Support NeoGAF

[diffusionx]

We need to get back to medium budget sized games in which the development team wasn't forced to "streamline" every single aspect of the game so it had to sell a minimum 10 million copies to break even. The irony is that in the digital age with all those third party engines readily available, being a AA dev is easier than has ever been. Publishers will always seek popular trends and attempt to cash in on the craze though. These publishers got way too big and shareholders too greedy. That's the origin of the problem.

This is a common misconception. Nobody wants to play these games. They don't do well, and they're not even necessarily that cheap to make anymore. Immortals of Averneum was a nine-figure game. Lamplighter League bombed so hard that Paradox washed their hands of it within days of release. Wild Hearts was forgotten instantly as people went back to Monster Hunter.

The only thing that consistently seems to work are massive, $200M+ projects with tons of marketing behind it, continuations of huge franchises, and remasters of old games. I think modern gamers are more likely to play a remaster than an "AA" type game.

You can see this in the top 20 selling vidya of last year:

The 20 Best-Selling Games Of 2023 In The US

It was another big year for games.

www.gamespot.com

Smaller games that "hit" is basically a crapshoot and you can't plan for your game becoming Palworld, or Dave the Diver, or something like that.

 

[jakinov]

They are all (including Palworld) arguably inspired by Minecraft a game that sold 300 million copies or at least contain major elements that are popularized from it. What we should learn from that is we should follow the types of games that have high potential and stop focusing on big budget story games. More important than these minecraft-inspired games is more on GaaS and mobile if they want to maximize the big bucks. Mobile and multiplayer games are cheap and popular. The only time GaaS is expensive is when they try to incoporate it wtih the traditional high production value story game. People here make a huge deal about a story game selling 1-5 million copies which is crap even in PS3/360 days for western games, Japan is a differnet story because devs are paid more or less the same as janitors and it's not controversial for your workers to work extra hours and sleep at work for that extra productivity. The money from a few million copies is peanuts compared to what could be made form GaaS or mobile. Taking a year or more to break even is horrible business, game sales usually slow down and if you do get sales it's at deep discounts. You don't spend millions of dollars and take a bunch of risk to make a little bit of extra money. The other thing is that people keep using Steam numbers to judge the success of games when some of the most popular GaaS games are not even on Steam and there are games that have much more players on consoles than on PC. The money in GaaS is nuts.


There's still a place for story heavy big budget single player games but it's become more of a niche in the overall gaming market.

 

[killatopak]

Most of the successful gaas have very friendly mechanics for non-whale users. The thing is whales gotta eat too which are the non-whales. One cannot exist without the other and if you alienate non-whales the whales will soon follow.

Another thing, the commonality of those games are they are passion projects. They all didn’t expect to be big initially. They may have gained a huge interest later on but that wasn’t their goal. Just like BG3 did, money follows passion. It may not be huge early on but what you get are solid loyal customers instead of fair weather ones. Helldivers is a great example of this. Lost Ark is an example of the other. Game cannibalized itself because of Amazon. Too greedy. Meanwhile, the much non-whale friendly Korean server is still going strong.

 

[bumpkin]

I don’t play it, but didn’t streamers help take Among Us from flop to massive success?

 

[killatopak]

I don’t play it, but didn’t streamers help take Among Us from flop to massive success?

Dunno if that’s the case but in my country, it got big after it had a mobile port.

 

[diffusionx]

I don’t play it, but didn’t streamers help take Among Us from flop to massive success?

It's simply impossible to make a game with the business plan that you will become a FOTM and meme from streamers. You can certainly have a marketing strategy that includes getting your game in the hands of streamers but it's a total crapshoot what will hit.

 

[Solarstrike]

Happy to see the underdog's succeed. Not just by monetary means but by gaining things that'll last longer than money. Respect, Inspiration, Community to name a few.

 

[Fredrik]

Can’t talk about the whole market but for me it would help with more AA games and lower price.
The cheaper a game is the lower review score it needs before I’m ready to invest.

Devs could also normalize having a demo.
But it needs to be polished!

 

[Pelta88]

Spend less on marketing.

 

[Solidus_T]

Gaming is a lot different than it used to be. Nowadays, you can make a game that blows its competition out of the water, but due to popularity of other games, your game is left behind. A great example of this would be Last Epoch vs Diablo 4.
You can also just get lucky and have your game explode due to it filling a long awaited niche like Palworld (though it seems to have fallen significantly)

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

AI tech is gonna handle this and then some. Nvidia is gonna have the entire industry by the balls in 5 years.

It’s a necessary evil, in my opinion, if gamers wants to see AAA games continue in the future.

 

[Alebrije]

Stardew Valley, Terraria , Undertale, Binding of Issac.

I Bet those games Will get more money than Suicide Squad or Skulls and Bones Will do.

The reason those games are fun, Yep their develop cost is nothing compared to the other two but the key is just develop fun games, problem solved.

 

[ReBurn]

We need to get back to medium budget sized games in which the development team wasn't forced to "streamline" every single aspect of the game so it had to sell a minimum 10 million copies to break even. The irony is that in the digital age with all those third party engines readily available, being a AA dev is easier than has ever been. Publishers will always seek popular trends and attempt to cash in on the craze though. These publishers got way too big and shareholders too greedy. That's the origin of the problem.

The shareholders finance the operation of the company with the money they hand over when they buy shares. Without them providing that financing many of these companies wouldn't be able to afford to do business. It feels weird to call them greedy for expecting a return on the money they're providing to finance the investment required to deliver the product. Are they supposed to finance the creation of the video games you, the consumer, play without expecting some sort of return on their investment?

Every player in the game is there to make money, including the developers. Virtually none of them are there doing it for free simply because they love doing it. Sometimes you have to hold accountable the people who are entrusted with the time and money to create the games. It's healthy for shareholders and publishers to be pissed when studios that told them they can make a game on a given timeline and budget come back to them and says they need another year and another $25 million to get the job done. Sometimes the problem is with the people making the game. We just don't like to acknowledge that.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Smaller games that "hit" is basically a crapshoot and you can't plan for your game becoming Palworld, or Dave the Diver, or something like that.

I really should have oriented this thread around AAA single player. I think when you're charging players $70 dollars you're more likely to see less "risks" taken by the public and therefore the trend is more obvious.

 

[nial]

Throwing money to a lot of fluff AA projects is not going to fix any problem.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

This is a common misconception. Nobody wants to play these games. They don't do well, and they're not even necessarily that cheap to make anymore. Immortals of Averneum was a nine-figure game. Lamplighter League bombed so hard that Paradox washed their hands of it within days of release. Wild Hearts was forgotten instantly as people went back to Monster Hunter.

The only thing that consistently seems to work are massive, $200M+ projects with tons of marketing behind it, continuations of huge franchises, and remasters of old games. I think modern gamers are more likely to play a remaster than an "AA" type game.

You can see this in the top 20 selling vidya of last year:

The 20 Best-Selling Games Of 2023 In The US

It was another big year for games.

www.gamespot.com

Smaller games that "hit" is basically a crapshoot and you can't plan for your game becoming Palworld, or Dave the Diver, or something like that.

Let's see a top 100. Top 20 is meaningless for this argument.

Franchises like SteamWorld, or HAL's Kirby. These are games that consistently sell well enough to keep their developers in business, without having to be massive blockbusters.

Shovel Knight is an obvious one, but you could say it's an outlier.
The recently released Penny's Big Breakaway is a game I'm convinced will do very well without breaking the bank for its developers.

Power Wash Simulator is another good example. So is the Overcooked franchise. Scribblenauts was very successful for a while until WB ran it into the ground.

The thing all these games have in common is they are unique and novel enough to fill a niche, and are well-made and complete experiences.

If your indie studio is one of a hundred making a Metroidvania, you're obviously risking being drowned out in a sea of similar titles. The industry doesn't need a hundred Metroidvanias a year just like it doesn't need multiple Call of Duty or Uncharted clones.

Come up with an attractive and novel idea and execute on it properly. Do market research before you ramp up production if you're not sure your idea has an audience.

 

[DaGwaphics]

put Men_in_Boxes in charge of Xbox, Play Station and Nintendo.

Well, some of us do like to play single player games. That software lineup full of Fortnite and Genshin clones is going to be painful for us.

On topic. It seems like Hogwarts and Baldur's Gate would be doing quite well. And the RoboCop devs have said they are pleased with their numbers, as have Asobo with Plague Tale.

 

[Fbh]

It's impossible to answer this without real insight.
The games industry is much more secretive about budgets and costs than the movie industry, so it's hard to get a true grasp of what is happening.
I'd love to talk to someone with high rank in a big dev/publisher and have them explain to me why modern games are SO much more expensive to make compared to something like Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 1-3, Dark Souls, Skyrim, etc.

A big part is obviously dev times, 2-3 extra years of paying 200+ salaries adds up. But why does it take so long? Is it the assets? the animations? the textures? the QA?

My initial answer would be stop focusing so much on graphics, consider recycling assets, cut down the scope length of your game by 30%, etc.
But I don't know if that makes a difference. Like I'd love to know how much something Elden Ring or Yakuza 7/8 cost to make compared to Forbidden West or Hogwarts Legacy or Spiderman 2.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Damn it, this thread is getting overrun by the bugs who spit green generic platitudes from their mouths.

I feel like a Helldiver on Helldive difficulty lol.

People! "Just make it good!" is not a valid response in this thread. I feel like a teacher who tells their students to go back to their desk and put their name on top of their paper. I'm looking for examples, not platitudes lol

Arrrowhead Games has a motto that is important here; "A game for everyone is a game for No One".
You make a good game, by targeting a specific audience and deliver what THEY want. The "targeting" keeps the costs down, as you are limiting the scope. You can also project how much you are expecting to earn and thus don't blow the budget.

"Who is this game for?" "Focus on delivering for THAT audience and only that audience."

 

[DaGwaphics]

It would be interesting to know how much of the increase in costs is just pure inflation/wage increases and how much of it is trying to push beyond what has been done before (diminishing returns tax).

If there is a lot of additional costs for seemingly little return, maybe the answer for some studios is to just more or less make a X1/PS4 era game that will simply be incredibly performant on the new machines. I know a lot of players would loudly disagree with that strategy, but I don't really have a problem with last-gen games myself.

 

[Banjo64]

I know how to fix the industry.

First, people really like graphics. So here’s what I suggest. Hire 400 GFX designers so that over a 6 year period we can see a horses testicles contracting when the cool winter morning breeze tickles them.

Secondly, people really like recognisable names. So we should hire Nolan North and Keanu Reeves to voice all 700 characters in the game.

Thirdly, black lesbian Hindu hermaphrodites love to be represented in video games. And they are a huge target market. So let’s hire Sweet Baby Inc to write our game for us. They know their shit.

Fourthly, all of our diversity hires shouldn’t be expected to actually work. That could damage their mental health. So we need to internally accept that this game will actually take 9 years to develop.

Fifthly, release Halo Infinite to critical acclaim.

 

[twilo99]

If Sony made the Marvel games $130, would you buy physical day one to support the corporation?

 

[ProtoByte]

Most of AAA Game development is marketing, believe it or not. If you cut marketing and management bonuses AAA games would hardly cost more than $100m

This also true, do we really need high profile celebrity to advertise games, it feels like such waste of money.

That results in layoffs as well.

Sorry just 2 points here. For number 1, I remember back then even some of the most well known games could be done by 20 people and not only that, they would pump sequels like in 1 year for example Tony Hawk Pro Skater 1 & 2. Some people would argue, if any dev can produce the same game with almost the exact same amount of content today, same physics and all, why would it take 5-6 years or why would you need like 1000 people.

Solid point.

Firstly, the thing is that the developers today are not the developers of yesterday. The working environment and personality profiles are different. So it stands to reason that, in all likely, making Pro Skater's 1 exactly as it was back then today would take more time. Even if it didn't, it would still cost way more money; because salaries are higher.

For reference, check out this video from an industry vet. He can explain it better with an anecdote than I can.



Secondly, no matter what anyone says, the idea that people would accept the exact same games they got 20 years ago now is a false pretense. Graphically, mechanically, QOL-wise, if you're even half a gen behind on any of this stuff, people will point it out and will have an issue with it. Especially once you get away from the forum hugboxes where people talk big about supporting such lower spec and scope games (and not putting their money where their mouth is more often than not), the wider market is not going to validate that at all. Nobody buys hardware worth half a thousand dollars or significantly more to play PS2 quality games.

And second, do all people in that forum talk like that ? Whenever something from that forum is posted almost always their conversations look like social justice discussions about supporting or not supporting or cancelling and stuff.

Those are the more reasonable, mild mannered posts. Look at this gem:

 

[Gojiira]

Helldivers 2 obviously…
Honestly you look at the games with good ROI and they generally have small teams,short dev times and focus on gameplay and/or gameplay innovation.
Kinda seems like the solution would be obvious, split studios into much smaller teams, less bureaucracy and middle management since smaller teams are easier to manage, each team works independently with no shared projects.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

If Sony made the Marvel games $130, would you buy physical day one to support the corporation?

We don't spend money to support corporations. We spend money on what we think will provide us the best value.

An industry with Steel Battalions is a fun industry.

 

[FoxMcChief]

Hire Faii Orapun to run gaming.

 

[LavitzSlambert]

Good thread. I think one of the best examples of this done well was Hollow Knight. I’m interested to see what price point Silksong will debut at, and though we probably will never know, how much it cost to make. Obviously not all devs can be that kind of success story, but it’s proof that you don’t need AAA production values to make a hugely successful modern classic.

 

[NahaNago]

I think a lot of the problems that Sony is facing with ballooning budgets is a matter of planning and creating/following a budget for the game in the beginning. See where you need to invest to make games quicker and bigger at the beginning and use it for all teams(look for bottlenecks pretty much). If you are already spending 4 to 5 years to create that game world couldn't you mario that world and create endless games for that gen based off what you created. They need to think long term.

 

[Chronicle]

Let the companies that are driven by billions dollar growth figure it out. Your money will never be safe.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Let the companies that are driven by billions dollar growth figure it out. Your money will never be safe.

?????

You have to think of studios as a business.

If you’re an AAA studio that employs 300 people, that’s around $40-$50M a year on costs.

If it takes three years to a make a game, you’re down $120-$150M in the hole. If you’re a selling a $70 game, minus the costs of selling the game, they’re probably getting around $40 per game sold so that means they need to sell 3M-3.75M copies just to break even. Then the rest is profit. But where is the guarantee that your game sells another 3M-3.75M to pay your bills and fund your next project?

The whole point of running a business is paying for operations with the profit made from your product.

If the profit margins are less than what it is to pay the bills of your operations, then what do you do from there? You can take a loan, but if your profit margins are that small, that just means all the profit you’re making goes back to paying off debt and now you have to take on even more debt to fund the next thing. It is unsustainable.

That’s why the layoffs are happening. Game studios are way too expensive to operate for the profit margins you’re getting and costs need to go down somewhere and that somewhere is unfortunately staff, since they take up the most expenses.