• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[Polygon] You can’t make AAA games for just one platform anymore

The thrill of GTA for me is more with how alive the world feels and use of physics and AI. So much attention to detail. The scope of the world doesn't matter as much to me.
....... You don`t understand what "scope" means regarding videogames, it isn`t necessarily about map size. All those details you just mentioned are "scope". These things don`t implement themselves, it takes manhours, and exponentially so the higher quality/density you want it.
 
Last edited:

ungalo

Member
Most players don't want to see devs reducing the scope. They've been conditioned to want to play the same game but larger. Larger does not only mean larger map, but to make it a more varied and immersive experience as a whole, which is not dumb in itself. They're not searching for immediate fun. As long as solo players are focused on that i don't see why publishers would change their line of thought.

A world where critics and players are judging a solo game (or even multiplayer games) by the actual depth of its mechanics is fantasy at this point. We're talking about it like it's easy but people are waiting for Ghost of Tsushima 2 to be 10 times Ghost of Tsushima 1 in every way (visuals, world variety, side quests, staging, combats, traversal etc).
 
While personally I'd love to have every single game on all platforms, there's a reason why companies found it beneficiary to be exclusive that's still important today. So no, this notion that exclusives can't exist anymore is just stupid along with people jumping on the article to push their own beefs with certain players in the industry.
 

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
I do think a lot of people here are taking a very easy way out of this discussion by claiming it's nothing more than MS alone and they're just buying up everyone to get them to say things. It's also SQEX, almost every 3rd party publisher, and Sony themselves putting nearly everything on PC.
 

Mr Reasonable

Completely Unreasonable
Microsoft doesn't have exclusives and its consoles lost competitiveness , suddenly these ridiculous articles started to appear basically to deconstruct the winning model based on dedicated hardware and exclusivity. But I wasn't born yesterday the narrative now is that the apocalypse reaches the world of games, that's silly.

The Playstation and Switch are doing fucking well. Friends, never allow narratives like this to corrode our beloved world of consoles.

Microsoft, bring us the new Xbox.
It's also the same year that Sony put out Helldivers day one on PC though, right?
 
While personally I'd love to have every single game on all platforms, there's a reason why companies found it beneficiary to be exclusive that's still important today. So no, this notion that exclusives can't exist anymore is just stupid along with people jumping on the article to push their own beefs with certain players in the industry.
It's the dumbest example to use Playstation as the example. Playstation makes a small fraction of their revenue off their own first party games. They make the majority of their money through MTX and sales of third party games. Which is then followed by subscription services. First party Playstation games could financially break even and they would be completely fine. It is in PlayStation's best interest to keep selling blockbuster games as long as it drives people to their platform, even with skyrocketing budgets

Also, people talk about "meager" profits of Playstation the past few years. They completely ignore the fact that Sony is paying off the 3.6 billion dollar acquisition of Bungie in their Financials for the past few years. Their profits are the highest they have ever been
profitable.jpg
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Gold Member
You can, its just not worth it. A good portion of today's public buy home consoles as easy fortnite/COD machines. Keeping games exclusive isn't gonna do you much favors, and there's only so many spiderman's you can release that are guaranteed +10M sales.
 

rm082e

Member
I have yet to see a reasonable explanation why AAA developers can't stick with UE4, built their assets in a lower res and use upscaling tech. When I go back and play the big games from the later third of the PS4 era on my PS5, they look great and run great. I don't really feel any need to have graphics like we've recently seen in Hellblade 2. I'd rather have modest graphics running at a smooth frame rate and a reasonable budget that allows studios to make games they want to make.

As Xbox has discovered, if you get rid of exclusives and lean on multiplatform titles, there's nothing special about your box and very few people are excited about it. I don't get how this isn't obvious...
 

Dr_Ifto

Member
The size of the world isnt necessarily the main aspect that causes scope creep and increased cost. Its the story telling, the quest building, the interface building, the fighting engine, the QA/Polish. I always say in development, that 95% of the work costs 5% of the bill/man hours. that last 5% is where 95 of the billing/man hour cost. You can build a skeleton of a game really quick that is 95% there. But its that last 5% that is the hard part. Now im just saying the number for example, and not precisely 95%.
 
I don't see how the answer isn't to just try to be as realistic as possible about sales forecasts in the beginning, which should give them a better idea of what is an acceptable budget. Sony is making a lot of $ from these games and even their own developers question what is gained from the budget increases (if the Insomniac leak is to be believed). Seems like they could have made Spiderman 2 with the same budget as the first one and still gotten the sales. Even if they did that the title would still have been elevated above the first because they were building on that work.
 

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
I don't see how the answer isn't to just try to be as realistic as possible about sales forecasts in the beginning, which should give them a better idea of what is an acceptable budget. Sony is making a lot of $ from these games and even their own developers question what is gained from the budget increases (if the Insomniac leak is to be believed). Seems like they could have made Spiderman 2 with the same budget as the first one and still gotten the sales. Even if they did that the title would still have been elevated above the first because they were building on that work.
Because they want investment money. If they were a private company like Valve sure. But they want to project growth, and when that becomes difficult things start getting weird.
 

Evil Calvin

Afraid of Boobs
Make smaller, less realistic games. Look how the indie scene is thriving.....look how Nintendo games succeed when they mostly use cartoony visuals. Quit making hyper realistic games and go for more of a mid-tier game. Go for a AA style game rather than a AAAA game.
 

Guilty_AI

Gold Member
I have yet to see a reasonable explanation why AAA developers can't stick with UE4, built their assets in a lower res and use upscaling tech. When I go back and play the big games from the later third of the PS4 era on my PS5, they look great and run great. I don't really feel any need to have graphics like we've recently seen in Hellblade 2. I'd rather have modest graphics running at a smooth frame rate and a reasonable budget that allows studios to make games they want to make.
Third party engines have limitations on what they can and can't do, and to overcome such limitations you usually have to do a lot of the dirty work yourself anyway. I'd say the only reason many devs adopt these engines at all is because there are a high number of workers with experience on them, as opposed to an in-house engine new employees would have to learn from scratch.

The issue with big budget games isn't the quality of the assets as much as it is all the work you have to do to have a game that matches these assets. The more details in the enviroment, the more testing must be done, more teams specialized in certain aspects of the game like the lighting or visual effects, more work on the animation, sound, VA, directing, etc. More workers, more management, more logistics, more bureaucracy, and so on.

Late PS4 era games already had to deal with these issues, had equally long development times and increasingly bigger budgets. They were just the first batch where devs looked back and were forced to consider the possibility they can't keep this up forever. For the "modest graphics" and "reasonable budget" you speak of to have any meaning, you must be willing to revert back to at least ps1/2/3 era visuals and presentation, and not necessarily the big hitters from these times either.
 
Last edited:
Because they want investment money. If they were a private company like Valve sure. But they want to project growth, and when that becomes difficult things start getting weird.

Well, that's basically true for the entire fortune 500. I'm not anti big business/anti capitalist at all but we'd be better off if the behemoths were private companies no doubt. But, that'll never happen because as soon as a business gets big enough the owners start seeing the $ signs of that IPO.

@ Guilty_AI Guilty_AI , changing the makeup of the games might alleviate some of the costs also. The fact that many AAA games today are basically digitally animated movies has to increase costs. The old way used to be a few minutes of cut scene to setup the next level with the majority of play time spent interacting with that world in real time (I've always preferred this approach anyway) with the story unfolding from the game play and not just the movie bits. Maybe moving back more in that direction might help things out. A bit of a hybrid between the 360 era and the X1/PS4 era.
 
Last edited:

Geometric-Crusher

"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
Can we hit the hammer? After all, Sony will continue to have blockbuster games and Nintendo will not give up on making Mario.

So this article is stupid, even if costs go down for everyone, Sony games will always have bigger budgets. Everything that is common does not have its place in the sun.

Going to hear this narrative a lot over these next few months to soften the blow for when a big MS game is confirmed for PlayStation.
this
 

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
Can we hit the hammer? After all, Sony will continue to have blockbuster games and Nintendo will not give up on making Mario.

So this article is stupid, even if costs go down for everyone, Sony games will always have bigger budgets. Everything that is common does not have its place in the sun.


this
Ragnarok literally just had a trailer for PC, and SQEX is also ending their focus on exclusives development. You can stop talking about this if you want, but I doubt you will be successful convincing everyone else to ignore it.
 

Loomy

Thinks Microaggressions are Real
Yeah that's the issue right there. Games in the past did not need 5-6 years for 20 hours of content
Then it becomes:

"Alright, we'll sprinkle a little bit of AI all over our pipeline. Maximize out workflow's efficiency. Speed things up a bit"

"Wah Wah Wah, I don't want any game not made entirely by human hands. Get this AI shit out of my games"

Development takes longer now. That's just what it is. We're able to show more details, and have smoother and better animations on everything. That takes times to make. We're able to have more complex interactions, more complex AI/NPCs, more dynamic worlds, all that takes time. If you don't give players that, it's all:

"Wah Wah Wah, this looks last gen. In this other game, the characters hair moves in the wind. This one doesn't. How come nothing moves when you bump into it? Is this all reused assets?"
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Wah Wah Wah, this looks last gen
In the same industry where Minecraft and GTAV are the best selling games of all time and where Nintendo succeeds?

This shit only happens when you set expectations too high like when Ubisoft makes fake trailers with edited visuals that are completely false and not representative of the final product. All that shit is self inflicted. Advertise your game well and people will buy
 

Bojanglez

The Amiga Brotherhood
True, just like you wouldn't make a movie for just movie theatres. Still a role for primary markets and secondary markets though, and most people will be happy one way or another (unless you're the Betamax or HDDVD of gaming)
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Like Returnal that barely sold?
Yeah like cult classic returnal whose sequel will break into the mainstream. People like you can't seem to comprehend that the more you foster a niche IP, the more you will eventually get it to mainstream status. Look at Pikmin, metroid and Animal Crossing
 

Killjoy-NL

Member
Yeah like cult classic returnal whose sequel will break into the mainstream. People like you can't seem to comprehend that the more you foster a niche IP, the more you will eventually get it to mainstream status. Look at Pikmin, metroid and Animal Crossing
I fully comprehend it, but it's too risky. Also, there is no guarantee Returnal would break into mainstream.

Clearly, all this talk about "smaller games, more gameplay" falls flat when you look at Returnal sales or Tango getting shut down.

Since no company can please everyone, it's better to stick to what works.
 

Loomy

Thinks Microaggressions are Real
In the same industry where Minecraft and GTAV are the best selling games of all time and where Nintendo succeeds?

This shit only happens when you set expectations too high like when Ubisoft makes fake trailers with edited visuals that are completely false and not representative of the final product. All that shit is self inflicted. Advertise your game well and people will buy
  • GTA5 did not look last gen when it launched, and it still. took about 5 years. How do you think people would react today if GTA6 looked like GTA5?
  • Minecraft "simple" visuals is an art direction choice. Still took 2 years for the initial release
  • As for Nintendo
    • Bayonetta 3 took almost 5 years to make
    • Tears of The Kingdom took almost 6 years to make
    • Animal Crossing:NH took even longer. Pretty sure that was over 7 years
  • Since you mentioned it above, Returnal took almost 5 years to make
AAA games take time. You can't get around that fact. And it's not about fake trailers. It's about the team having a vision, and delivering on that vision. Every AAA studio in the world right now can shit out a couple Gollum, or Skull Island game in a few months if you want. But I'm betting they'd all like to take their time and work/release something they're proud of and that you'd be willing to spend $50 - $70 on. That takes time.
 

Klayzer

Member
People like you can't seem to comprehend that the more you foster a niche IP, the more you will eventually get it to mainstream status.
Great point, that I also have been saying. Recent example for Sony: Helldivers 2. The first game wasn't a blockbuster hit. Smaller games can and would turn into major franchises, if companies wasn't so hell bent on chasing every gaas dollar.
 

Guilty_AI

Gold Member
@ Guilty_AI Guilty_AI , changing the makeup of the games might alleviate some of the costs also. The fact that many AAA games today are basically digitally animated movies has to increase costs. The old way used to be a few minutes of cut scene to setup the next level with the majority of play time spent interacting with that world in real time (I've always preferred this approach anyway) with the story unfolding from the game play and not just the movie bits. Maybe moving back more in that direction might help things out. A bit of a hybrid between the 360 era and the X1/PS4 era.
This too, it doesn't get mentioned often but cutscenes and set-pieces (stuff like Uncharted 2's train-sequence or that boat chase in spider-man 2) tend to be very expensive to make. Bigger focus on gameplay with consistent base mechanics that persist throughout the entire game - with less situational mechanics and systems - is a good way to save costs and streamline production.
 
Last edited:

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
Yes, but contrary to Disney, both Playstation and Nintendo are extremely successfull doing what they do now.
So was Disney. Star Wars and Marvel were literally the biggest thing in movies.

I'm just saying it's all a gamble. All their Marvel movies are tanking now. If they had put some money into Battle Angel 2, would that be hitting now? You never know. Avatar is doing gangbusters. Sometimes audience taste changes rapidly and if all your eggs are in one basket, you're vulnerable.
 

Killjoy-NL

Member
So was Disney. Star Wars and Marvel were literally the biggest thing in movies.

I'm just saying it's all a gamble. All their Marvel movies are tanking now. If they had put some money into Battle Angel 2, would that be hitting now? You never know. Avatar is doing gangbusters. Sometimes audience taste changes rapidly and if all your eggs are in one basket, you're vulnerable.
What does Disney have to do with this?

Is that the go-to argument?
 

Guilty_AI

Gold Member
Disney is going down because they have a black Ariel, Brie Larsson saying white men shouldn't watch Captain Marvel and a Mexican Snow White saying they are completely changing the story.

It's in no way comparable to the topic of this discussion.
Sony is going this same route so i'd argue it is, somewhat.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Disney is going down because they have a black Ariel, Brie Larsson saying white men shouldn't watch Captain Marvel and a Mexican Snow White saying they are completely changing the story.

It's in no way comparable to the topic of this discussion.
And dumping $190m into Acolyte (lmao) and only $90m into Obi-Wan. The list goes on and on.
 

Frwrd

Member
Like Returnal that barely sold?
I mean, don’t get me wrong. What I meant by this is that I support prioritizing gameplay over being expansive just for the fuck of it.

I think I might’ve been a bit out of context. I rather see a game with great innovative gameplay, whether that is interactivity or animations, etc. over another open-world that feels even much bigger than it is thanks to its lifeless environments and lack of interactivity.

I’m not saying that I want smaller/shorter games just because I can’t wait. I’ve got a backlog just like any other dude out here, I can comfortably wait.
 

Killjoy-NL

Member
I mean, don’t get me wrong. What I meant by this is that I support prioritizing gameplay over being expansive just for the fuck of it.

I think I might’ve been a bit out of context. I rather see a game with great innovative gameplay, whether that is interactivity or animations, etc. over another open-world that feels even much bigger than it is thanks to its lifeless environments and lack of interactivity.

I’m not saying that I want smaller/shorter games just because I can’t wait. I’ve got a backlog just like any other dude out here, I can comfortably wait.
I can agree with that.
Like FVII Rebirth, which was bloated af.
 
Microsoft doesn't have exclusives and its consoles lost competitiveness , suddenly these ridiculous articles started to appear basically to deconstruct the winning model based on dedicated hardware and exclusivity. But I wasn't born yesterday the narrative now is that the apocalypse reaches the world of games, that's silly.

The Playstation and Switch are doing fucking well. Friends, never allow narratives like this to corrode our beloved world of consoles.

Microsoft, bring us the new Xbox.
Well said indeed and so true. On top of that MS wants devs to put their games on gamepass which cannibalizes sales. They never make the money they need to produce a sequel and it effectively kills any chances of that. Good games need to sell well to recoup the cost of making them. It’s basic economics.
 
What's the alternative though? Sony and Nintendo have systems they want to sell. How do they do that without exclusives? Exclusives build platforms. Nintendo wouldn't be Nintendo without their exclusives. Would the Sony PlayStation have ever become a successful brand if it didn't have games like metal gear solid and FF VII exclusively? What about Xbox? What would have happened to Xbox if halo was never exclusive? You see the point. Exclusives are a fundamental part of the industry.
 
Top Bottom