Support NeoGAF

[dragonbane]

Here's how I see it. Fully-fledged AAA game takes 3 or so years to make. Some companies have the privilege to release the game in 3 years time. Others are forced to do that in one year, including all the future DLC and preproduction for the sequel. It is mismanagement but it's also tossing everything to ensure the game releases within a yearly cycle.

And the result was a buggy piece of shit. It's mismanagement and it hurts the quality of the game. It did good because of marketing. Imagine one of Sony's 2nd party studios doing something like this. If the game fails the developer is probably doomed immediately. It's a high risk and I really hope this practice doesn't become more mainstream. Team sizes are bloated enough already...

 

[RetroStu]

Is it just me or do we hear all this kind of stuff right before EVERY new console generation?, its funny that all these higher costs have never effected PC games.
Just more scare tactics to convince everyone that games need to be more expensive although give it a year or so into the new generation and game prices will be back down to what they are now, the same thing happened with this generation.

 

[gryz]

anybody know how many people worked on Metal Gear Rising for comparison?

its crazy how you can have 600 people working on a game yet no one actually focusing on making the game fun.

 

[zoukka]

I think we're in for another videogame industry crash.

Good riddance.

 

[Ingueferroque]

Possibly 90% of them outsourced with no real connection to the core team. No wonder their games just do not hold my interest at all.

 

[Espada]

Dat videogame crash.

It will be glorious.

This is what came to mind immediately upon reading all of this. I'm amazed none of the big wigs see this coming, or if they do they're not doing anything to turn things around.

 

[dragonbane]

How is this possible to lead a project with that many people without the game ending up in a disaster?

It's pretty much impossible. AssCreed 3 is the ultimate proof. Everyone totally occupied producing as much content as possible, but no one to make sure the game is fun or taking care of the overall vision. It's just robotic and mindless development.

 

[Coolwhip]

This is what came to mind immediately upon reading all of this. I'm amazed none of the big wigs see this coming, or if they do they're not doing anything to turn things around.

Short term cashing in. If AC 3 sold 12 million, this strategy works. But Ubisoft risks taking a huge hit if one of those games flops.

 

[vio]

That's the very definition of overbloated.

Never forget:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=484151

This, so much. I found this part most funny/sad.
"When you ask them what their work on the game was, they usually answer: “Minigun for the second level boss and enemy soldiers in red shirt and blue shirt.” After several months of work!"

 

[Log4Girlz]

Dat videogame crash.

It will be glorious.

What videogame crash? You mean console crash? Tablet and smartphone games are here to stay.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

I guess so long as there's a market for those AssCreed games then there isn't an issue. I haven't played it since Brotherhood but all I've heard is that it's been getting worse and worse, though. Wonder if/when the bottom will fall out on that series, and what do they plan to do? I'm already bothered by the notion of yearly releases of watch dogs and it's not even out yet...

 

[LightofRohan]

I think we're in for another videogame industry crash.

I think the majority of GAF secretly want the videogame industry to die.

All major developers die and everyone makes mobile games from their home. But, actually thinking about it. I think gamers get bombarded by way too many AAA experiences, it might actually be nice for a few years of silence.

 

[gryz]

I think the majority of GAF secretly want the videogame industry to die.

not the whole industry, just the ones who keep pumping out generic garbage.

 

[Sentenza]

not the whole industry, just the ones who keep pumping out generic garbage.

...And inflating costs, setting the bar unrealistically high for genres to survive.
Yes, by the way. I actually can't wait to see Ubisoft or EA out of business, because I don't think that will be "the ruin of this industry", I expect new, better realities to take their place.

 

[LightofRohan]

not the whole industry, just the ones who keep pumping out generic garbage.

Stop buying it!

 

[LEGGZZZZ]

Jesus, that's a lot of people.

 

[ironcreed]

I tend to agree with this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G3601ntfas

 

[nekomix]

I think the majority of GAF secretly want the videogame industry to die.

All major developers die and everyone makes mobile games from their home. But, actually thinking about it. I think gamers get bombarded by way too many AAA experiences, it might actually be nice for a few years of silence.

I think too many studios tried to deliver AAA experience this gen, some have taken huge hits from this perspective (RIP THQ and co., 38 Studios). They were too much wanting a place into the sun with Assassin's Creed, Call of, GTA... Game industry is still young and was invaded quite quick by suits who don't give a shit about games and how the industry works like many phone manufacturers took time (and are taking it) to understand how iPhone/iPad are so successful : they don't know how to manage, so they "copy" the best offer and see if it catches lightning. If a new videogame crash is needed for cleaning their arses, I welcome it

 

[prwxv3]

That is far too many people. The costs far outweigh the benefits. Killzone SF has like 150 people working on it. I am starting to think that these crazy budgets for AAA games are more from mismanagement then tech reasons.

 

[Darth Sonik]

There is an upside to this approach. When games are produced by a team every 2 or 3 years there is an inevitable purge of employees that aren't needed until the next crunch.

Different departments are needed at different stages of a game so you can limit down time, by having specialist units mucking in to help deliver other teams games & you avoid losing talent.

 

[MikeE21286]

Here's how I see it. Fully-fledged AAA game takes 3 or so years to make. Some companies have the privilege to release the game in 3 years time. Others are forced to do that in one year, including all the future DLC and preproduction for the sequel. It is mismanagement but it's also tossing everything to ensure the game releases within a yearly cycle.

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

Based on AC3, they seem to be running ragged, maybe an 18 month schedule is more appropriate.

 

[Kinyou]

I feel like it could work to have a bunch of random teams all over the place... if the game was designed as if Hitchcock planned it. That is, the entire game is designed, all mechanics are pre-planned and thought out (though I've recently discovered this isn't a common skill?) as best as possible, and all that's left is to build and iterate.

AC3 feels like someone went "oh, hey, we want fast travel, so that's your responsibility, get back to us when it's done."

Contrast this with Far Cry 3, which feels very consistent (despite having a significantly larger world, more quests, presumably more AI behaviors, etc) and polished. It feels as though a handful of people got together, planned out how all the gameplay and systems worked together, laid out a genral idea of the missions, and theen developed, allowing for improvisation as they needed.

Granted, Ubisoft's writing teams are almost universally awful, so that threw a wrench into things.

True, Far Cry 3 doesn't feel as glued together. I'm still not sure though if the game actually had to be that big. When you cut out 1/4 of the game you could probably make the team 1/4 smaller as well.

 

[Wyndstryker]

There is an upside to this approach. When games are produced by a team every 2 or 3 years there is an inevitable purge of employees that aren't needed until the next crunch.

Different departments are needed at different stages of a game so you can limit down time, by having specialist units mucking in to help deliver other teams games & you avoid losing talent.

For a number of people in Montreal, it's dubbed "The Circuit"

Contract to one project, finish it off, go across to the next contract. End result you tend to get the same batches of people working on several different games and publishers/developers

 

[Shaanyboi]

That's a lot of people out of jobs when this industry fucking implodes....

 

[Shion]

I think we're in for another videogame industry crash.

Videogames won't crash.

Business models will.

 

[shinobi602]

And people think next gen will still cost 59.99 lol

http://www.edge-online.com/news/ps4-games-will-cost-no-more-than-60/

 

[PinkCrayon]

And this is how you get games like AC III; a bug filled game that is less than the sum of its parts. Time to scale it back Ubi.

 

[BD1]

This sounds completely viable and fiscally sound....

The industry arms race is going to put more developers out of business. One big bomb against some of these budgets can derail a publisher.

 

[AppleMIX]

Videogames won't crash.

Business models will.

This. Anyone who thinks the market is going to crash is delusional.

 

[nekomix]

Videogames won't crash.

Business models will.

Yeah, "business model" revolution is more accurate.

 

[clutch.as.it.gets.]

Ubi Soft only needs 600 people on their games because they don`t like long development cyles. They want to ship as fast as possible.

Personaly i don`t like their approach and think a smaller team with a longer dev cycle is the way to go.

 

[Reveirg]

hopefully most of them know how to look for bugs.

It's now about finding the bugs, it's about higher-ups providing resources and time to fix them.

Trust me, all those AC3 bugs were found during QA, they just decided not to fix them due to lack of time/man-power!

 

[Remmy2112]

That "600 people" figure better be from all the people working to translate the game into other languages. Have you ever watched the credits for Assassins Creed 2/Brotherhood/Revelations or Assassins Creed 3? It takes like friggin' 30 minutes and is unskippable.

 

[bigboss370]

oh god, i really don't want a yearly version of Watch_Dogs.

 

[spekkeh]

It sure sounds like a lot, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything unless you can break it down into manhours/fte. If Ubisoft has a very smooth workflow, they could have a group of game designers thinking up an Assassin's Creed game, after which they pass along the design document to a few product managers, who then take control. While the game is being developed, the group of designers consecutively go on to work on the next iteration of Assassin's Creed. In such a conveyor belt way the number of hands that touch a certain project go up enormously, but then so does the output, which is now annually.

 

[spekkeh]

Ubi Soft only needs 600 people on their games because they don`t like long development cyles. They want to ship as fast as possible.

Personaly i don`t like their approach and think a smaller team with a longer dev cycle is the way to go.

For the quality, probably, but it's nice for devs to have a stable job too.

 

[Zoramon089]

Ubi Soft only needs 600 people on their games because they don`t like long development cyles. They want to ship as fast as possible.

Personaly i don`t like their approach and think a smaller team with a longer dev cycle is the way to go.

There's a limit to how much you can parallelize the process. After a certain point it becomes too disjointed as I suspect is the case.

 

[Biggzy]

oh god, i really don't want a yearly version of Watch_Dogs.

If it becomes a hit, it will happen.

 

[gryz]

too many cooks spoil the broth

 

[DieH@rd]

Ubisoft going even further off the deep end.

NS2 was accomplished by 8 guys (+2 for community+marketing) and shits on anything ubisoft was ever involved in.

Well, AC3 and FC4 brought them around 17 million copies, and one of those franchise is on a yearly schedule. 600 people for such projects may be just enough, especially if they have tight schedules.

 

[Sethos]

Yes Ubisoft. You need that many people because your games are filled to the absolute brim with meaningless side-mission shit that is either super repetitive or shallow as a puddle on a hilltop. AC3 and FC3 being prime examples, my god they were awful.

And oddly enough your games are completely void of any soul and passion.

 

[John Harker]

It's pretty much impossible. AssCreed 3 is the ultimate proof. Everyone totally occupied producing as much content as possible, but no one to make sure the game is fun or taking care of the overall vision. It's just robotic and mindless development.

the same dev system was in play for Far Cry 3, and that game turned out to be one of the higest rated/best regarded games of the past few years.

So, no, it's not.

 

[Lime]

Yes Ubisoft. You need that many people because your games are filled to the absolute brim with meaningless side-mission shit that is either super repetitive or shallow as a puddle on a hilltop. AC3 and FC3 being prime examples, my god they were awful.

And oddly enough your games are completely void of any soul and passion.

Except for Rayman: Origins

But I guess that doesn't count, since it's not the usual AAA shitfest Ubisoft aims for with their huge studios.

 

[kpjolee]

If the game is going to be sure fire hit selling more than 10m, this kind of approach in game development is understandable in terms of cutting development time short...but wow, 600 people. There should be more efficient way of doing this.

 

[Magic Mushroom]

How many are working on GTAV?

 

[fr3shme4t]

Ubi Soft only needs 600 people on their games because they don`t like long development cyles. They want to ship as fast as possible.

Personaly i don`t like their approach and think a smaller team with a longer dev cycle is the way to go.

They don't exactly put 600 people in a room for a year and churn out a game.

Roughly speaking it works like this (I worked on AC3):

About 1 year of a very small team, doing early prototypes and high level design. Followed by 1 year of more pre-production while slowly increasing the team size. Then 1 year of full production where most content is created, this is where lots more people join and the teams do get pretty large for 6-8mo.

 

[AlphaDump]

Doesn't every industry know that once they start outsourcing their products they stop being in control and over time become reliant on the formula the outsourcing delivers? Then what happens? Contracting groups become proprietary, but by contract, and will eat you alive with their increased billable rates (and dont forget inevitable OT).

This formula is going to eat these AAAA companies alive next gen once their dependency increases, and costs break the even point.

Sequel-itis, new ips, or reboots being forced down our throats. To big to fail gaming is going to becoming unsustainable if this continues, if it isnt already.

 

[gryz]

They don't exactly put 600 people in a room for a year and churn out a game.

Roughly speaking it works like this (I worked on AC3):

About 1 year of a very small team, doing early prototypes and high level design. Followed by 1 year of more pre-production while slowly increasing the team size. Then 1 year of full production where most content is created, this is where lots more people join and the teams do get pretty large for 6-8mo.

when does the part where they try to make the game fun happen? is that a thing that ever happens at ubisoft?

 

[DR3AM]

So Watch Dogs isn't an AAA game?

 

[Portugeezer]

Cross gen. Once the support for current gen consoles die down maybe the sizes of the teams will too.