Support NeoGAF

[LakeOf9]

The PlayStation brand is known for its massive, cinematic AAA single-player experiences, although the brand has spent this last generation investing massively into live-service multiplayer games that have either been scrapped, are missing-in-action, or have been killed shortly after launch in the case of the $500 million project Concord.

Yoshida explained that the PS4 era where Sony released titles such as God of War, The Last of Us Part 2, The Order 1866 and Horizon was better for AAA development as it was just before the cost of making huge games skyrocketed. While it "felt like going big was safer" just ten years ago, publishers were willing to invest heavily in this type of game, but now it's too much of a gamble.

Yoshida explained that the jump from the PS4 to PS5 AAA games has caused budgets to almost "double", despite the lack of an obvious technical jump for most games.

"I saw some analysis or estimate of one same franchise released during PS4 era and PS5 era generation double the budget," Yoshida told the podcast. "And that has reached the point that we cannot recoup this investment."

Ex-PlayStation boss reveals AAA publishers aren't signing as many games as the jump from PS4 to PS5 doubled the price of development for very little improvement

Former PlayStation boss Shuhei Yoshida explains that AAA development costs have doubled from PS4 to PS5, and there's little improvement

www.videogamer.com

I suppose this makes sense not just in terms of the game cancellations, studio closures, layoffs, and the horrible conditions a lot of AAA games launch in, but also the fact that sap many AAA games, first or third party, can no longer stay exclusive. Sony's driver the cutting edge of tech at all costs has driven this industry to a very dangerous place where the production of a single game can sink an entire studio. I sincerely hope they put a pause to the insane drive for new tech, decide to stick to PS5 level specs for a while, and consolidate the development pipelines and infrastructure on that so that going forward we can get AAA games at this current level of graphics and tech that are easier and cheaper to make, don't ruin the studio, and live up to player expectations

Because otherwise, Sony's business strategy as it currently stands is unsustainable.

 

[clintar]

They can't keep getting away with it!

 

[PSFore]

That podcast was weeks ago, and they still keep finding stories from it.

 

[IDKFA]

Something has to change soon. Increasing development costs and development time on this scale isn't sustainable.

 

[mitch1971]

So double the price for very little improvements. So, what is the doubling of expenditure going into? Waste?

 

[Donald mac Ronald]

Just because the hardware is better doesn't mean your costs have to balloon. Set proper budgets, better management.

 

[Xtib81]

So, what is the reason behind that? I mean, the games we're playing today are very similar to those we were playing on PS4. Where do the hundreds of millions go?

 

[Miles708]

So double the price for very little improvements. So, what is the doubling of expenditure going into? Waste?

I have the same question. Why has it doubled exactly, if the improvement are minimal on both technical, feature and gameplay departments?

 

[Crayon]

Sony did paint themselves into a corner with the level of graphics and polish of that streak of games. I don't think any other publisher was hitting that level so consistently with aaa games. Kinda hard to back away from that standard.

The question is why did it get so out of control expensive between ps4 and ps5? The games look nominally better but nothing crazy. Making straightforward sequels that look just a bit better should not skyrocket the budgets. Something else changed.

 

[nial]

California and Amsterdam are expensive, increasingly so, I don't think it should really surprise anyone that Sony is becoming adverse of making these types of games exclusives to a single console upon its first years on the market, as moving these studios isn't exactly a feasible option. They had no issues in having Returnal and Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart as PS5 exclusives, but Horizon Forbidden West, Gran Turismo 7 and God of War Ragnarok had to launch on PS4 as well.

That podcast was weeks ago, and they still keep finding stories from it.

This whole 'ex-PlayStation Boss' era for Shuhei Yoshida has been quite a bit annoying for sure.

 

[Topher]

Games this gen are not that much better looking than last gen so it is a massive waste of money, imo. The only real improvements have been frame rate and load times (kinda).

 

[diffusionx]

It's not the hardware, it is the massive inflation that started in 2021 and the massively expanded teams as a response to various... initiatives of the late 10s and early 20s.

 

[LakeOf9]

California and Amsterdam are expensive, increasingly so, I don't think it should really surprise anyone that Sony is becoming adverse of making these types of games exclusive to a single console upon its first years on the market, as moving these studios isn't exactly a feasible option. They had no issues in having Returnal and Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart as PS5 exclusives, but Horizon Forbidden West, Gran Turismo 7 and God of War Ragnarok had to launch on PS4 as well.

This whole 'ex-PlayStation Boss' era for Shuhei Yoshida has been quite a bit annoying for sure.

I would say there are three things they could do, and all are ones that I expect from a committed platform holder:

1. Better project management for the studios in the US and Western Europe which are very expensive; you let these studios work on a project for 6-7 years, with hundreds of people working on it in that period, then yeah, no shit the development budget is so inflated you can't recoup the costs in any reasonable or meaningful time frame. So manage production better, even your flagships don't need to cost $300 million+. Shit, that number is so absurd there are only a dozen or so Hollywood movies ever that have cost that much, no game should ever cost that much, ever
2. Diversify their output to have a bunch of smaller and mid tier games to make sure they are hitting a proper release cadence and have several projects that are far more profitable than the bigger tentpole stuff (to Sony's credit they have started doing this in the last couple of years again, jury is out if they can stick with it, I hope they do)
3. Absorb the costs. This is actually baffling that it needs to be said, this was always Sony's (and Nintendo's) biggest strength – they were committed enough to the long term success of their platform that they knew that individual first party projects don't have to be profitable in and of themselves as long as they are driving sales and purchases around the ecosystem and platform. That is literally the crucial key difference between a platform holder and a third party – a platform holder is able to invest in a broader range of projects because they gain direct tangible benefits from doing so, unlike a third party where every project has to justify the expenditure going into its development directly. Sony gave up on this a few years ago when they split the P&L reporting of software and hardware and made them independently answerable, I think this was a bad move, and I think they need to reverse it ASAP

 

[Ebrietas]

Not only do so called AAA PS5 games barely look any better than PS4, they also don't play any differently in terms of game design. The games cost more to make, take longer to develop, and in the end don't sell any better than their predecessors.

 

[bender]

This whole 'ex-PlayStation Boss' era for Shuhei Yoshida has been quite a bit annoying for sure.

To be fair to yosp, this shit happens when any big wig departs a company and does the interview circuit.

 

[Melfice7]

Why though? how does it double if the games are basically the same

 

[LakeOf9]

Why though? how does it double if the games are basically the same

Higher end and more complex tech that takes more time to be worked with and has to be incorporated into the production pipeline for all games because of expectations of cutting edge graphics and scope for every AAA game, as set by Sony themselves

 

[BattleScar]

So double the price for very little improvements. So, what is the doubling of expenditure going into? Waste?

Because people such as those on this forum (not singling you out fyi) and generally online, expect those miniscule gains in visual fidelity and gameplay complexity without understanding the ridiculous cost.
If people are happy with games just looking like higher resolution PS4 Pro games, there would be no issue. But the hardware sells on the basis of improvements and those improvements need to be visible.

 

[diffusionx]

I would say there are three things they could do, and all are ones that I expect from a committed platform holder:

1. Better project management for the studios in the US and Western Europe which are very expensive; you let these studios work on a project for 6-7 years, with hundreds of people working on it in that period, then yeah, no shit the development budget is so inflated you can't recoup the costs in any reasonable or meaningful time frame. So manage production better, even your flagships don't need to cost $300 million+. Shit, that number is so absurd there are only a dozen or so Hollywood movies ever that have cost that much, no game should ever cost that much, ever
2. Diversify their output to have a bunch of smaller and mid tier games to make sure they are hitting a proper release cadence and have several projects that are far more profitable than the bigger tentpole stuff (to Sony's credit they have started doing this in the last couple of years again, jury is out if they can stick with it, I hope they do)
3. Absorb the costs. This is actually baffling that it needs to be said, this was always Sony's (and Nintendo's) biggest strength – they were committed enough to the long term success of their platform that they knew that individual first party projects don't have to be profitable in and of themselves as long as they are driving sales and purchases around the ecosystem and platform. That is literally the crucial key difference between a platform holder and a third party – a platform holder is able to invest in a broader range of projects because they gain direct tangible benefits from doing so, unlike a third party where every project has to justify the expenditure going into its development directly. Sony gave up on this a few years ago when they split the P&L reporting of software and hardware and made them independently answerable, I think this was a bad move, and I think they need to reverse it ASAP

#3 is a result of #1. You can't just expect hardware sales to absorb the cost of a $300 million game. The game has to justify its own existence.

But as you point out it's basically impossible to justify. Spiderman 2 is going to go down as the beginning of the end for that type of game. It was just way too expensive for such a small upgrade over the original, way too woke, landed with such a thud, nobody liked it, you just can't make a game like this going forward and need to change.

 

[LakeOf9]

Because people such as those on this forum (not singling you out fyi) and generally online, expect those miniscule gains in visual fidelity and gameplay complexity without understanding the ridiculous cost.
If people are happy with games just looking like higher resolution PS4 Pro games, there would be no issue. But the hardware sells on the basis of improvements and those improvements need to be visible.

Please. This needs to stop, or the industry will implode. This starts in enthusiast and vocal communities like this one, we need to make it clear we are okay with the focus going more on sustainability of game development (and content, and polish) versus the shiny new graphical tech

 

[mckmas8808]

Ex-PlayStation boss reveals AAA publishers aren't signing as many games as the jump from PS4 to PS5 doubled the price of development for very little improvement

Former PlayStation boss Shuhei Yoshida explains that AAA development costs have doubled from PS4 to PS5, and there's little improvement

www.videogamer.com

I suppose this makes sense not just in terms of the game cancellations, studio closures, layoffs, and the horrible conditions a lot of AAA games launch in, but also the fact that sap many AAA games, first or third party, can no longer stay exclusive. Sony's driver the cutting edge of tech at all costs has driven this industry to a very dangerous place where the production of a single game can sink an entire studio. I sincerely hope they put a pause to the insane drive for new tech, decide to stick to PS5 level specs for a while, and consolidate the development pipelines and infrastructure on that so that going forward we can get AAA games at this current level of graphics and tech that are easier and cheaper to make, don't ruin the studio, and live up to player expectations

Because otherwise, Sony's business strategy as it currently stands is unsustainable.

So it's now Playstation's fault?!

 

[LakeOf9]

#3 is a result of #1. You can't just expect hardware sales to absorb the cost of a $300 million game. The game has to justify its own existence.

But as you point out it's basically impossible to justify. Spiderman 2 is going to go down as the beginning of the end for that type of game. It was just way too expensive for such a small upgrade over the original, way too woke, landed with such a thud, nobody liked it, you just can't make a game like this going forward and need to change.

I think I could expect Sony to absorb, like, one or two $200 million projects in a generation, yes, but if every single one of their games costs $200 million, then it's an absurd expectation (and absurd of them to spend that much on every game to begin with). Which brings us back to point #2, which I hope Sony sticks with

 

[Fake]

I still to find the supouse improvements that justify the double price.

Are those improvements in the room right now?

 

[mckmas8808]

So, what is the reason behind that? I mean, the games we're playing today are very similar to those we were playing on PS4. Where do the hundreds of millions go?

And this is the thing I HATE about the video game industry. I love Shu. I really do. But why not give us insight into "WHY" budgets have doubled from just 5 years ago? Everything in this stupid industry is so secretive. Nobody wants anybody to know anything!!!

 

[Danjin44]

This obsession with high tech graphics is killing western gaming industry.

I'm glad most Japanese devs stopped this pointless graphic chase.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

So double the price for very little improvements. So, what is the doubling of expenditure going into? Waste?

woke = hiring people that shouldn't be hire in the first place. outside of that, is really perplexing to think from a technical point of view where is that cost coming from.

 

[Represent.]

Why the FUCK did it double? For what reason? You dont just make new hardware and then shit just doubles in price for no reason.

SCALE DOWN YOUR GAMES idiots. Nobody needs or wants every game to be 80 goddamn hours

 

[SomeNorseGuy]

Then why chase high fidelity/groundbreaking graphics? If it's not sustainable, then stop. Scale back, do what you need to do to make it profitable. I know many people would be disappointed. But better to lose some customers then to implode IMO.

 

[kevboard]

"we bloated our development costs for no good reason"


meanwhile people play PC GaaS titles on the lowest settings, Minecraft is still dominating, Roblox has millions play stuff that looks like GameCube shovelware, and the biggest hits are indy games with tiny teams.

AAA is so fucked.

 

[Generic]

Multiplatform release is the only answer here.

 

[SamusXAran89]

So, the sales figures and revenues of the games have also increased. But you could actually save more if you made your projects shorter, with less cinematic content and more gameplay.

I'd be interested to know how much Kojima's adventure cost Sony.^^

 

[Scrawnton]

Don't worry, unreal engine 6 will save the industry.

 

[LakeOf9]

Don't worry, unreal engine 6 will save the industry.

 

[TintoConCasera]

Games this gen are not that much better looking than last gen so it is a massive waste of money, imo. The only real improvements have been frame rate and load times (kinda).

It's cool to see consoles getting SSDs and 60fps, but that's it. Gaming in PC is the same, graphics are the same and worst of all, gameplay is the same if not worse due to having to appeal to the masses, aka dumb people.

Really wishing for the pendulum to swing back to lower scale and cheaper projects, resulting in taking risks not being so risky and us getting more unique games.

 

[Scrawnton]

Sony did paint themselves into a corner with the level of graphics and polish of that streak of games. I don't think any other publisher was hitting that level so consistently with aaa games. Kinda hard to back away from that standard.

The question is why did it get so out of control expensive between ps4 and ps5? The games look nominally better but nothing crazy. Making straightforward sequels that look just a bit better should not skyrocket the budgets. Something else changed.

Budgets got out of control because Covid forced work from home which made the dev cycle longer which meant they were paying devs more. Inflation, delayed games, and a tech increase all hit at the same exact time.

Also, the more and more I hear Shu speak, the more and more I realize he was kinda bad at his job.

 

[Digital-Aftertaste]

So, what is the reason behind that? I mean, the games we're playing today are very similar to those we were playing on PS4. Where do the hundreds of millions go?

Diminishing returns, the latest stuff we are seeing, ray tracing, path tracing, etc. are very graphics intensive but the changes in terms of visuals are not as noticeable as we have seen in previous generation leaps.

 

[yurinka]

the $500 million project Concord.

Colin Moriarty mading up that Concord did cost $400M was a laughable joke, but this Videogamer clown mading up a $500M cost isn't funny, it's being a retard and kills any credibility he could ever had, making you think if the rest of the article is also a lie.

So double the price for very little improvements. So, what is the doubling of expenditure going into? Waste?

Perception by players is that there little improvements. But models, textures/materials, animations, lighting, mocap etc are way more detailed so require way more work to be done. Which means more money.

Worlds are also more dense, which means more props, enemies, npcs, missions, collectables, etc. than before, so more money.

Worlds are also bigger, which means more money. Plus extra skills/mission types/enemy types/etc. to don't make them too repetitive, so more money.

Money they make by selling the game isn't enough, so they make more free and paid DLC stuff, which is more money.

So dev budgets end being too high, and they shit in their pants and increase their marketing budget to compensate it. More money. They see other projects tanking so invest more in marketing. More money.

It isn't something new, budgets kept more or less doubling every generation. The thing is that now having budgets of over $300M means they have to sell around 8-10M copies to break even (more for 3rd parties). And this is something only some AAA sell.

So they port them to more platforms, make remasters, add more DLC (sometimes turning them into GaaS), sign some adaptation when possible, etc.

 

[Represent.]

- Make shorter games.
- Make 30fps games. Stop killing yourself to hit 60fps.
- Take 2-3 years to develop them. Instead of 5-7

Thats literally it. Go back to how things used to be in the golden age of consoles.

8-10 hour AAA games. 30fps. DONE.

 

[mckmas8808]

I would say there are three things they could do, and all are ones that I expect from a committed platform holder:

1. Absorb the costs. This is actually baffling that it needs to be said, this was always Sony's (and Nintendo's) biggest strength – they were committed enough to the long term success of their platform that they knew that individual first party projects don't have to be profitable in and of themselves as long as they are driving sales and purchases around the ecosystem and platform. That is literally the crucial key difference between a platform holder and a third party – a platform holder is able to invest in a broader range of projects because they gain direct tangible benefits from doing so, unlike a third party where every project has to justify the expenditure going into its development directly. Sony gave up on this a few years ago when they split the P&L reporting of software and hardware and made them independently answerable, I think this was a bad move, and I think they need to reverse it ASAP

What do you mean by this bolded part? I didn't know this change happened.

#3 is a result of #1. You can't just expect hardware sales to absorb the cost of a $300 million game. The game has to justify its own existence.

But as you point out it's basically impossible to justify. Spiderman 2 is going to go down as the beginning of the end for that type of game. It was just way too expensive for such a small upgrade over the original, way too woke, landed with such a thud, nobody liked it, you just can't make a game like this going forward and need to change.

Spiderman 2 sold incredibly well and was reviewed well by both critics and general gamers. It has a 8.7/10 on the Metacritic user score and a 4.79/5 (or 9.58/10) on the PSN user score.

 

[Gaiff]

Get your studios out of California.

 

[mckmas8808]

Colin Moriarty mading up that Concord did cost $400M was a laughable joke, but this Videogamer clown mading up a $500M cost isn't funny, it's being a retard and kills any credibility he could ever had, making you think if the rest of the article is also a lie.

Oh WOW! Didn't catch that they are throwing around lies like this $500 Million number. Why the hell do so many people want Concord to cost Sony so damn much? It's just pure console warring at this point.

 

[Scrawnton]

Please. This needs to stop, or the industry will implode. This starts in enthusiast and vocal communities like this one, we need to make it clear we are okay with the focus going more on sustainability of game development (and content, and polish) versus the shiny new graphical tech

It's not the community demanding high fidelity. The most popular games today are not technical showpieces. Sony just gaslit themselves into thinking this is the only way to do it. Sony just can't get out of their own way.

Case in point, when someone at Sony saw Elden Ring and had a realization that people want those types of games; were they not paying attention to BotW exploding around the world five years earlier? Did they not pay attention when Switch games were outselling them left and right while also being technical messes?

 

[RodriGames40]

Don't worry, unreal engine 6 will save the industry.

UE5 is already doing its part and will continue to do so, allowed many literally who developers to outclass AAA developers even in the graphics department.

 

[LakeOf9]

What do you mean by this bolded part? I didn't know this change happened.

This happened in early 2024, when Jim Ryan was replaced as co-CEO by Nishino and Hulst. At the time, Totoki stated that the point of splitting up the hardware and software into their own independent led units was to ensure both would be able to be profitable as businesses without needing the other to support them.

Even after the leadership was consolidated under Nishino later, the two units remain separately led and managed, which I think is a core issue Sony needs to contend with.

 

[LakeOf9]

It's not the community demanding high fidelity. The most popular games today are not technical showpieces. Sony just gaslit themselves into thinking this is the only way to do it. Sony just can't get out of their own way.

Case in point, when someone at Sony saw Elden Ring and had a realization that people want those types of games; were they not paying attention to BotW exploding around the world five years earlier? Did they not pay attention when Switch games were outselling them left and right while also being technical messes?

We know the Nintendo community was distinct from the Xbox and PS communities in its preference for games focusing on mechanics and content over tech; as a result, I can absolutely see the success of Nintendo being hand waved as "it works for Nintendo because their audience is different, it won't work for us", right up until, as you said, a few years ago, we began to get examples to the contrary on EVERY console.

 

[Melfice7]

Higher end and more complex tech that takes more time to be worked with and has to be incorporated into the production pipeline for all games because of expectations of cutting edge graphics and scope for every AAA game, as set by Sony themselves

but those expectations were not even met

 

[Jigsaah]

Sony is trying to walk a very thin line. They need more money if they are going to keep producing the way they were last gen. Couple of ways to do this. Raise prices (check). Release games on other platforms (check). Go full 3rd party (check?).

If nothing else it certainly could explain why they are open to putting Helldivers 2 on Xbox. Just like Microsoft, it's an experiment...one that apparently worked for Microsoft. Question is, could it work the other way around? Xbox fans definitely have a say in this with their wallets. Buy Helldivers 2 and you might get more. Don't and this will be a failed experiment in Sony's eyes and they will retreat back into their walled garden. It's really simple.

People will say this only really applies to live service multiplayer games...which does make sense. Those games live and die based on how many players are playing the game. So it makes sense to put it everywhere you can. Single player games...maybe they could work day and date on PC maybe, then some time before any other platform...but then it leaves to question...are they gonna be diluting their brand much like Xbox has.

I agree largely with what Xbox is doing given their situation. Go 3rd party, be on as many devices as possible, because you were in a war you could not win. Sony doing the same thing would speak volumes about where we're headed in the games industry. Namely, platform wars as opposed to console wars. Microsoft seems to preparing for it. Sony, a bit slower to the punch. But Sony has more to lose and doesn't have some ginormous company to bail them out should things go to shit with that kind of a decision.

 

[LakeOf9]

but those expectations were not even met

No because unless you spend a decade and a billion dollars on development like GTA and rockstar which is unrealistic

 

[mckmas8808]

It's not the community demanding high fidelity. The most popular games today are not technical showpieces. Sony just gaslit themselves into thinking this is the only way to do it. Sony just can't get out of their own way.

Case in point, when someone at Sony saw Elden Ring and had a realization that people want those types of games; were they not paying attention to BotW exploding around the world five years earlier? Did they not pay attention when Switch games were outselling them left and right while also being technical messes?

You guys are legitimately insane if you think the rise in cost came from wanting games to look better. Jesus Christ dudes get your head out of your ass. You all are saying this as if no other gaming company even tries to make amazing looking games.

But you are also saying this as if more detail is the "WHY" costs increased by 100%. Just think for one second!

This happened in early 2024, when Jim Ryan was replaced as co-CEO by Nishino and Hulst. At the time, Totoki stated that the point of splitting up the hardware and software into their own independent led units was to ensure both would be able to be profitable as businesses without needing the other to support them.

Even after the leadership was consolidated under Nishino later, the two units remain separately led and managed, which I think is a core issue Sony needs to contend with.

Interesting.....we'll need to follow this going forward.

 

[mckmas8808]

Sony is trying to walk a very thin line. They need more money if they are going to keep producing the way they were last gen. Couple of ways to do this. Raise prices (check). Release games on other platforms (check). Go full 3rd party (check?).

If nothing else it certainly could explain why they are open to putting Helldivers 2 on Xbox. Just like Microsoft, it's an experiment...one that apparently worked for Microsoft. Question is, could it work the other way around? Xbox fans definitely have a say in this with their wallets. Buy Helldivers 2 and you might get more. Don't and this will be a failed experiment in Sony's eyes and they will retreat back into their walled garden. It's really simple.

People will say this only really applies to live service multiplayer games...which does make sense. Those games live and die based on how many players are playing the game. So it makes sense to put it everywhere you can. Single player games...maybe they could work day and date on PC maybe, then some time before any other platform...but then it leaves to question...are they gonna be diluting their brand much like Xbox has.

I agree largely with what Xbox is doing given their situation. Go 3rd party, be on as many devices as possible, because you were in a war you could not win. Sony doing the same thing would speak volumes about where we're headed in the games industry. Namely, platform wars as opposed to console wars. Microsoft seems to preparing for it. Sony, a bit slower to the punch. But Sony has more to lose and doesn't have some ginormous company to bail them out should things go to shit with that kind of a decision.

People tend to not understand that going "3rd party" like Xbox also means Sony would be abandoning their platform advantage. Why sell a game like Ghost of Yotei on Xbox and give away 30% to Microsoft? Why?! It's simply to understand why Sony would want as many people as possible to spend that money within the Playstation ecosystem.

Playstation and Xbox are NOT the same. Not at all!!!