Ex-PlayStation boss reveals the jump from PS4 to PS5 doubled the price of development for very little improvement, causing AAA studios to pull back

CoreyFlawless said:
They was saying the same stuff 10-15 years ago
Click to expand...
Exactly

PS1: "Oh look, it's a shiny new product, so it's naturally expensive"

PS2: "This powerful machine lets us make bigger games, so naturally, they cost more"

PS3: "Everything needs to be in HD now, which is incredibly complicated and, you guessed it, expensive"

PS4: "These visuals are almost real. Crafting them demands immense resources, making games incredibly pricey"

PS5: "Even for existing franchises, the new generation demands double the budget for that next-gen polish. Of course, it's expensive"
 
bender said:
To be fair to yosp, this shit happens when any big wig departs a company and does the interview circuit.
Click to expand...
Sure, but also, we've had multiple threads from a single interview, and that only keeps happening. I'm still for a "Shuhei Yoshida says" megathread.
 
DenchDeckard said:
They are just as guilty as driving the industry to where isn't is today.

When they were losing, they invested into an unsustainable business model. Xbox tried gamepass but Sony made their cross media business relationships work by utilising insane motion capture and creating the modern day cinematic game. Spending millions upon millions to create fancy cut scenes with fully motion captured actors.
Click to expand...
Your level of fanboyism is embarrassing. Truthfully embarrassing.

Sony, not being anywhere close to the size of MS, and coming off the PS2, incubated a first party pipeline where some games pushed the medium forward in natural and sensible ways. And yeah, they totally invented motion capture and cutscenes. Totally.

After failing to sell games and games consoles, contributing nothing to the medium, Microsoft tried to leverage their monolithic size to twist the games market into another SaaS vassal by flipping the economics of the industry totally on its head, bought out 2 publishers and almost all the mid-tier AAA freelance studios out of nowhere in a bid to trigger a race to the bottom.

And you're drawing an equivalence between these two. In part because you're not actually recognizing that the tech isn't the issue here; it's the human element that has created a 2x spike in time/cost with, as Shuhei puts it, negligible improvements.

Common sense lacking, biases and desperation spiking. You were absolutely one of those people that swallowed the Microsoft lie, and now you're trying to spread some kind of blame where it doesn't make sense. Lord.

DenchDeckard said:
No, western devs took years to attempt to catch up and still haven't.
Click to expand...
What about open worlds? Is Bethesda to blame for that? Ubisoft? What about expansive and high cadence multiplayer/live service games? Does Activision or PUBG Corp, Epic or Rockstar deserve the "blame" for that?

Correct answer: None of them have to apologize for moving forward with the medium as young as it is.

You're sitting here saying that a medium that runs off technology shouldn't advance technologically. That's insane.
 
BattleScar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Gamers also continue to forget that our TV resolutions went from 1080p to 4k within a generation that was 100% not ready for it, and devs had no choice but to push forward while needing to double or triple asset quality/size.
 
Are there any developers here ? Why do games take so long to make? I mean, the latest AC is exactly like Origins, Gow Ragnarok is like gow 2018, DS2 plays exactly like DS1 etc..
There's still little to no destruction in our worlds, AI is still dumb as fuck, open world NPCs still have one line of dialogue and overall interactivity is still very limited. So, what exactly takes so much time? It can't be better textures and better draw distance.
Every gen, we hear how easier and faster it is to develop on these new consoles + they improve their engine which is supposed to make development easier and thus faster. So, why does every damn sequel require at least 5 years?
 
Last edited:
ProtoByte said:
Your level of fanboyism is embarrassing. Truthfully embarrassing.

Sony, not being anywhere close to the size of MS, and coming off the PS2, incubated a first party pipeline where some games pushed the medium forward in natural and sensible ways. And yeah, they totally invented motion capture and cutscenes. Totally.

After failing to sell games and games consoles, contributing nothing to the medium, Microsoft tried to leverage their monolithic size to twist the games market into another SaaS vassal by flipping the economics of the industry totally on its head, bought out 2 publishers and almost all the mid-tier AAA freelance studios out of nowhere in a bid to trigger a race to the bottom.

And you're drawing an equivalence between these two. In part because you're not actually recognizing that the tech isn't the issue here; it's the human element that has created a 2x spike in time/cost with, as Shuhei puts it, negligible improvements.

Common sense lacking, biases and desperation spiking. You were absolutely one of those people that swallowed the Microsoft lie, and now you're trying to spread some kind of blame where it doesn't make sense. Lord.


What about open worlds? Is Bethesda to blame for that? Ubisoft? What about expansive and high cadence multiplayer/live service games? Does Activision or PUBG Corp, Epic or Rockstar deserve the "blame" for that?

Correct answer: None of them have to apologize for moving forward with the medium as young as it is.

You're sitting here saying that a medium that runs off technology shouldn't advance technologically. That's insane.
Click to expand...

You clearly can not take a step back and actually analyse this critically and are just resorting to jabs about fanboyism. When I've got some time I will dig out quotes from years ago from various users about how no one can compete with sonys quality. Comments about third party games and other first party games looking poor compared to sonys output.

You then have an old sony boss literally telling you it wasn't sustainable and you are resorting to this kind of post.

We pretty much know that no game had the budget of Last of Us 2 at the time. We also know all those games you mentioned, were often insulted for their animations etc because they didnt hold up with Sonys top tier quality. If I had the time right now I would dig out comments. We could probably fill pages from the comments about people not buying games and insulting games because they dont look as good as Sonys best.

Prove me wrong, if you want?

I'm here to talk about this topic and you are throwing fanboy comments. Are you a fanboy? are you upset about someone making a comment about Sonys involvement in creating an unhealthy development environment. If you cant discuss that like an adult, please don't bother responding.
 
Last edited:
Then why Nvidia and AMD keeps producing more gpus? Cause what they're doing is sustainable? then why we don't get the most out of our rigs? if games don't get any better then we're in serious issue and the entire industry in a complete messy state and gamers no longer care if it's a 2016 or a 2026 game. Now, we can only name 10 games from 10 studios who work closely with Nvidia/AMD, and the rest are just doing their own thing. This is an unhealthy state and needs to be fixed.
 
Why?
Because games have more detailed graphics and seem to be longer?

Why?
Because gamers expect more for their money

Why?
Because they have got similar experiences in the past and expect things to improve and get better?

Why?
When you pay more for a new generation of hardware you expect better graphics and better experiences?

Why?
Because in the past we have seen that be the case from PS2 - PS3 - PS4 generations

Why?
Because in order to sell those consoles they had to show more than the competition and graphics and cinematic games have always been the bar for those improvements?

Why?
They have sold incredibly well

Why?
Because they are impressive

Why?
Because people associate movie like games with amazing realistic graphics as a leap in technology and are caught up by stories in games that are realistically portrayed.

Why?
Because in the 90s 2000s and 2010s film and TV have been the most popular formats in the world and reflecting that in games has been lucrative and what the general public wanted.

At this point you can go in circles.
But the missing context is that the industry has changed as have people's habits.

Shorter attention spans - social media above film and TV.

Gameplay more important in social circles and multiplayer being focused on gameplay. Social media, social interactions, short interactive experi3nces or repeatable short bursts of endorphins - mirrors tik tok , Instagram etc.

Sony has struggled to realise and adapt this and they are hanging onto the past or failing to realise that huge budget gaming is on the way out. People more interested in shorter experiences or gameplay focused games with interwoven narrative you can pick up and enjoy or deep dive depending on what you want. Elden ring/ fortnight.

Platform for gaming needs to reflect that , handhelds, services and ease of access.

Games locked to one plastic box meaning investment in one platform and service are on the way out. Its too expensive and not worth what you get.

This has changed massively in the last 4 years and will.continue to do so.

Adapt or die. Im sure they will.
 
Most PS5 games barely look any better than PS4 Pro games in 60fps. Doubling the framerate is 0$ with hardware bump so where this 2x budget come from?
 
DenchDeckard said:
You then have an old sony boss literally telling you it wasn't sustainable and you are resorting to this kind of post.
Click to expand...
But that's not what he's saying, actually. Watch the full clip or even read the article.
It was sustainable the year before the PS5 came out, and we haven't significantly advanced at all. He even says "the technology is pretty much the same, but somehow the cost has doubled".

Bojji said:
Most PS5 games barely look any better than PS4 Pro games in 60fps. Doubling the framerate is 0$ with hardware bump so where this 2x budget come from?
Click to expand...
It comes down to the human element and exogenous factors related to it. Shuhei won't say because it will turn the game dev scene against him and his legacy; and more concerningly, perhaps he's never thought about it.
 
Last edited:
I kind of agree with what many have said on here. I think console generations should be also be longer to where game companies may take a hit in the beginning but as the generation goes on they will have more tools and better experience to work with the new tech and It will be cheaper to make games with the added benifit of more people owning the systems they are working on.

Maybe cut their ambitions back a little during the beginning of a generation and as it gets closer to the end really focus on graphics and power.

While I'm complaining I really don't see a need in games running 4K and 60 fps. I don't know a lot about game development or processing, but is there something in between those? Could they get games to run between 1080 p and 4K and instead of 30 or 60 fps could they set maybe 45 stable frames? I'm much more interested in npc ai, art style , destructive environments etc than I am about full on graphical power ( even though I know the things I'm asking for require good processing power, I'm just saying can't we maybe lower the other stuff I mentioned to lower costs or maybe work on the other things I mentioned instead.
 
Last edited:
I know Yoshida is a well respected and knowledgeable industry veteran, but I feel he is misquoted here.

The statement from the journalist is ridiculous.
PS4 to PS5 was an absolutely huge jump, and definitely bigger than PS3->PS4.
I played Horizon: Zero Dawn on a base PS4, and while the game itself is amazing in all aspects, the PS4 just couldn't do it justice. Max 30 fps, frequent drops to the low 20s, terribly long load times (30-60 seconds).
Contrast this with Forbidden West on a base PS5, we got 60 fps that looks very close native 4k due to the upscaling and load times that are below 5 seconds. Huge jump in all technical aspects one could wish for.
 
StreetsofBeige said:
And a bigger budget gets bigger star power, better CGI, better voice work and better marketing. So the minimum floor of sales should be a lot more than a cheap ass project that nobody knows about.
Click to expand...

Look at recent Disney movies and TV series outputs. If we are to believe the figures, a turd like The Acolyte cost above $180 million. That's not cheap, but very low quality. And this is across various products not just this one show specifically.

I think the major problems both industries are facing recently is lack of really talented/passionate people and huge marketing costs.
 
Crayon said:
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.
Click to expand...
hiring a bunch of diversity consultants.
 
If an established studio can't take a game from early concept to "gold" in 2-3 years they are either mismanaged, incompetent, or lazy. Or maybe a combination of all three. Any other excuse or reason coming out of a studio is just plain bullsh*t.

Very few games need to be a quadruple-A, cinematic masterpiece with a decade-long development time.

I would trade shorter development times for less spectacle every single time.
 
It's nice that people at Sony know about this, it seems. It would be even nicer if they'd do something about it.
 
Nothing to do with consoles, it's 99% labor cost increase. Big inflation wave recent years, salaries went up up up, while efficiency down down down (covid - work from home).

Gaming for a long time was steady with software and hardware prices but no chance prices can stay where they currently are.
 
BattleScar said:
Do you really think that Sony is spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on diversity consultants?
Click to expand...
I 100% believe that they are spending a significant amount of money on useless consultants, diversity or otherwise.

Of course, I also think that any amount of money spent on those grifters is too much.
 
Seeing as we've spent the last 4yrs mainly getting what are effectively PS4 games with some dials turned up and maybe some RT tacked on, not to mention increasingly easy platforms to develop for with excellent, mature tools. I don't think this is a reflection on the tech/visuals placing a higher demand on devs. It's likely extreme inefficiency, mismanagement, the covid response and a misallocation of resources to increase scope in areas of games that people don't really care for.

I also wouldn't be surprised if some of the that doubling was funnelled into and wasted on work on other gaas projects that fell through. Never underestimate the power of creative accounting.
 
Last edited:
Xtib81 said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's the ecosystem that's been built around making big budget games. It's just like big budget movies. It's a plethora of blood sucking consultants, marketing firms, and third party content creators that up the price just because it's the new thing.
 
It's interesting, Super Mario World and A Link to the Past seem to have cost 1.3 million dollars each to make and they are still much better and more enjoyable games than anything that has been out out in recent years.
 
Don't use the overhead on way to detailed assets then? Most people would think The Order, Ryse son of Rome or Driveclub looks good enough. Just use the extra overhead for 4k60-120fps native on games with ps4 fidelity?

Would look better than 720p fsr blur that we have today.
 
Represent. said:
- Take 2-3 years to develop them. Instead of 5-7
Click to expand...
this is probably impossible with modern dev times unfortunately
LakeOf9 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe budgets are better on Nintendo's side but development speed is still about as mediocre and delayed as the rest of the industry unfortunately.
 
the costs probably doubled because quality of the average dev nosedived. everyone hired way too many subpar people that now either have to be fired, ideal, or are dragged along by the actual good people, just exhausting the still good ones. there are games being made by very small teams today, sometimes it is very clear that a few pieces are missing, eg a plague tale looks clearly cheaper less detailed and vast, AA, than AAA (or AAAA). But it still looks good, because they focus on getting it right and not bloat it senselessly with useless content.
It's a studio management failure abandoning previous quality hires, taking everyone that barely qualifies, and a failure in the big publishers that ordered them to make huge whatevers because everyone needs to have their own fortnite instead of just letting it happen and stumbling over the next hit.
 
I think everyone would be okay with graphics stagnating if it meant that costs continued to come down over time, until things were back at a reasonable level.

Uncharted 4 was developed in 3-4 years, and is still in the upper 5% of best looking games ever made. There's no reason any game needs to look more realistic than that, so let's cap development at THAT fidelity and go forward from there. It's not a small game either, it had a solid multiplayer suite and almost 20 hours of single-player campaign.

Why do we need to double development budgets for something like Spider-Man 2 which only looks marginally better?
 
64gigabyteram said:
Maybe budgets are better on Nintendo's side but development speed is still about as mediocre and delayed as the rest of the industry unfortunately.
Click to expand...
People have to understand that development times are never going down again. Budgets will sort themselves out in due time and some players have already figured out (a common method switching to UE5), but that's about it.
 
PurePlatinum said:
I think everyone would be okay with graphics stagnating if it meant that costs continued to come down over time, until things were back at a reasonable level.

Uncharted 4 was developed in 3-4 years, and is still in the upper 5% of best looking games ever made. There's no reason any game needs to look more realistic than that, so let's cap development at THAT fidelity and go forward from there. It's not a small game either, it had a solid multiplayer suite and almost 20 hours of single-player campaign.

Why do we need to double development budgets for something like Spider-Man 2 which only looks marginally better?
Click to expand...

Clair Obscur looked great on a smart budget with Unreal 5, and I am happy with graphics more or less being like this with the rest spent elsewhere, if games can come out at 3-4 years. Or maybe less if they do the smart approach of asset reuse, like how it is with Yakuza games
 
SamuraiEdge said:
Clair Obscur looked great on a smart budget with Unreal 5, and I am happy with graphics more or less being like this with the rest spent elsewhere, if games can come out at 3-4 years. Or maybe less if they do the smart approach of asset reuse, like how it is with Yakuza games
Click to expand...
Yeah, RGG and FROM as well...lots of teams showing how this can be done.

The flip side of this argument is that Sandbox/RGG/FROM aren't California based AAA teams with insane salaries. My take is that we can't really solve the high salaries problem but we can cut development time and scope by toning down the graphics.

My super hot take is that ray-tracing doesn't make games better, and in fact the chase of marginal graphical improvements like this are destroying the industry.
 
Do you believe this nonsense?
What has gone up in price is the profit that shareholders want to extract from the brand.
They increase the gaming budget as if someone were increasing the bet on the casino floor.
 
LakeOf9 said:
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 $200 million, then it's an absurd expectation (and absurd of them to spend that much on every game to begin with). Which brings us back to point #2, which I hope Sony sticks with
Click to expand...
They already absorbed 400M$ Concord fiasco.....no more room left this generation.
 
Danjin44 said:
Not just Sony but also most AAA western devs did….they are the one mostly pushing for hyper realistic graphics.
Click to expand...

I remember western obsession with Raytracing, until they find out that you can see women's panties in the Raytracing reflection.
 
PurePlatinum said:
Yeah, RGG and FROM as well...lots of teams showing how this can be done.

The flip side of this argument is that Sandbox/RGG/FROM aren't California based AAA teams with insane salaries. My take is that we can't really solve the high salaries problem but we can cut development time and scope by toning down the graphics.

My super hot take is that ray-tracing doesn't make games better, and in fact the chase of marginal graphical improvements like this are destroying the industry.
Click to expand...
 
cireza said:
The cost has doubled but we barely see any difference !

Well no shit ? Why are you paying double then ?
Click to expand...
Square chin takes up a lot of polygons, and those SBI tropes pushed by woke agenda wont write themselfs, bro, some1 gotta pay for all those blue haired individuals in HR who dont do any real work yet got crazy 6 figures and up salaries :D
 
nowhat said:
Sure, but also, we've had multiple threads from a single interview, and that only keeps happening. I'm still for a "Shuhei Yoshida says" megathread.
Click to expand...

That's more of an issue of gaming outlets looking for clicks than former executives doing interviews after their exodus.
 
He's not telling the whole story but costs have gone up because there is a massive grift going on in the world at large. In every industry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Julian LeFay, of The Elder Scrolls fame, stepping back from game development due to cancer.
News 
23
363
The_Observer replied
Death Stranding 2 technical director says that the jump from PS4 to PS5 "isn't so great," it's just "more efficient"
Hardware  2 3 4 5
240
4K
peish replied
Digital Foundry: Days Gone Remastered DF Review - PS5/PS5 Pro - An Improvement Over PS4 Back Compat? It's Complicated
2
65
3K
Karim replied
MindsEye developer pulling sponsorship from Twitch Streamers, PlayStation is issuing refunds for the game
News Drama 
46
995
Pasta la Vista replied
Remedy Explains Difference of AA to AAA Games to the Studio
33
3K
MrTroubleMaker replied
Top Bottom