations after being made to understand that isn't possible. The relishing in being proven right makes sense, then.
Sad news. AAA exclusives are the only reason I purchase game consoles.
This increase in asset costs of sequels will dwarf any savings made on the programming side, possibly by tens of millions.
The problem is, AAA justifies power. If that goes away, the impetus to upgrade is weakened, and that's not healthy for console sales.
That's where consoles are in a bit of a bind right now. The price of the PS4 and Xbox One are tied up largely in hardware that's only really of use to a minority of the games that are on the way. When people reach the point of asking "If I stick with PS3 and/or 360, just what am I missing out on?", there's an issue.
How many indies need the PS4?
Now, the raising ceiling is an absolute factor that should be taken into account, but I think hardware decisions are suffering from having been driven by the huge, big-name third parties' desires, not the desires of the average developer.
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.
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).
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.It was tested a bit last generation, namely with Banjo Nuts and Bolts. That bombed so Microsoft never touched it 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
Yeah, it's actually pretty funny."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.
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
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.
Did Tomb Raider make profit? or where they greedy and predicted more profit then they made? can that same game be made cheaper?
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.
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.
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!".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?
Software sales are down YOY, so no I don't think so. Hence why most are looking at an industry contraction
Notch can consider whatever he wants, but Minecraft had no publisher, it is technically "indie"Notch doesn't consider Mojang indie, and neither do a lot of people. In fact people bursted out laughing when Microsoft used Minecraft as them "supporting indie devs" around the Xbox One reveal.
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."
Everyones collections will start to look same-y this gen. Ugh.
The ongoing collapse of the AAA market doesn't bother me one bit. In fact, I welcome it.