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.