Wildebeest
Member
In reality people are not "AAA gamers" they are super loyal CoD gamers or FIFA gamers, and so on.
Last edited:
-
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.
AAA Games are unsustainable.
- Thread starter tusharngf
- Start date
Majukun
Member
AAA just translates to "are your production values high enough that you can use them as a selling point?"
kubricks
Member
If "triple A" is a term only to reflect the game's internal budget, then please go ahead and collapse. Why would I even bat an eye when I am not the shareholder?
An industry is not going to die when a selected few big companies are not turning a profit.
Or is this a weird push from the left begging people to accept more expensive consumer products so the higher level stakeholder can have their 3rd yacht and another additional mistress/lover?
An industry is not going to die when a selected few big companies are not turning a profit.
Or is this a weird push from the left begging people to accept more expensive consumer products so the higher level stakeholder can have their 3rd yacht and another additional mistress/lover?
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
This is pretty obvious even despite 2023s stellar output- most of the studios that made the best games of that year laid off a whole lot ot workers despite the success. You can't keep increasing budgets and production values, making samey gameplay and expect the profit to keep increasing forever.
I am begging gaf to just start playing more AA/Indie games. I fail to understand how anyone can be a gamer in 2024 and wait these eternities for triple A to release
I am begging gaf to just start playing more AA/Indie games. I fail to understand how anyone can be a gamer in 2024 and wait these eternities for triple A to release
You can’t be serious with this.
Even in the 80s, people knew what a budget was, and funding was important. People didn’t just head into the studio to make a commercial product without having a fair idea of the budgetary guardrails.
Not anytime soon, though, and that’s partly going to be counterbalanced by rising salaries and higher fidelity for next gen
Killjoy-NL
Member
This pretty much ends the entire discussion.I dunno, all the ones below are/were profitable.
Make good games and they'll become a success.
But as costs are rising, the push for more GaaS makes sense.
Gotta need steady revenue to offset the rise in costs, while giving players something to play within your eco-system, as AAA dev time also increases.
Added revenue also allows for more investment in new franchises/studios.
Last edited:
Ribi
Member
Or you know... Just make a good game?
Most of that budget seems to be given in the wrong areas with the wrong people at the helm of the projects focused on recouping that money rather than actually using the money to make a good game. You're telling me a palworld exactly how it is with a 300mil budget can't be better?
Most of that budget seems to be given in the wrong areas with the wrong people at the helm of the projects focused on recouping that money rather than actually using the money to make a good game. You're telling me a palworld exactly how it is with a 300mil budget can't be better?
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
While true, it is worth pointing out that Sony has a big advantage over third parties by not having to pay royalties (outside of the PC ports).I dunno, all the ones below are/were profitable.
willothedog
Member
GHG
Member
HerjansEagleFeeder
Member
How do you define AA and AAA, if not by the amount of money spend on developing these games?It can if they dont spend stupid amount of money......Elden Ring is AAA game and yet FROM managed to make huge game that has huge expansion without going overboard with the budget.
Also we get high quality AA games.....
Also, this thread reminds me of the "solid AA" thread we had a while back.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
If Palworld flopped the studio would be dead
But yeah, muh sustainability
But yeah, muh sustainability
IAmRei
Member
I mostly left AAA games these few years and not regreting my choice at all. Not limited to games. Its also movies, as well (Lot of movies franchises are broken by modern standard anyway)
I return to nintendo games and japanese games lately. And see the quality even better for some. Such as ToTK or Like a dragon or granblue, even wonder.
And also I recently play smaller title in genre such as boomer shooter, or not popular indie games.
I see lot of worth in smaller budget games rather than AAA these days.
I return to nintendo games and japanese games lately. And see the quality even better for some. Such as ToTK or Like a dragon or granblue, even wonder.
And also I recently play smaller title in genre such as boomer shooter, or not popular indie games.
I see lot of worth in smaller budget games rather than AAA these days.
willothedog
Member
GHG
Member
For many of the games on the list it gives you enough data to do your own calculations.
If you want to be pedantic and draw conclusions that don't exist then that's up to you.
bitbydeath
Member
Nintendo games are AAA.
willothedog
Member
GHG
Member
Come on then genius, humour us.
What possible incurred expenses will have taken Spider Man from being ~669m in the green to being in the red?
Last edited:
willothedog
Member
kazuyamishima
Member
Yeah, and it ends the conversation about PS games not making any profit.
Most of the games on the list have a high physical share compared to digital.
For every physical game, the retailer gets their usual 30% share.
Last edited:
DragonNCM
Member
Yes but profit is X 5 from that 200mil, 23 mill sold (let say X50$)=1.150,000,000
Now that I call good investment.
Woopah
Member
That's true, but of course third parties have to also pay the retailers as well as the platform holders.
kazuyamishima
Member
The info is not hard for reading, Revenue minus Dev cost + marketing is positive in all the games in the list.
Even niche-man 2 cost is $345m including a $45m marketing cost.
Is not rocket science.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
You're nutty if you think ER cost that much to make lmao
GHG
Member
So why are you questioning the validity of the conclusions being drawn? We can only go on the data we do have, but you're attempting to assume the worst based on data we don't have?
And no, based on what I'm asking you it's very much green and red.
Last edited:
Angry_Megalodon
Member
Some of the takes here... yikes.
First, let's start with some basics:
- Many games have great budget ONLY because of:
* Incompetent project management
* Marketing
* Licensing rights
* Overpaid salaries
* Additional costs (related to the staff not being skilled enough to do the job)
Suicide Squad and Skull and Bones are prime examples of this. To put them in the same sentence with Elden Ring should grant a permaban
So, these are not "unsustainable" because they tried to make a game with a massive scope but only for bad decisions. In business, bad decisions get you broke.
On the other hand, you have games with huge scope and ambition, like Death Stranding, RDR 2, GTA, Genshin Impact, every From's game, Spiderman, Assassins Creed, etc. It turns out that all of them are profitable. They are a big gamble (if they lose, the studio go under) but that's how business works. It's not any different from any other.
Show me elite studios with a great work ethic that are struggling with their AAAs and I will agree with you, OP. Until then, I call it bullshit.
First, let's start with some basics:
- Many games have great budget ONLY because of:
* Incompetent project management
* Marketing
* Licensing rights
* Overpaid salaries
* Additional costs (related to the staff not being skilled enough to do the job)
Suicide Squad and Skull and Bones are prime examples of this. To put them in the same sentence with Elden Ring should grant a permaban
So, these are not "unsustainable" because they tried to make a game with a massive scope but only for bad decisions. In business, bad decisions get you broke.
On the other hand, you have games with huge scope and ambition, like Death Stranding, RDR 2, GTA, Genshin Impact, every From's game, Spiderman, Assassins Creed, etc. It turns out that all of them are profitable. They are a big gamble (if they lose, the studio go under) but that's how business works. It's not any different from any other.
Show me elite studios with a great work ethic that are struggling with their AAAs and I will agree with you, OP. Until then, I call it bullshit.
Self_Destructive
Member
How Sony and Disney make profit off Spider-Man on PlayStation
Then again, Marvel's Spider-Man is one of the best- and fastest-selling video game franchises and it's exclusive to PlayStation.
www.xfire.com
So they made ~$285M in profit... over multiple years....off of something that cost them $226M to make.... after selling 21M copies......................
You can see why that isn't great business. Shareholders want return on investment. Which means time and effort must be worth it... These big games are super risky, and only break even after millions upon millions are sold.. and take a long time to generate profit.
Meanwhile, a game like Helldivers 2, comes out and sells ~4M copies at $40.. which is $160M...probably cost ~$30M to make, leaving ~$130M in profit.. within 1 month...
digoutyoursoul
Member
In a industry where fully priced retail games adapt a free to play design model then proceed to label it as a service , I struggle to believe some publishers are struggling too much.
They wanted in on that Fortnite action .
They wanted in on that Fortnite action .
Last edited:
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
I didn’t watch the video, but using sales of Sony exclusives to prove the opposite point is cheating.
Those games are mostly from established IPs with top production values and clever, effective marketing. Plus, they’re mostly highly curated to be as milquetoast as possible and to generate as little controversy as possible. They don’t need to be exceptional or innovating to sell millions. In fact, apart from Death Stranding, not a single one of those games is innovating anything, and most are sequels anyway.
Which is kinda the whole point. AAA - as in, the top production values the industry and the available tech can provide - games are incapable of offering anything significantly new, lest they step on the wrong person’s foot and lose a relevant chunk of their target audience. They have to be completely safe to make sure the costs will always be recouped. I’m old enough to remember a time when devs would follow up a hit game with something that tried to do something different. And that’s how we got Devil May Cry 2. People weren’t pleased, oh no.
The definition of AAA is conveniently vague, so it’s easy to dismiss some good points about the current situation of AAA.
But it’s pretty obvious that AAA cannot be untied from budget. Ever since Nintendo forfeited the tech race, there’s been a tendency to consider even outstanding games like Super Mario Galaxy as, if not AA, certainly “not AAA”. Lots of people here laugh at the idea of calling TOTK an AAA game, and that’s entirely because of the tech.
The current AAA offering is perfectly sustainable… as long as it offers exactly what the audience expects and doesn’t try anything funny with the conventions it established itself. But yeah, bite more than you can chew with a Dead Space wannabe and it doesn’t matter how much money you threw at the thing - it won’t sell itself.
Those games are mostly from established IPs with top production values and clever, effective marketing. Plus, they’re mostly highly curated to be as milquetoast as possible and to generate as little controversy as possible. They don’t need to be exceptional or innovating to sell millions. In fact, apart from Death Stranding, not a single one of those games is innovating anything, and most are sequels anyway.
Which is kinda the whole point. AAA - as in, the top production values the industry and the available tech can provide - games are incapable of offering anything significantly new, lest they step on the wrong person’s foot and lose a relevant chunk of their target audience. They have to be completely safe to make sure the costs will always be recouped. I’m old enough to remember a time when devs would follow up a hit game with something that tried to do something different. And that’s how we got Devil May Cry 2. People weren’t pleased, oh no.
The definition of AAA is conveniently vague, so it’s easy to dismiss some good points about the current situation of AAA.
But it’s pretty obvious that AAA cannot be untied from budget. Ever since Nintendo forfeited the tech race, there’s been a tendency to consider even outstanding games like Super Mario Galaxy as, if not AA, certainly “not AAA”. Lots of people here laugh at the idea of calling TOTK an AAA game, and that’s entirely because of the tech.
The current AAA offering is perfectly sustainable… as long as it offers exactly what the audience expects and doesn’t try anything funny with the conventions it established itself. But yeah, bite more than you can chew with a Dead Space wannabe and it doesn’t matter how much money you threw at the thing - it won’t sell itself.
Neff
Member
There's no sure-fire way of guaranteeing you'll make good money on AAA, even if it's a sequel to a hit. It's a risky business no matter how you cut it.
Massive games built by hundreds and hundreds of people to the tune of many, many millions of dollars? Yes. Metroid Prime 4 though probably not. Nintendo is happy to spend but they know they don't need to. It'll be a pricey gig but not silly money.
Massive games built by hundreds and hundreds of people to the tune of many, many millions of dollars? Yes. Metroid Prime 4 though probably not. Nintendo is happy to spend but they know they don't need to. It'll be a pricey gig but not silly money.
Last edited:
AeonGaidenRaiden
Member
A simple google search will keep your mind at ease.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
A simple class in critical thinking will keep your mind at ease
Aces High
Member
The game industry needs its own Pulp Fiction moment.
Pulp Fiction (1994) had production costs of $8.5m which is ridiculous for Hollywood standards. Titanic (1997) for comparison had $200m budget.
Despite the tiny budget, the cultural impact of the movie was massive. 3 decades later and it's still mind-blowingly good.
What really annoys me is that only a small amount of devs are really trying to achieve this kind of greatness. Most games are boring cookie cutter experiences. Most studios lack vision and talent. They're mediocre on their best days. They don't know what makes a good game and they spend way too much time on cinematic presentation.
Gamers are part of the problem too. They don't reward risks. They don't recognize if someone tries to do something new. They judge every new game on superficial aspects like graphics. Most gamers are braindead consumer zombies and the vocal ones spend their time system warring like stupid little brats.
I also blame the game journalists. It is their job to educate gamers about creative projects and explain the challenges that smaller studios are facing. But they don't give a fuck. All they do is parroting corporate PR for the big AAA productions or worse.
"Inside story: I know who farted during studio board meeting" Who gives a fuck for this troglodyte tabloid shit? Why don't you tell us how that small studio came up with a new gameplay system that even the big studios couldn't think of?
We need better people in this industry.
Pulp Fiction (1994) had production costs of $8.5m which is ridiculous for Hollywood standards. Titanic (1997) for comparison had $200m budget.
Despite the tiny budget, the cultural impact of the movie was massive. 3 decades later and it's still mind-blowingly good.
What really annoys me is that only a small amount of devs are really trying to achieve this kind of greatness. Most games are boring cookie cutter experiences. Most studios lack vision and talent. They're mediocre on their best days. They don't know what makes a good game and they spend way too much time on cinematic presentation.
Gamers are part of the problem too. They don't reward risks. They don't recognize if someone tries to do something new. They judge every new game on superficial aspects like graphics. Most gamers are braindead consumer zombies and the vocal ones spend their time system warring like stupid little brats.
I also blame the game journalists. It is their job to educate gamers about creative projects and explain the challenges that smaller studios are facing. But they don't give a fuck. All they do is parroting corporate PR for the big AAA productions or worse.
"Inside story: I know who farted during studio board meeting" Who gives a fuck for this troglodyte tabloid shit? Why don't you tell us how that small studio came up with a new gameplay system that even the big studios couldn't think of?
We need better people in this industry.
DaGwaphics
Member
Kinda clickbait honestly. Just because two high budget GaaS games flopped doesn't mean AAA is not sustainable.
How quickly you forgot 2023 was loaded with games that critically acclaimed and commercially successful?
The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom hits 19.5M sold
Nintendo reported that its cumulative sales of The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, has hit 19.5 million copies sold.venturebeat.com
Hogwarts Legacy Reveals Updated Sales Numbers
Open world Harry Potter action-RPG Hogwarts Legacy reveals its updated sales numbers, and they're quite impressive.gamerant.com
Marvel's Spider-Man 2 sales zip past 10 million copies
Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 sales have impressed as the game has now sold over 10 million copies in four months.www.destructoid.com
This. A lot of very successful games in the traditional mold last year.
On the flip side, bad/flop games have always happened, and likely always will. Surprise hits aren't a new thing either. The reckoning that seems to be happening now is more about the business back-end and not that player tastes have suddenly changed. Though the GaaS space getting a little burned out is a bit of a thing, those cycles have always happened as well.
GHG
Member
How Sony and Disney make profit off Spider-Man on PlayStation
Then again, Marvel's Spider-Man is one of the best- and fastest-selling video game franchises and it's exclusive to PlayStation.
So they made ~$285M in profit... over multiple years....off of something that cost them $226M to make.... after selling 21M copies......................
You can see why that isn't great business. Shareholders want return on investment. Which means time and effort must be worth it... These big games are super risky, and only break even after millions upon millions are sold.. and take a long time to generate profit.
Meanwhile, a game like Helldivers 2, comes out and sells ~4M copies at $40.. which is $160M...probably cost ~$30M to make, leaving ~$130M in profit.. within 1 month...
So we're in agreement that those games are profitable.
But now it's suddenly "not enough" because "shareholders". Give me a break.
midnightAI
Member
Why does everyone always think so binary? Why is it always one or the other?
PatientGamer
Member
Judging by the output and quality of AAA games this generation. I'm likely not going to buy the next gen consoles... started off well with the best launch titles in gaming history for the PS5. Now it's just trash - literally nothing on the horizon other than Marvel games from Insomniac, remakes and sequels... same old shit tbh.
dragonyeuw
Member
IMO digital only and Epic exclusive handicapped the sales of that game. Granted, having physical copies and a Steam release would still put it behind a RE title, but I don't think their distribution strategy did them any favors.
dragonyeuw
Member
Out of interest what is the $ line between AA and AAA nowadays? Because ( I've used this game as an example a few times lately) something like A Plague tale Requiem has AAA production values but is considered Indies/AA I believe? If someone would have told me that game was made by one of the bigger companies with whatever 'AAA' budget means in 2024, I wouldn't have been none the wiser.
Self_Destructive
Member
Exactly. It's not enough. That's LITERALLY what every move they've been making recently is telling us.......So we're in agreement that those games are profitable.
But now it's suddenly "not enough" because "shareholders". Give me a break.
Low single digit margins.... it's terrible. They want to actually MAKE money... not make enough just to reinvest.. Do you know how any of this works? LOL
Last edited:
ManaByte
Gold Member
Aces High
Member
The ROIs of Sony games are a joke.So we're in agreement that those games are profitable.
But now it's suddenly "not enough" because "shareholders". Give me a break.
Spiderman had what? 70% ROI after 6 years dev time? That's a joke.
Investing that $200m budget into S&P500 will give you higher ROI after 6 years with compound interests and you don't have to work one single day during that time
Everything below 200% ROI for modern AAA dev time is a bad management.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Aw shit folks we got another S&P pro over here
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Can tell you only found out about index funds in the last 10 years
Last edited:
GHG
Member
So since we are going down this road should we also talk about the plethora of non AAA games that have failed (not just "it's not enough hur dur", I'm talking bout outright failure) financially? There are plenty of examples to go around, particularly in the GAAS sphere. Should nobody make any games anymore or is it just that the market and customers have grown tired of shitty products?
Separate point - you seem to have a gross misunderstanding of why they would like to make more money (they have been pretty clear in communicating that it's primarily a margin issue they are facing at the moment and that's what they are seeking to fix ASAP). Most successful companies reinvest a high proportion of their working capital regardless of how much they are making. Do you really think that if they were to make more money they wouldn't aslo be reinvesting a similar proportion of what they currently are?
Well shit, they should all just pack it in and make mobile games then right?
If you want to brag about 200% ROI rather than some good games to play then that's where you ought to be focusing your attention.
