Support NeoGAF

[Gamer79]

Outside of corporations owning game publishing and the direction of said games, the other issue is game development is just too damn expensive. We have heard the figure heads time and time again say that the cost of games are just out of control. This means fewer developers and fewer chances to see originality outside of the smaller indie releases.

Nintendo Switch seems to be doing it right. Despite the aging hardware, the games are still releasing at a consistent basis and they still look appealing to the eye. Nintendo does not spend what Sony or Microsoft does on a game but they gain much more profit per release in general.

What would it take to scale games back to deflate the cost of game development? The advantages if the cost could be scaled down would be many more releases and many more chances for smaller companies to succeed with original ideas. I know indies feel that void but many get lost in an ocean of poor marketing or just lack of exposure.

Would you be willing to make that Sacrifice? Would you be willing to play with games with lesser resolution/scale/etc if it meant more consistent game releases and more choices? Just because a game looks better or has a bigger open world does not make it a better experience. I saw a poll done recently that found 8 out of the top 10 most games played last year were older titles. To be blunt, most older titles were just more fun.

 

[TintoConCasera]

I would be all in for it but, the question is, how would you make it appealing for the majority of gamers?

 

[analog_future]

Sony and Microsoft have set the precedence and there's no going back now. Their customers have an expectation.


For example, the Last of Us Part III would sell like shit if it came out looking worse than The Last of Us Part II.


There's just no putting that genie back in the bottle.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Switch is a hybrid handheld and their handhelds always sell. If Switch was a console only system like Wii U it'd do the fraction of sales.

I dont think MS or Sony can go back and dumb down consoles.

 

[Punished Miku]

Series S came out in 2020.

 

[IFireflyl]

Sony and Microsoft have set the precedence and there's no going back now. Their customers have an expectation.

For example, the Last of Us Part III would sell like shit if it came out looking worse than The Last of Us Part II.

There's just no putting that genie back in the bottle.

Spot on. CRT has benefits over LED/OLED, but virtually nobody is going to stick with a CRT monitor. The industry gave us better stuff. To take that away would just be depressing.

 

[jshackles]

You mean like Ouya, Atari VCS, Intellivision Amico, or the myriad of other failed consoles that tried this?

 

[rm082e]

Nope. If we were to pause any further enhancements to graphics, and the best looking games were on par with Cyberpunk 2077 for the next 5 years, I would be fine with that. I don't need photo realism. I also don't think Ray Tracing is worth the hit to the frame rate.

But 4k textures and the expectation of 4k@60fps on PC is just table stakes these days.

 

[Magic Carpet]

LJN going to make a comeback.

 

[rodrigolfp]

I would be all in for it but, the question is, how would you make it appealing for the majority of gamers?

Make it look like GTA V. Those visuals sold 200+ mi.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Totally can see it, but more like a steam box. The apus are so strong right now I could definitely see it.

 

[TGO]

I've recently been playing some PS2 games through Emulation and some do look fantastic.
With some improvement to texture work I would be very happy with some of those.
I think PS3 levels is good enough with a higher Resolution & locked frame rates and HDR.
But the problem isn't the hardware or how advanced it is.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

I saw a poll done recently that found 8 out of the top 10 most games played last year were older titles. To be blunt, most older titles were just more fun.

Nine out of ten of these games are live-service games, and the tenth is Minecraft. This list isn't the "most fun games played last year", it's the games with the most playtime. Service games designed for constant engagement will tend to dominate playtime.

To answer your question, I personally have no issue with it. I am playing a brand new PS5 JRPG that could have been rendered on an original PS4. I have an Xbox 360 connected to my primary TV.

I think there are already many choices in what to play for every budget. If you are already willing to play lower budget games, you could fill a Steam wish-list easily.

 

[killatopak]

They could but with an almost impossible condition.

gentlemen's agreement across all publishers to limit funding to a certain amount.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

LJN going to make a comeback.

Major League Baseball on NES.

Worst baseball game in the history of video games.

 

[ReBurn]

The issue isnt the consoles. We could have scaled back games on what is available now. I think the real question is whether anyone would buy scaled back games.

 

[Killer8]

Outside of corporations owning game publishing and the direction of said games, the other issue is game development is just too damn expensive. We have heard the figure heads time and time again say that the cost of games are just out of control. This means fewer developers and fewer chances to see originality outside of the smaller indie releases.

Consoles are just the gun and developers pull the trigger. If developers want to go down an unsustainable route where the game takes 8 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to make, that's up to them. All the console power is doing is allowing them to make whatever they want. That's all a new generation is - a lifting of some more constraints. Whether they go on to make a Balatro or a GTA6 is up to the goals and budget.

 

[diffusionx]

Like the play date?

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Don't care for the Nintendo method.

 

[Bartski]

hail regres

 

[delirium trigger]

That's what indie games are for and some of them are great and really sell well.

I still want a powerful console and good graphics. While good graphics don't make a good game, I still expect to be impressed with many of the titles.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

I'd be totally happy if the next Xbox and PS6 were hybrids with graphics on par with what we have now. No power increases. Just same power with machine learning..

 

[AJUMP23]

Ouya calling

 

[West Texas CEO]

Nintendo already does this.

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

I wish next gen would just focus on 4k/60 will all the bells and whistles. Forget 30fps. Forget 120fps. Just perfect 4k/60 in the best possible light with all the ray tracing and what not.

 

[CLW]

Yeah XBox Series S did really well

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I actually think the Switch is an example of how NOT to handle it. The games almost universally run like garbage. The hardware specs need to be up to a standard that lets developers create modern games (ie: enable scale), but not so high end that people are going to expect everything to approach photo-realism. I think the WiiU was a better example of how to do it. Power was restrained, but it was good enough for the games that developers (okay, just Nintendo) wanted to make at the time. Those games looked great and ran very well across the board, and it was a super polished experience for the end user yet still sustainable for developers. Shame about that controller, though.

 

[kubricks]

Oldly reminds me the Playstation 3, Vita and VitaTV situation.

Lots of Vita games were scale back version of full blown console game and imo were just as fun. The market, however, said no.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I think most importantly, companies like Sony/SIE and others facing mounting costs increases for top-end AAA game dev, need to eliminate redundancies in their production pipeline, even if it'll ruffle the feathers of a few people. Because honestly, the people who'd be the most upset about the majority of those changes, are like 1% of the total customer base and have less spending power than even that. They aren't worth catering streamlining decisions to.

In light of the recent SAG-AFTRA video game strike, I think some of these companies are going to think very seriously how to maximize things like AI in easing costs on game production. They might hire less voice actors, establish consortiums of shared resources between them (with low or no licensing fees), shift focus of AI to other areas of game development, or in the case of companies like Sony/SIE and Microsoft (and to a lesser degree, Nintendo, because in their case it'd be more so Nvidia), implement AI-powered technologies to automate certain aspects of game development & optimization to save companies money & time in, say, producing native 8K or 16K assets (by only needing to produce 4K or lower assets instead that can be perfectly upscaled to higher res), or smartly filling out/adding more detail to low-poly meshes & geometry on-the-fly based on needed LOD levels for assets in framebuffers.

These companies will probably also start building data model sets of their own assets (if they haven't already) to train AI models on, bypassing most of the legal and ethical concerns with using art, voice & other assets from artists without their consent. I do expect these technologies to be leveraged in dramatically reducing things like HR departments and certain QA testing, moderation tasks in networks, etc. "Lower priority" jobs not critical to actual game development, basically.

But yeah, companies should be looking in areas like those. Related things too; for example, maybe stop relying on super-expensive Hollywood VAs and writers if you already know the work they put into games is highly divisive and not particularly quality. Stop relying on consultancy firms like SBI beyond (very light) consultation for sensitivity purposes. These types of groups don't need to be involved in the process beyond the very early planning phases, and for a very specific slice of the scope at that. I have no idea how groups like SBI were involved in the process of games like Spiderman 2 for several years, but that was quite excessive. Not to mention likely costly in some amounts between $5 - $10 million over the period, that could've been better spent elsewhere.

 

[Dacvak]

I don’t think we’ll need a scaled back console to reduce development costs. Inevitably, a lot of development costs will be reduced through the use of AI.

 

[64bitmodels]

I would be all in for it but, the question is, how would you make it appealing for the majority of gamers?

Portability, like how the Switch did while still having a good home experience

 

[TintoConCasera]

Portability, like how the Switch did while still having a good home experience

I bought my Deck just to play old games so yeah, I agree that portability

 

[Griffon]

You already answered your own question: it does work. It's called the Switch.

 

[64bitmodels]

Personally I wouldn't want a scaled back console. It's easy to scale back graphics to cut development costs but it's hard to get those same visuals to run at 60fps on a weak system. Just look at totk and Witcher 3 on switch, it's a disaster

Developers will simply learn and adapt once this unsustainable AAA model starts collapsing the larger companies- I think it's a matter of time. Not to mention that there's a larger portion of devs making scaled back games like shown in OP as opposed to otherwise.

 

[64bitmodels]

Sony and Microsoft have set the precedence and there's no going back now. Their customers have an expectation.


For example, the Last of Us Part III would sell like shit if it came out looking worse than The Last of Us Part II.


There's just no putting that genie back in the bottle.

I could argue that there is some going back- many modern games look worse than their 2010s counterparts, like need for speed, arkham, battlefield, forza, and others. Not to mention how TAA royally fucked up game IQ in the latter half of the decade. Games in many ways look worse than older titles yet they still sell on graphics

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Switch is a hybrid handheld and their handhelds always sell. If Switch was a console only system like Wii U it'd do the fraction of sales.

I dont think MS or Sony can go back and dumb down consoles.

This.

The only reason Switch didnt flop like the Wii U is because it uses the Nintendo handheld installbase as leverage.

Playstation can't do that.

(Xbox shouldn't even be part of this kind of discussion anymore. It's over already)

 

[Sintoid]

Not on Neogaf

 

[Rentahamster]

It does work. It's the Switch.

 

[nkarafo]

Production costs is a developer/publisher issue, not hardware.

 

[hemo memo]

It’s not much the console but more of how Nintendo operates.

 

[old-parts]

Maybe but such a console would have to as others have said a compelling reason to buy.

1. Exotic hardware unlike the competition, unique capabilities that cant be easily replicated on a PC.

2. If not the above then some other gimmick/angle like a new control interface or something else, you can look at the Meta Quest VR headsets as an example, conventional smartphone hardware but the VR aspect is the selling point for this low'ish end VR console.

 

[WhiteWaterM00se]

Yes it would work, if it had great first party games, 3rd party support and if it was significantly cheaper.

 

[Fess]

Original consoles versus mid generation upgrades. Series S. Switch portable mode. Steam Deck. Consoles versus PC.

Lower resolution, lower framerates, lower graphics settings.

It works but it’s not less work for the developers unless they skip any higher end version.
I guess retro-inspired pixel art games is one way to do it. But forcing developers into that on a hardware level is tricky. I think it would only interest indie devs.

 

[Knightime_X]

You don't have to scale hardware back to make a cheaper game.
Literally just make a cheaper game.
Just because you have the hardware that enables you to make a thousand apples with 10 million polygons each doesn't mean you're obligated to actually do that.
Find a cheaper, less intensive route that looks just as good\appealing.

AI tools are not a novelty, overtime they'll become better and better, and will dramatically improve workflow, reduce time and costs.
If you don't want to use AI tools, then just don't.
Do it the old way, then bitch about high costs, poor sales, or xyz on a video game forum, afterwards.

Games like prodeus are fun and look pretty cool.

Games like Final Fantasy Rebirth didn't have to be a 150 hour sidequest simulator.
Could have easily been only 60 hours max and I would have been entirely happy with that.

 

[Hohenheim]

Based on the trouble the developers keep getting with the Series S, I think a even more scaled back console would be very difficult and doa. Unless it's Nintendo of course, but their games don't have to be scaled down for their hardware.

 

[KXVXII9X]

Outside of corporations owning game publishing and the direction of said games, the other issue is game development is just too damn expensive. We have heard the figure heads time and time again say that the cost of games are just out of control. This means fewer developers and fewer chances to see originality outside of the smaller indie releases.

Nintendo Switch seems to be doing it right. Despite the aging hardware, the games are still releasing at a consistent basis and they still look appealing to the eye. Nintendo does not spend what Sony or Microsoft does on a game but they gain much more profit per release in general.

What would it take to scale games back to deflate the cost of game development? The advantages if the cost could be scaled down would be many more releases and many more chances for smaller companies to succeed with original ideas. I know indies feel that void but many get lost in an ocean of poor marketing or just lack of exposure.

Would you be willing to make that Sacrifice? Would you be willing to play with games with lesser resolution/scale/etc if it meant more consistent game releases and more choices? Just because a game looks better or has a bigger open world does not make it a better experience. I saw a poll done recently that found 8 out of the top 10 most games played last year were older titles. To be blunt, most older titles were just more fun.

I personally would be all for it. I think the PlayDate had some potential, but it was very pricey for many and there was no backlight. However, it showed me just how creative and novel a dedicated system of new heavily scaled back games could be. Also, with consoles like the Nintendo DS, it shows that you can have a console with unique ways to play that can make it just as novel as just upgraded graphics.

I was also waiting for mobile phones to get a dedicated gaming platform with a wide selection of AA and indie titles with a set of official controllers with a cooling fan to start that turn it into a proper gaming handheld device. There is no reason current phones cannot run most indies. The Play/App stores can still exist but there should be a proper dedicated store for actual games where you wouldn't lose access to your game like do with a lot of premium ones. I also wouldn't mind if the platform had some scaled back games like they did with Final Fantasy 15.

 

[MikeM]

Scale on both the hardware and software/game dev side is entirely each their own’s call.

We have a Series S. We have games like Hades that do well. There is room for all scales. Console gamers especially don’t generally care, but there are some standards that need to be respected now.

I’d say the main problem right now is that everyone is chasing GAAS and constant revenue streams which is diluting products. That gun you just earned that was awesome? Fuck you eat the nerf- now you need this gun from this new bundle. Until next season- then eat a nerf for the new bundle, etc

 

[Gamer79]

You mean like Ouya, Atari VCS, Intellivision Amico, or the myriad of other failed consoles that tried this?

To be fair they did not have developers backing them. If the major publishing houses supported them, it could be done.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Outside of corporations owning game publishing and the direction of said games, the other issue is game development is just too damn expensive. We have heard the figure heads time and time again say that the cost of games are just out of control. This means fewer developers and fewer chances to see originality outside of the smaller indie releases.

Nintendo Switch seems to be doing it right. Despite the aging hardware, the games are still releasing at a consistent basis and they still look appealing to the eye. Nintendo does not spend what Sony or Microsoft does on a game but they gain much more profit per release in general.

What would it take to scale games back to deflate the cost of game development? The advantages if the cost could be scaled down would be many more releases and many more chances for smaller companies to succeed with original ideas. I know indies feel that void but many get lost in an ocean of poor marketing or just lack of exposure.

Would you be willing to make that Sacrifice? Would you be willing to play with games with lesser resolution/scale/etc if it meant more consistent game releases and more choices? Just because a game looks better or has a bigger open world does not make it a better experience. I saw a poll done recently that found 8 out of the top 10 most games played last year were older titles. To be blunt, most older titles were just more fun.

IMO the problem is that too many top development studios are too comfortable and lack a nucleus of about 10 people - like a HelloGames building NMS - that can actually deliver 90% of a working demo of their game idea in just 2years of funding. E3 demo building probably used to expose that nucleus in big studios in years past.

If more studios had a credits list that could credit 10-30 people more than everyone else, games could still look impressive overall - like NMS has done - because at smaller scale a team are forced to prioritise technical features integral to the clear vision of their game idea rather than employing hundreds of people only skilled in doing middleware work, and work that isn't functionally integral to finishing a working game.

So to answer your question, I'd be happy to accept first instalments of games looking like interesting prototypes, especially if more devs of 10-30 people made their own engines and made games with their engines with better visual identity to make them stand apart, focusing on things like unique game camera AI transitions or game modes and changing between like 8bit/16bit did more, or focus on unique physics/inverse kinematics, so that environments only need key elements to be at high fidelity to impresses and not be slaves to fear of the DF style tick list complaints of missing superfluous graphical features/polish that are now prolonging development and getting in the way of some actual development artistic ingenuity.

 

[Gamer79]

Scale on both the hardware and software/game dev side is entirely each their own’s call.

We have a Series S. We have games like Hades that do well. There is room for all scales. Console gamers especially don’t generally care, but there are some standards that need to be respected now.

I’d say the main problem right now is that everyone is chasing GAAS and constant revenue streams which is diluting products. That gun you just earned that was awesome? Fuck you eat the nerf- now you need this gun from this new bundle. Until next season- then eat a nerf for the new bundle, etc

That is what happens when corporations take over. They do not really care about the quality of the product. All they care is if it sells and how can we squeeze every last dime out of our consumer until we move on to the next project. Every successful DLC there is some corporate Shill with a fat bonus and some underlings with the "atta boy" compliment. Too many developers controlled by corporations have got us here.