Support NeoGAF

[Ainem Enamas]

Like anything in life, it should be compared to expected sales and profits. In business, there's standard costs metrics like COGs and SG&A. The goal is to have a reasonable cost % and then have a decent forecasted amount of units sold. So do some math and see where it shakes out.

Problem is gaming is so volatile and most studios have no clue how it will sell (and how would they since most studios dont even show gamers the game until the final year when most dev costs are already done?), so it practically a random shotgun whether it will do well or not unless it's an established IP with predictable sales. And even that can be wonky when you got stuff like Veilguard bombing.

$100M budget is insane for shitty game selling 2M copies. But for COD that sells 20M copies and gets tons of mtx on top of it, $100M might be fine.

Then they really should lower the costs, reduce the number of people working on the project, make risky projects and constantly update gamers with the progress, and listen to the gamer's opinions on the game's progress and make changes if needed

 

[semiconscious]

That's why this thread exists. Do you really wouldn't want games like Uncharted 2 every 2 years, but with modern visuals?

i was just agreeing with the post above mine?...

 

[Ainem Enamas]

With how many devs?

Rage took more than 3 years to make. Carmack demo'd id tech 5 at Apples conference in 2007 and showed an early demo for the game which would have been in development for some time already, and the full game released 4 years later.

No way for anyone outside of individual studios to answer that question since it varies so much. People like to give Insomniac crap for the cost of Spider-Man 2, but does anyone actually believe they wasted millions of dollars and, not only did they suffer no consequences from Sony, but were given more money to make other games?

Yes, AAA development is very expensive, but until we find ways to cut costs, it'll continue to be expensive.

How many people were on Rage making?

With that 100m and 2 years I think maybe 30 people. Simply focus on what the game is about, don't spend much time on visuals - make soulful art, make satisfying gameplay loop and that's it. Like Doom Eternal, there's no such big focus on story, it's there and it's an element that exists there, focus is on that 90s, 00s gameplay when gaming was still gaming

 

[Starbuck2907]

If using an established engine with great tools and a fairly defined, existing gameplay loop, 2 and 1/2 to 3 years tops. Most projects stuck in development hell longer than that seem to have management issues (changing direction, changing type of game, revamping the narrative or art style, etc.). Those games often turn out poorly. Games tend to need a strong steady hand guiding the development, like a Kevin Levine (Bioshock) or Kojima in charge.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

2 years is really short these days. I'd think almost impossible without the crunch for a lot of titles. 2 years being the really low end and 4 years for a big giant AAA game seem good to me.

I think it could be done. It takes time because they plan the production so much. Just make the game. The problem is that studios are afraid to make whatever they like...by lowering the costs, and people working on the game, they could simply make whatever vision they have while constantly updating on the progress and listening to feedback and if needed - change things

 

[Ainem Enamas]

AAA 100-200m and 3-5 years
AA 50-100m and 2-3 years
A 10-50m and 1-2 years
Indies <10m

Why people want to upper tier to be gone so they can have their AA tier games to be on top is beyond me. If you don't like high profile games - don't play them, there are plenty of less expensive games. But some people do like their fancy games and you just want to deprive them of their games.

Yes, I agree. Personally I would be happy with Rage-like game to come out every two years. But I see what you mean, those enormous projects - I like it too.

 

[Crayon]

Don't even care anymore lol. Just kickin it waiting for the collapse of AAA. Things will be better when the the top effort is directed at projects with the scope reigned in. AAA games that need to sell 10-20 million should be exceedingly rare.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

Must be reasonable with AI until the evil guys behind it ask for more unreasonably.

AI is without a soul

 

[Ainem Enamas]

100m is a ridiculously high amount of money. A focused AAA game shouldn't need more than 40 - 70m max unless it's aiming for massive open world scope and movie-level production. Funny how some devs complain about Silksong only costing 20$.

Because Silksong is a pure video game, with the fucking core of the roots what gaming is about

 

[Plague Doctor]

I mean, the market itsself will adjust.

We are seeing it all play out now.

Indies and AAs will continue to be made and some will be breakouts.

AAAs are contracting and many studios slowing down.

I think we are entering a time where AAA execs are asking this very question though.

I think things like Concord should be a cautionary tale to the rest of the industry.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

$30-100 million is the threshold for AAA budgets that I'd like to see, with only the very top franchises getting close to $100 million.

The best examples this year for my ideal would be Split Fiction (estimated around 50 million or less) and Clair Obscur (estimated 25-30 million when I asked AI before)...because if you go back to when AAA started in the 360/PS3 era you had games like Gears of War 1 made at $12 million or more, and Gears 3 closing the gen with $48-60 million.

Games getting labelled "AA" this gen, are working with budgets similar to AAA in that PS3/360 era. Keep it there, make graphics within those limits.

Would you want Gears-like game be made every two years? I certainly would, game engines are more powerful now...and because of tools the project like that could be done in two years, I think

 

[Ainem Enamas]

Rage the id game from 2011?

Thats your benchmark for what AAA games should be like today?

Mate we were using 1.2GB VRAM graphics cards in 2011.........if thats the quality of game we were stuck making I would have never needed to spend so much money on GPUs.

PS360 AAA games were already in 60 to 100 million range.


But I do agree that we need more "cheaper" games.
Looking at the costs break down of AAA vs midsized projects, sub 100 million is good enough for me.
IF we get more Expedition 33s ill be down.


From the Insomniac Leaks.

At the very beggining in Rage where you see the game-world for the first time, it looked like a modern game. With some tweaking it could easy be a modern looking title

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

IMO it depends on the kind of game, there's not a fix answer for that.

Key things:

- Don't bloat the game with filler content.

- Don't make it open world if it isn't justified by the story or game loop.

- Only creatives on board. No consultants or people outside the project.

 

[Edgelord79]

800 million.

I want it done in 3 years.

I want no bugs.

I want to pay $20 for it.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

150 employees making 100k a year for 4 years.
60 million. Other expenses and/or outsourcing work for another 40 million. And marketing tops at 50 million.

At $70 a game, you break even roughly around 2 mil copies sold. Pretty manageable.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

Please split all the costs so we can discute how you come to that budget plan

Maybe a 30 people team. First create the core gameplay loop. Second have a simple story focus, like it's there but it's not the focus. Don't focus on very graphical intense visuals. Have artists make the visual feel of the game and make it look alive. Like all of these things but the focus is on what the gaming is about.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

Today? between 100-200 million depending on the project.
Development time about 2-4 years, yet again depending on the project.
Where it's made should have zero influence on the product, same budget and development time, no excuses.

Agree so much

 

[lughnasadh123]

What do you think needs that 'cut' the most in the most of projects?

My lack of dev experience makes that impossible to answer.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

I mean, the market itsself will adjust.

We are seeing it all play out now.

Indies and AAs will continue to be made and some will be breakouts.

AAAs are contracting and many studios slowing down.

I think we are entering a time where AAA execs are asking this very question though.

I think things like Concord should be a cautionary tale to the rest of the industry.

Gaming is ruined by all of this fucking demonic greed-type shit. It's not the original meaning of what video games were about anymore, how it was given into the World by the Holy Trinity

 

[IAmRei]

judge by cost today, 80-100M is considered normal, but it's also big risk big reward. That's why AAA is getting less and less, because the time needed is not 2 years, it's three even with 100M. it's a lot of money and lot of tiring works because the team won't be small. the risk also greater these days. TBH, it's risk is too great today than ever.

 

[Porcile]

Games devs have way too much pride and a lot of their egos are out of control so they'll never go back to making last gen style games with lower budgets and shorter dev times even if their whole career and industry goes up in flames.

 

[Rockman33]

I think it could be done. It takes time because they plan the production so much. Just make the game. The problem is that studios are afraid to make whatever they like...by lowering the costs, and people working on the game, they could simply make whatever vision they have while constantly updating on the progress and listening to feedback and if needed - change things

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.

 

[IAmRei]

You guys need to count realistically

the cost of AA is 5 - 10M with x-xx people
now add more for AAA, should be around 5 - 10 times more budget and more people, hit 50 - 100
now it is not counting marketing cost yet, which also rises, each influencer needs around 10k at least per content, could be more to ensure xxxxxx viewers each content post

count it, 100M is normal today, and what about next gen, should be 120 - 150M. why? the graphic is more, of course the cost is more
not only count graphic, what about music? $1000 - 2000 per music might be norm
what about voice actor? 10k - 100k per person

the cost is rises because people wants more and more, but the price still 60.
it wont be realistic.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Then they really should lower the costs, reduce the number of people working on the project, make risky projects and constantly update gamers with the progress, and listen to the gamer's opinions on the game's progress and make changes if needed

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.

 

[DeVeAn]

SEGA seems like they got it down. Especially RGG Studios pumping out Yakuzazzzz lol

 

[Fafalada]

I think it's 50-100m, and 2 years at max.

As long as AAA is chasing Holywood it'll compete in costs with Holywood (and exceed them).

They hire 100 devs and only 10 of them are doing the real work, the rest are useless buffoons at best, malicious psychos at worst.

Psychopaths worked in games like any other industry since forever. If anything ratio was more skewed when teams were smaller because you pretty much always have one or several of them at the top.

 

[Parazels]

FC (FIFA) is an AAA-game. Does it cost $100 million a year to make?

 

[Griffon]

As long as AAA is chasing Holywood it'll compete in costs with Holywood (and exceed them).


Psychopaths worked in games like any other industry since forever. If anything ratio was more skewed when teams were smaller because you pretty much always have one or several of them at the top.

People with psychopathic tendencies have their uses when they're not downright malicious. Especially in marketing or in cutting deals with other corpos.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

FC (FIFA) is an AAA-game. Does it cost $100 million a year to make?

Actually it did. Before EA bailed from renewing the FIFA license, they were paying $250M/yr each for 4 years alone just for the FIFA brand name. $1B!

 

[Bkdk]

Hopefully the AI will help speed things up, at least just let AI do most of the concept art, it's already far superior than many western AAA art dept.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Hopefully the AI will help speed things up, at least just let AI do most of the concept art, it's already far superior than many western AAA art dept.

To me, AI is just an extension of what creatives already do using their Photoshop and graphics arts software skills to make good looking stuff in record time.

AI will be able to churn out similar stuff with fewer clicks and text prompts.

A year or two ago in the OT thread there was the AI art thread and someone posted AI art of soldiers based on country. Some of that shit looked awesome. Probably made in one of those free AI websites. Most of that art is better looking than what any human can draw. And whichever site was used to make it probably generated each pic in seconds.

 

[Zathalus]

5-6 years should probably be the limit for a well managed product. Elden Ring, BG3, Breath of the Wild, and Kingdom Come 2 are all examples of games that took that long to make, and it really shows.

 

[Sintoid]

Maybe a 30 people team. First create the core gameplay loop. Second have a simple story focus, like it's there but it's not the focus. Don't focus on very graphical intense visuals. Have artists make the visual feel of the game and make it look alive. Like all of these things but the focus is on what the gaming is about.

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...

 

[Vaquilla]

Just stick with the graphics and budgets we had on PS4, games then looked fine and didn't take forever to come out.

 

[existensmaximum]

Whatever Super Mario World, A Link to the Past and Super Metroid cost is obviously enough to create some timeless classics and masterpieces that are better than every game released since then so, that?

 

[Fafalada]

People with psychopathic tendencies have their uses when they're not downright malicious. Especially in marketing or in cutting deals with other corpos.

Psychopathic profiles congregate into executive and C-suite roles though.
Which yes - includes marketing but it's not isolated to any particular domain (and corporate practices have no filters to prevent it).

 

[NahaNago]

Hard to say on this one. I'd honestly prefer smaller budgets and shorter times to finish the game so that the devs can actually improve on each game released in that console generation instead of working the whole generation on one big game.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

I thought the investment volumes and development times of the PS1 were really good.

 

[Fafalada]

I thought the investment volumes and development times of the PS1 were really good.

Sure but in that era 'AAA' didn't actually exist, and the biggest budget productions were cheaper than the average Indie game today.

 

[TBiddy]

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...

This thread is hilarious. It screams "I have absolutely no clue about the real world" that it almost hurts reading it.

 

[PeteBull]

0 usd on any sweetbaby(pushing woke agenda) shit, 0 usd on any parasites(aka wokies, dei hires of all kinds) and suddenly western studio's AAA games budgets gonna go back to being manageable, bonus side effect- game's quality will dramatically improve too =]

Marketing budged should be spent smarter too- every1 is connected in 2025 so spend some cash on ads on the net, yt ofc since its biggest platform but dont forget about smaller ones like kick/rumble(fuck woke twitch), 0 billboards/ 0 tv ads, those are not effecitve anyways and cost so much.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Sure but in that era 'AAA' didn't actually exist, and the biggest budget productions were cheaper than the average Indie game today.

Correct. Future technologies should eradicate the concept of "AAA" to make way for highly efficient development pipelines like we had back then. Somehow I'm doubtful AI will be the saviour, though.

 

[Felessan]

I thought the investment volumes and development times of the PS1 were really good.

You can go and check those 20,000 games a year Steam adds to it's catalogue. Even PS Store adds hundreds of games every year. Most though stayed in ps1 era quality/scope wise

Correct. Future technologies should eradicate the concept of "AAA" to make way for highly efficient development pipelines like we had back then. Somehow I'm doubtful AI will be the saviour, though.

AAA will stay and no amount of technology will eradicate it.
PS1 didn't have "efficient pipeline", games were just small. Now games (AAA) are big and with technology they will be even bigger, more complex, detailed, simulated etc

 

[PlayStaytion]

The

AI is without a soul

People who have real experience and knowledge have left the industry for personal reasons, AI can fix their personal issues cause they no longer need to work with their former coworkers. Publishers can't screw this opportunity cause otherwise, nothing else will work as how they used to work before.

 

[Durin]

Would you want Gears-like game be made every two years? I certainly would, game engines are more powerful now...and because of tools the project like that could be done in two years, I think

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.

 

[Durin]

Do you feel offended that something like Ferrari exists and think that everyone should crawl in the dirt?
What's wrong with games with even 1bn budget - it's not your money that fund development. And yours 50mn games are still there. And no, there will not be a surge of these games if 100-200-500mn game go out, it doesn't work this way. Guys who fund 200mn games want numbers/risk/reward of 200mn games, they will just pull out completely if this tier are off.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Durin]

PS360 AAA games were already in 60 to 100 million range.

For sure, that's why I mentioned Gears 3, because it did grow it's original budget multiple times over within the gen, and they even had the advantage of their own middleware game engine to cut costs.

I also remember at the end of that gen during the great recession, developers saying budgets were getting out of control, and wondering if it would be sustainable. The only thing that I really think allowed it to keep existing was the total audience for games massively exploded at the same time during the HD-era, and 18-35 year olds with money being the new target demographic over previous consoles targeting younger.

Main thing for me is around the PS4 era, graphics got good enough, everything after has been more minor improvement, and these massive budgets are more often yielding broken games at launch with performance issues. Even Capcom that was doing great coming into this gen produced Monster Hunter Wilds + Dragon's Dogma 2 that I have to wait months after launch to get a proper working version.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

IMO it depends on the kind of game, there's not a fix answer for that.

Key things:

- Don't bloat the game with filler content.

- Don't make it open world if it isn't justified by the story or game loop.

- Only creatives on board. No consultants or people outside the project.

Yes, definitely nothing optional where the game can easily exist without the unnecessary optional content

 

[Ainem Enamas]

judge by cost today, 80-100M is considered normal, but it's also big risk big reward. That's why AAA is getting less and less, because the time needed is not 2 years, it's three even with 100M. it's a lot of money and lot of tiring works because the team won't be small. the risk also greater these days. TBH, it's risk is too great today than ever.

I think they should risk making games with whatever vision the artists have, and not close studios if it's not "succeeding"

 

[IAmRei]

I think they should risk making games with whatever vision the artists have, and not close studios if it's not "succeeding"

i wish so dude, i wish so...
but investor is like "japanese manga studio" currently
which means, if devs are not making good enough money, they will be axed, ASAP
the industry is more or less like that now.

this is not industry which we prefer like before 2006, capital comes with both good and bad, but now, more bad than good