Support NeoGAF

[RoboFu]

No more than a million. Just 20 years ago 4 guys in their bedrooms could make something like doom.
Now after corporations and consultants have a hold of the industry there is too many sub industries tied to development which makes making a AAA game the most inefficient / bleeding money project you can produce.

it's all about selling a vision to investors. We have a team of 300! , we use so in so big name third party consultants, marketing, asset farms. Blah blah blah

 

[Felessan]

Nope, I'm not offended Ferrari's exist, but I don't care about them at all either because the cost isn't worth it to me even if I was rich.

Why do you care about AAA games then?

Nothing is attractive to me about a 1billion budget game, because that budget like GTA6 reflects a game in development for easily past 5 years. The risk is dev hell with long production cycles, having to waste resources remaking production values since you're targeting future hardware that doesn't exist, and hope it will turn out good. GTA6 probably will, but I think those long productions are more likely to get you a Concord or Skull & Bones.

Do you feel so much compassion to the devs? It's their job and their risks not yours

Also, as soon as these larger publishers that used to make games I like started raising budgets, I got more derivative sequels, less new IP, and most of them stopped producing $50 million projects altogether. I'm only getting sensible budgets from largely new developers entirely, or devs who stayed at that budget level.

If you don't like that - you can go and play games with lesser budgets, those that more creative and less derivative.
There are 20,000 games per year in all budget tiers.
It's a players and devs choice to go for bigger budgets. Why everyone should suffer with you in subpar quality games just because you don't like AAA, there are plenty of games that stay in your favorite band even w/o AAA devs.

 

[Fafalada]

AAA will stay and no amount of technology will eradicate it.

I agree there, the pattern with big-budget productions has always been(for the past 25 years and counting) that every saving goes straight back into production iterations, not to reduce time/cost.
That said - I do think AAA has been struggling for awhile to find any new niches - it's growing scope and 'perceived' complexity but really we're playing the same games we played 25 years ago just with more polish, larger worlds, more expensive light-transport, and (sometimes) longer runtimes.

Which indeed is a lot like how Holywood budgets inflated - but I do wonder if it all comes to a head at some point.

 

[Sharius]

I think AAA game can take whatever budget they want, as long as they put these into gameplay, not to hire some expensive actor, these people alway look down on us so there is no reason i am happy to give some of my money for them, let them rot in holywood

 

[Hypereides]

We can reduce the cost of games if STOP putting celebrities in video games, do we really need it?

I suppose the inclusion of actors and celebrities gets pushed because AAA devs get dispensed/allocated a budget that must be spent. It would othwerise send a worrying signal among the suits that they're not using resources to their fullest capacity or something to that accord. Presumably, its a method to maximize the guarantees of "decent" ROI.

That's kinda the suits and AAA companies in a nutshell though; Its about injecting multi millions into a game project, then douse the market with exposure, over following and implementing responsible and sensible policies. Like studio head from Sandfall himself stated after his previous experience in the AAA branch, "there's a lot of irresponsible practices going on in AAA" (paraphrase).

AAA are largely f'ed at this point, though. They're on the path towards irrelevance with smaller studios and devs sprouting out from the pavement whom are catching tailwind with their creative works. AAA are only riding on the coattails of their former glory, almost in an act of desperation. Look no further than when Naughty dog announced Intergalactic and they/Neil had some balls to slap "From the studio who brought you [...] Crash bandicoot" tagline straight into the trailer when in reality the staff behind that series are largely gone. I'll give them credit for the audacity.

The newer generation don't really care about the uncreative works these AAA studios produce. Smaller, spare time gamedev teams and solodev titles, with 1/100 of an average AAA budget or even less, are attracting more attention and growing fame because those "small" games "speak their language", sort of speak. AAA largely lean on fancy graphics with marginal meaningful substance underneath. Its like they're overcompensating by spraying a cake in glaze instead of figuring out how to give that figurative "cake" more variance and nuance.

 

[Felessan]

Which indeed is a lot like how Holywood budgets inflated - but I do wonder if it all comes to a head at some point.

Budgets will slowly grow till they found equilibrium and then float around that number. Like films budget not really grow anymore, budget for blockbusters stabilized.
It's basically games/films spend more money to attract more players/viewers, but there is a diminishing returns and at some point cost of aquisition becomes larger than acquired person revenue, stopping further expansion. And system stabilize at point where product gives expected ROI

AI actually will make reaching that point faster with less volatility

 

[phant0m]

I think around 4 years for major AAA titles is more reasonable.

Loved the Witcher trilogy when CDRP could release a sequel every 4 years.

It's so fucking insane to even think about the old Naughty Dog

UC1 - 2007
UC2 - 2009
UC3 - 2021
TLOU - 2013
UC4 - 2016
Lost Legacy - 2017

Now we have Druckmann and his favorite shaved head characters, we won't get a new game till maybe 2027.

If you look up PS2-era Rockstar you're gonna shit your pants

 

[ungalo]

Doesn't mean anything, a 50 millions dollar project does not mean the same thing if it's made in America, in Poland or in China. Budget is just labour cost.

 

[Fafalada]

It's basically games/films spend more money to attract more players/viewers, but there is a diminishing returns and at some point cost of aquisition becomes larger than acquired person revenue, stopping further expansion. And system stabilize at point where product gives expected ROI

This is true - but unlike Movies that cap out at 4B$ or so for the biggest hits, the biggest games can break that number every year... for a decade+. Ie. the ROI ceiling is incredibly high, and one could argue we haven't actually found it yet.

AI actually will make reaching that point faster with less volatility

It's - difficult to pass a judgement on that. One can reasonably project along those lines if games remain static in design(eg. other than graphics, there's basically nothing separating FF3 from Expedition 33) and content production but there's no guarantees for that, especially with AI in equation.

 

[lastmessiah]

listen to the gamer's opinions on the game's progress and make changes if needed

They should definitely NOT do this.

 

[Hawk The Slayer]

Depends on the game, for something like

The next Ratchet and Clank, 80 to 100 million would be fine since the last one cost 81 million.

Stellar Blade 1 had around 50 million in budget so the next one just needs to be a bit more like 60 to 75 million.

Resident Evil 10 could be around 200 million and a RE 1 Re-Remake or Code Veronica remake could be 100 million each or maybe a bit more.

Half Life 3's budget should be 300 million.

Darksiders 4 should be around 100 million budget to make it bigger than the pervious 3 since it has all the Horsemens.

Something like Witcher 4, Elder Scrolls VI, and Fallout 5 should be much higher to make their huge world fun so 500 million for each one of those at least.

 

[Durin]

If you don't like that - you can go and play games with lesser budgets, those that more creative and less derivative.
There are 20,000 games per year in all budget tiers.
It's a players and devs choice to go for bigger budgets. Why everyone should suffer with you in subpar quality games just because you don't like AAA, there are plenty of games that stay in your favorite band even w/o AAA devs.

The entire purpose of this thread is asking people how much they think games like AAA should cost, so they'd be less complex to develop and be finished faster...and I gave my opinion that the budgets should drop back to what AAA was in the 360/PS3 era. Why are you surprised people are offering that costs should go down?

Don't worry though, I have already for years done what you're suggesting by consuming more AA to indie content. I'm playing less AAA games than ever because their quality is sub-par, and more of them are coming out broken with performance issues while innovating less. I'd just prefer they fix this by lowering costs, some IP these publishers sit on aren't big enough to recoup a 100+ million budget, and I'd like more games that have actual ambition instead of just pushing diminished returns on graphics.

Even general consumers feel graphics have diminished in value in AAA, evidenced by Mark Cerny when the PS5 Pro was revealed saying 75% of PS5 users opted for the performance mode in games when given the option, and on social media during that conference showing the graphical comparison shots between the base PS5 vs the PS5 Pro...people were posting squinting memes because they could barely tell the difference. We regularly hear developers say budgets on AAA have gone up too high, and not all of those devs can afford to just leave to start their own company from scratch.

 

[A.Romero]

It doesn't make sense. The moment it's not expensive (as in production values and all of that) it stops being a AAA game.

Unless you mean to erase what we know as AAA today and call AAA what we currently know as AA.

 

[Jigsaah]

I think it's fine to have big budget games every once in a while. Like games that really showcase the best a studio has to offer. In between that there you be smaller <50 million dollar budget games that are just about fun. I'd say a good cadence is a big budget game from a studio every 4 to 5 years, then smaller but also good games a couple of times a year. If you think it's not possible...I refer you to Capcom. They are doing it correctly.

 

[The artful mincer]

But do you think games actually need that much resources, why spend extra for a couple of graphical elements and other things that could easily not be there

I dunno there's definitely a huge chunk of players that want cutting edge graphics.

It's not just graphics it's content in general. Players generally want long games with high quality unique content.

If content doesn't feel handcrafted and starts to feel copy and paste players tend to notice and get upset. That shit takes manpower which is all devs costs are Development time X Workforce.

Even if games have average graphics it's still takes alot of work e.g. Baldur's Gate 3 and Elden Ring.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

Great pre pro is what leads to a good production cycle. If you have a big team waiting around you are wasting money. Smaller team to iron out the plan with good direction is always going to be better than a team "just making a game" without clear direction.

Do you know if indie game production is that way (compared to AAA)?

 

[Ainem Enamas]

Agreed.

Problem is big game costs seem to come from graphics whoring and the endless graphic designers and cut scene makers working there. So unless game studios can stop gunning for dog and pony show visuals, I dont see how costs can come down a lot.

It's a mindset thing. A lot of it has to do IMO to ego. Once a studio has a decent sized budget, it has to get bigger and splashier. Making smaller games for many is beneath them and too low brow.

It's no different than any marketing manager at work. They always want a bigger budget than last year. If the execs scale it back they cry like a baby saying they cant. Execs and finance dept say this is what you got so deal with it and be more efficient. Most marketing depts cant figure it out how to do more with less. It always has to be bigger and more expensive.

It's because gaming is much bigger now, I think...they think it's the way because more people are playing.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

This is a whishlist, not even a plan.
If you want to say how much a game must cost you must tell me each budget voice like
Staff budget
Hardware and tools
Studio lease
And so on...

The details I don't know, but approximately looking at as a whole example- project I think this

 

[Ainem Enamas]

Doesn't necessarily have to be sequels to the same franchises, but when I hear devs spent 5-7 years on a game...that's nearly an entire gen for one chance...you have to hope it will be amazing.

2-3 years seems the most sustainable way to do productions, the lower budget means you can afford to take more risk on innovating gameplay, and whatever production values gotta be constrained to get there so be it. All we're getting for these long dev teams are prettier graphics hitting diminished returns, and often enough come out with performance issues anyway.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but is it true that modern games have far less interactibility with the game world? Maybe I'm wrong but didn't games in 00's had more stuff going on, like more interactibility etc

 

[Ainem Enamas]

I dunno there's definitely a huge chunk of players that want cutting edge graphics.

It's not just graphics it's content in general. Players generally want long games with high quality unique content.

If content doesn't feel handcrafted and starts to feel copy and paste players tend to notice and get upset. That shit takes manpower which is all devs costs are Development time X Workforce.

Even if games have average graphics it's still takes alot of work e.g. Baldur's Gate 3 and Elden Ring.

Elden Ring is a very massive game and I don't know if it's awesome or maybe a little bit too much

 

[Ainem Enamas]

They should definitely NOT do this.

But why? If the same complaint is repeated for 300 times I think they should consider changing something

 

[lastmessiah]

But why? If the same complaint is repeated for 300 times I think they should consider changing something

I don't trust or value the general public's opinion on anything. Call me elitist or whatever, don't give a fuck. Let the devs make the game they want to make, not a focus-grouped committee project targeted at angry nerds who you can never please anyway.

 

[Durin]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but is it true that modern games have far less interactibility with the game world? Maybe I'm wrong but didn't games in 00's had more stuff going on, like more interactibility etc

Depends on the game back then. I think the early 2000s had more interactivity that would feed into gameplay systems, and later 2000s when they could make filmic HD visuals you did get linear cinematic games that skewed heavily towards very static worlds.

AAA games now I would say have a bit more interactivity than the late 2000s due to open-worlds, but a lot of it is cosmetic interaction like more objects in the environment can be destroyed, or you can choose your approach in bigger level spaces. Maybe that feeling though could come from many modern AAA games often having less challenge that makes the game-world feel like it's not pushing back, or that you're going through the motions with samey game mechanics since high budgets tend to reduce innovation. I think interactivity now is fine though, especially if you add AA down to indie games (so many survival and sim games there).

 

[Not_A-Cop_Maybe]

None of what anyone posts matter when a game like Scam Citizen exists, that is literally funded by consumers.

If AAA budgets get so big, it just takes one person with a relatively decent track record, to go out and say "hey , i want to make this game that you want to play. Give me money and i'll make it happen.....eventually"- People will pay on the slight chance that a game like what they want could get made.

 

[Felessan]

This is true - but unlike Movies that cap out at 4B$ or so for the biggest hits, the biggest games can break that number every year... for a decade+. Ie. the ROI ceiling is incredibly high, and one could argue we haven't actually found it yet.
It's - difficult to pass a judgement on that. One can reasonably project along those lines if games remain static in design(eg. other than graphics, there's basically nothing separating FF3 from Expedition 33) and content production but there's no guarantees for that, especially with AI in equation.

Outside of gaas, those follows different rules, sales and budgets for full scale AAA games start to stabilize at roughly 200mil budget and 10-15m expected sales.
Same as in films, and outlier are quite rare.

The entire purpose of this thread is asking people how much they think games like AAA should cost, so they'd be less complex to develop and be finished faster...and I gave my opinion that the budgets should drop back to what AAA was in the 360/PS3 era. Why are you surprised people are offering that costs should go down?

And my question - why should they when there is a separate tier for games that "be less complex to develop and be finished faster".
I am very surprised that some people want to kill the whole layer of quality games just because they are jealous. Again - if you want "less expensive games" - there are LOTS of them, why fucking you want to eliminate expensive games. No one stop anyone to play AA games now, and they exactly fit "less expensive and shorter development" criteria

Don't worry though, I have already for years done what you're suggesting by consuming more AA to indie content. I'm playing less AAA games than ever because their quality is sub-par, and more of them are coming out broken with performance issues while innovating less. I'd just prefer they fix this by lowering costs, some IP these publishers sit on aren't big enough to recoup a 100+ million budget, and I'd like more games that have actual ambition instead of just pushing diminished returns on graphics.

Why should AAA fix anything if they sell just fine and have their own crowd of players? You like AA? Play AA, why should AAA become AA games?

Even general consumers feel graphics have diminished in value in AAA, evidenced by Mark Cerny when the PS5 Pro was revealed saying 75% of PS5 users opted for the performance mode in games when given the option, and on social media during that conference showing the graphical comparison shots between the base PS5 vs the PS5 Pro...people were posting squinting memes because they could barely tell the difference. We regularly hear developers say budgets on AAA have gone up too high, and not all of those devs can afford to just leave to start their own company from scratch.

And still people buy every new iteration of hardware for their AAA to look even fancier. And smoother as people like 60 fps.

 

[Rockman33]

Do you know if indie game production is that way (compared to AAA)?

I'd imagine all games have some version of this. Without a good solid plan, you're inevitably going to end up wasting a lot of time. Some projects still could turn out great, but a lot of money and time is wasted on the way.

 

[Hypereides]

(...)

And my question - why should they when there is a separate tier for games that "be less complex to develop and be finished faster".
I am very surprised that some people want to kill the whole layer of quality games just because they are jealous. Again - if you want "less expensive games" - there are LOTS of them, why fucking you want to eliminate expensive games. No one stop anyone to play AA games now, and they exactly fit "less expensive and shorter development" criteria

(...)

Jealous? Your interpersonal soft skills are slipping, moneyman. People are increasingly growing apathetic towards them. Not jealous. Then again, you're an IB, so its not surprising that you're detached from the people on the ground floor.

Btw, your comment about implying AAA being equivalent to Ferrari cars; Sure, the shell, interior and paintjob might give that impression, but the chassis has long since rusted. Its only a matter of time before the larger demographic of consumers catch onto this. In the era of Social media, that should concern you and your affiliated colleagues.

 

[Felessan]

Jealous? Your interpersonal soft skills are slipping, moneyman. People are increasingly growing apathetic towards them. Not jealous. Then again, you're an IB, so its not surprising that you're detached from the people on the ground floor.

If you want to abolish the whole layer just because it's on top and more visible than yours favorite - it's jealously.
It will not do any good to industry.

Btw, your comment about implying AAA ebing equivalent to Ferrari cars; Sure, on the shell, interior and paintjob might give that impression, but the chassis has long since rusted. Its only a matter of time before the larger demographic of consumers catch onto this. In the era of Social media, that should concern you and your affiliated colleagues.

AAA doing just fine. You might delude yourself about rust chassis and wait centuries for it to break, but it checked and maintained properly, just like any market driven industry is.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I want games to focus on performance more than pretty graphical effects that do little to enhance the experience.

I recently replayed Batman Arkham Knight and it looked absolutely breathtaking. I would be satisfied with games that had that visual experience, with a few extra twists such as ray tracing

We are so much at the point of diminishing returns.

Games like Borderlands 4 should not run as poorly as it does. If you want to use UE5, fine but prioritize performance early in development.

 

[Hypereides]

If you want to abolish the whole layer just because it's on top and more visible than yours favorite - it's jealously.
It will not do any good to industry.

Right, there is little to be "jealous" about in regards to AAA these days. Those shiny graphics act as an overcompensation for what they lack beneath.

AAA doing just fine. You might delude yourself about rust chassis and wait centuries for it to break, but it checked and maintained properly, just like any market driven industry is.

Delusion? Whatever you tell yourself, moneyman. It seems more like you don't like the thought of these grand mega budget games declining in favourability over those "lowly" indie and AA games which are actually paving the way of future gamedevs. Those new gamedevs are seemingly not very willing to co-op with these large/legacy pubs too, which is sparking some "sour grapes" among a certain type of herd and people, such as yourself. There have been public instances of Sandfall interactive and Toby fox - both receiving multiple acquisition offers for their studio and IPs - but they declined them all. The next wave of inventive and creative gamedevs are wising up about the idea of aligning themselves with the AAA counterpart.

 

[MagiusNecros]

I think this is one of the most important things they could do. Just look at Team Cherry and what a team of about 5 people are able to do.

Plus imo, large development team = management hell, I bet AAA devs lose a lot of time on that.

Difference is in low cost high talent team in single to double digits putting out a great game around passion and art direction in 8 years vs 8 years to put out a mediocre to average game centered around high fidelity with a high cost overbloated low talent team in the triple or quadruple digits.

And for consumer pricing you are paying either $20-$50 for the quality game vs $70-$120 for the average game.

----------

To answer the question no more then 5 million althoughly ideally it should be 1 million or less. When you learn that some of these games are costing 50+ million to develop and make and none of these games are really breaking even or reaching those numbers it just isn't sustainable.

 

[Fafalada]

Outside of gaas, those follows different rules, sales and budgets for full scale AAA games start to stabilize at roughly 200mil budget and 10-15m expected sales.
Same as in films, and outlier are quite rare.

Outliers is what everyone is chasing though (and is what drives the expectations and budgets up).
100M budget was absurd 2 decades ago, but the moment first game pulled it off, others followed. And so on.
You can rest assured that if GTA6 doesn't fail - that 1B budget (or whatever it ends up with) will become a new possible target for others.

Also there are no rules - GTA5 embraced GaaS which in turn led to more unit sales as well - it's far from the most profitable example of it, but had they not done GaaS, they'd never have reached a fraction of the unit sales they got either.
Hell Minecraft was the original example of GaaS that monetized entirely through unit-sales, and so is No Man's Sky, both greatly outclassing what they'd do in a 'ship and sell' model.

Why should AAA fix anything if they sell just fine and have their own crowd of players?

I think it's a valid question if the AAA buying player base is sustainable and not on the verge of collapse. Age demographics shifting and other factors are not exactly showing a 'this will go just fine forever' at the moment. But admittedly - that's also happened before, so we just don't know.

 

[Sintoid]

The details I don't know, but approximately looking at as a whole example- project I think this

Details...
Ok

 

[Durin]

I am very surprised that some people want to kill the whole layer of quality games just because they are jealous.

I can't take this sentence seriously...what is there to be jealous of? The reason more of this sentiment to lower budgets exists is the output from that sector has lowered in quality, it has lowered in genre diversity as higher budgets kick more kinds of games out of that arena, they cost more, and more often are coming out broken. You can be surprised people want to lower it, but I think the market will organically make less of these games exist, and the few that remain will depend on recurring revenue as live services. It probably won't drop to 50 million, but the days of 200+ million budgets are going to contract.

Why should AAA fix anything if they sell just fine and have their own crowd of players? You like AA? Play AA, why should AAA become AA games?

We're literally seeing record layoffs prominently at larger publishers producing AAA. The budgets are rising faster than the audience is growing, new IP in AAA is less frequent, more sequels, and record amounts of remakes/remasters do nothing to indicate sustainability.

And still people buy every new iteration of hardware for their AAA to look even fancier. And smoother as people like 60 fps.

Yet this gen only Nintendo is selling at a faster pace than last gen's machines making lower than AAA budget games, the other 2 are objectively selling less, more people are choosing to stay on last-gen machines, and more games that any gen are releasing still on previous gen hardware.

 

[Felessan]

Right, there is little to be "jealous" about in regards to AAA these days. Those shiny graphics act as an overcompensation for what they lack beneath.

Why cares, you can whine about AAA games not being arthouse shit. People buy them anyway.

Delusion? Whatever you tell yourself, moneyman. It seems more like you don't like the thought of these grand mega budget games declining in favourability over those "lowly" indie and AA games which are actually paving the way of future gamedevs. Those new gamedevs are seemingly not very willing to co-op with these large/legacy pubs too, which is sparking some "sour grapes" among a certain type of herd and people, such as yourself. There have been public instances of Sandfall interactive and Toby fox - both receiving multiple acquisition offers for their studio and IPs - but they declined them all. The next wave of inventive and creative gamedevs are wising up about the idea of aligning themselves with the AAA counterpart.

I personally doesn't care what AA do. I never talked about indies/AA games being bad or whatever - they are of poor quality but if you like rough gems - it's up to you to play them.
My question is why you want proper AAA to be gone and only your shitty quality indies/AA to remain? Why existence of "soulless" AAA offend you so much? It doesn't hamper your indies/AA gaming, there are plenty of games in those tiers.

Outliers is what everyone is chasing though (and is what drives the expectations and budgets up).
100M budget was absurd 2 decades ago, but the moment first game pulled it off, others followed. And so on.
You can rest assured that if GTA6 doesn't fail - that 1B budget (or whatever it ends up with) will become a new possible target for others.

No one will follow GTA budget as to follow GTA one should expect GTA sales numbers and no sane person will do it. GTA is clearly outlier in SP space and there is no evidence that you can get such sales for other games.

I think it's a valid question if the AAA buying player base is sustainable and not on the verge of collapse. Age demographics shifting and other factors are not exactly showing a 'this will go just fine forever' at the moment. But admittedly - that's also happened before, so we just don't know.

Age demographics is one factor, expansion of market in developing world is another. Western world playerbase for SP games shrinking, RotW is expanding both because overall playerbase growth and rebound of SP games there.

I can't take this sentence seriously...what is there to be jealous of? The reason more of this sentiment to lower budgets exists is the output from that sector has lowered in quality, it has lowered in genre diversity as higher budgets kick more kinds of games out of that arena, they cost more, and more often are coming out broken. You can be surprised people want to lower it, but I think the market will organically make less of these games exist, and the few that remain will depend on recurring revenue as live services. It probably won't drop to 50 million, but the days of 200+ million budgets are going to contract.

There are number of publishers those have no trouble with 200m game budgets - it works for them and I doubt they will lower their budgets.
There is a demand for such games, same as there is a demand for 200m films and there are always be someone to provide them.
And it's not like 200m is very common, only franchises that have strong name go for it. Average AAA should be lower, likely around 100m, especially for not established franchises - GoY is 60m, SB is 50m etc

We're literally seeing record layoffs prominently at larger publishers producing AAA. The budgets are rising faster than the audience is growing, new IP in AAA is less frequent, more sequels, and record amounts of remakes/remasters do nothing to indicate sustainability.

And most of those layoffs can be attributed to post COVID trimming of workforce.

Yet this gen only Nintendo is selling at a faster pace than last gen's machines making lower than AAA budget games, the other 2 are objectively selling less, more people are choosing to stay on last-gen machines, and more games that any gen are releasing still on previous gen hardware.

We know nothing of Nintendo yet, launch data coming out of strong predecessor does not define trend. WiiU also had strong launch btw.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

I don't trust or value the general public's opinion on anything. Call me elitist or whatever, don't give a fuck. Let the devs make the game they want to make, not a focus-grouped committee project targeted at angry nerds who you can never please anyway.

But it's then risky to make the game

 

[Lambogenie]

There's no one size fit all number because wages and cost of living vary greatly across geographic locations. Assuming two same sized teams with the same dev time, both making the same AAA game. One team is in California. The other is in China. The cost of making the game for the studio in CA is going to be magnitudes higher than the budget of the game made in China.

This.

For starters, let's stop hiring Hollywoid actors in games, or that price category. It was novel when Onimusha did excellent face capture, now it's boring and takes me out of the game a bit. Moreso if it's Hollywood, less if it's international cinema.

Bring back crunch and stop the ice cream parties at the office. And free lunches.... half joking on these...

 

[Hypereides]

But it's then risky to make the game

Depends. With sensible considerations and expectations, those risks can be reduced, minimized and/or mitigated. AAA have become victims of their own policies which have consequently made these (gargantuan) projects they invest in inherently very risky ventures. They basically brought it on themselves with the way they've been operating.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

Depends. With sensible considerations and expectations, those risks can be reduced, minimized and/or mitigated. AAA have become victims of their own policies which have consequently made these (gargantuan) projects they invest in inherently very risky ventures. They basically brought it on themselves with the way they've been operating.

I wish AAA would go for the pure artist vision and risk making what they want, and not closing studios down if it's not meeting the expectations...why wouldn't indie devs be sponsored by larger companies to make all the risky games

 

[JimmyRustler]

I don't really care so much about the costs but the time it takes for them to be made. So I say this... If a game takes longer than 3 years to be made it should be ditched.

I don't care how huge TES VI will be. For all I care the world can be a big as real life Britain with 1000 cities. It is not worth the wait. I only have so many years to live and as I get older I don't have the time any more.

Get the games out faster. Every 2 years for a new entry of a series should be the norm. If plans don't allow that, scale it down.

 

[Felessan]

I wish AAA would go for the pure artist vision and risk making what they want, and not closing studios down if it's not meeting the expectations...why wouldn't indie devs be sponsored by larger companies to make all the risky games

Because indie risky games will never turn profit? And large companies are not charity, they want their portfolio to be profitable on average. Some failure are inevitable but total offering should bring money in.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

Because indie risky games will never turn profit? And large companies are not charity, they want their portfolio to be profitable on average. Some failure are inevitable but total offering should bring money in.

Would be awesome, still if that happened, imagine an indie studio being sponsored by some larger gaming company, and not to worry about risky ideas

 

[dispensergoinup]

I don't know. I think that's a problem for the gaming industry to solve. Just here to buy what looks good to me and so far, not many have offered up must haves.

I'm sure they've been asking themselves that question for a long time now.

In a perfect world I'd see some variety from studios I used to buy a ton of games from (some forms of Warhawk, Resistance, Killzone, Infamous cycled every other year maybe?) but here we are waiting 10+ years on blockbusters.

Getting too old to play everything though so no biggie.