• 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.

Shawn Layden's Prescriptions for "Sustainable" Game Development

ProtoByte

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
www.gamesindustry.biz

Shawn Layden's advice on making games faster and cheaper | GI Sprint

It was back in 2020 when Shawn Layden began sounding the alarm around rising game development costs. Speaking as part o…
www.gamesindustry.biz www.gamesindustry.biz

Recommend giving this a full read, but the cliff notes as GI.biz:
Shawn Layden shares his tips on ways to make games faster (and therefore cheaper):
Click to expand...
1. Most gamers don't see the end of your game. So design fewer levels, make your games shorter.

2. The tech advancement in games is not getting noticed by the majority of your players, so ask yourself: is this worth the investment?

3. Try AI and develop tools to do some of the heavy lifting, and don't just throw people at the problem.

4. Be disciplined and strict on what you can deliver and when. Don't spend too long on an idea if it's not working.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
DownLikeBCPowder

DownLikeBCPowder

Member
Yeah, you could make some games shorter - but I wouldn't base it on achievement completion or whatever backend metrics they have. I'm sure there are many such games with 20-30% completion rates or whatever, but that doesn't mean we need games that equate to that size relatively speaking. I think short and long games of all kinds have their places, especially when price point/budget/etc is a consideration.
 
DonF

DonF

Member
"make your games shorter" is a double edge sword. if they intend to keep charging $70 then it feels like you are robbing the player. make it shorter but $40 so its cool. But dont make it shorter and have no replay value.

come to think about it, lots of old school games are super short but have lots of replay value. I replay megaman x or nes battletoads everytime im bored. to me those games have infinite replay value. Look at tetris or og pacman, same thing.
 
Zannegan

Zannegan

Member
Honestly, not bad advice given the bloated dev times and budgets of many games today. Needs a few caveats though:

1. If you're going to develop shorter experiences, the games should be complete, content should be meaningful, and the price tag should match the content ($40-60 games, instead of $70-80 starter packs).

2. Hard to disagree here, but this shouldn't translate to every game looking like Fortnite or No Man's Sky. You can still have a pleasing realistic artstyle with PS4-level asset.

3. AI is coming and will (hopefully) revolutionize development, but ethically speaking, there need to be a lot of controls in place. Bare minimum, it should be trained on the art of your own in-house artists who should be owed some residuals every time anything trained on their art is used rather than ripping off free internet searches... but that won't happen.

4. This is probably the most important of all. Feature creep is killing game devs. It's not even that the games need to be shorter, but that they need to be more focused instead of trying to be all things to all people all the time.
 
ProtoByte

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
I have to say that I don't totally agree with any of Layden's points other than AI tools. Gamers and game devs shouldn't have to be told that automation for tasks that can be automated ultimately frees up time and energy for deeper challenges. It can only be a good thing, and having 1000 people in a studio working on mostly one project doesn't work.

I don't agree with the strict deadline thing entirely.

He says:

"Look to teams that do it right. Any team that builds an annual sports game… that's a wonder to behold. They do a new game in nine months every year. At my old shop, where they do MLB: The Show in San Diego… Major League Baseball is not changing opening day. It's April 1st every freaking year. You can say 'well, they know what they're doing. It's the same 32 teams, it's the same stadia, it's the same players where they just have to move them around.' Yeah, because they've identified what their variables are year to year, then they have a list of things they can add. They take care of all the maintenance of moving the players around, updating stadia, getting new face scans… and then here are some new things to add. But there's a date when you go 'that's it, feature locked, we're done'."
Click to expand...

"If you can turn games around in two to three years rather than five to six years… it's easier to set aside an idea because you go: 'I'll get back to it in two years'. In the current model, if you don't get this idea in now, there may never be a chance to get it in."
Click to expand...

I don't think many core gamers have any respect or admiration for how sports games are developed, and annualizing or semi-annualizing franchises or studios with any reputation for quality will reduce their prestige, and it's not like it will attract the crowds that are hooked on MLB, FIFA or 2K bullshit.

Yeah, the technical stuff is in place there, and yet the games somehow come out with more and more bugs every year, and are less and less inspired mechanically and artistically. It feels like a mass produced product does: lifeless.

Didn't used to be that way either. The actually somewhat inspired excitement behind EA College Football is a testament to that. So what are gamers getting out of it? It just sounds like game devs get an easier and more monotonous job. Even then, it only gets so easy. You'd think landing a Fortnite maintenance job would be chill? Lolno. Crunch, loser.
 
M

mayham2199

Member
I think games just need to be shorter. Even with that said Spiderman 2 wasn't that long and it still cost a lot of money to make. I think 20 hours is the sweet spot for most games. Beyond that just find a good cut off point in the story and leave us hanging.
 
ChorizoPicozo

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
...Game Pass?...i kid i kid. But not really.

Game Pass could've been the savior of the industry if it was positioned/marketed in the correct way:

a AAA studio making a 6-8 hour game in 2-2.5 years. You figured out the main loop/system and solved core technological/design challenges, right?

then you could do this:

1. Make two sequels of similar length for the service. Once the trilogy is done make a NEW package with extra content and some updates to sell full price at 70-80 USD.
or.
2. after the first game is done you make a full 15-25 hours sequel to sell a full price. This should be faster because you already solve the core issues, so instead of a 5-6 years dev cycle, it could be 3-4 years.
 
ProtoByte

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
ChorizoPicozo said:
a AAA studio making a 6-8 hour game in 2-2.5 years. You figured out the main loop/system and solved core technological/design challenges, right?

then you could do this:

1. Make two sequels of similar length for the service. Once the trilogy is done make a NEW package with extra content and some updates to sell full price at 70-80 USD.
or.
2. after the first game is done you make a full 15-25 hours sequel to sell a full price. This should be faster because you already solve the core issues, so instead of a 5-6 years dev cycle, it could be 3-4 years.
Click to expand...
Ninja Theory couldn't do that despite mechanically regressing with Hellblade 2 and making a short games.

What Layden's talking about sounds nice (to devs who are fine with not pushing the envelope of their own franchises) on paper, but it never actually pans out that way.
 
Bartski

Bartski

Gold Member
bw6d5zz.gif
 
ChorizoPicozo

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
ProtoByte said:
Ninja Theory couldn't do that despite mechanically regressing with Hellblade 2 and making a short games.
Click to expand...
NT was barley a AA studio
ProtoByte said:
What Layden's talking about sounds nice (to devs who are fine with not pushing the envelope of their own franchises) on paper, but it never actually pans out that way.
Click to expand...
Is clear that people have unrealistic expectations, they always want more and better.
 
ProtoByte

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
justiceiro said:
I find funny these "make games shorter" requests I keep hearing, but every time a sequel is released, games that have less content than the previous entries are scrutinized to hell and called disappointing.
Click to expand...
Spider-Man 2 anyone? Rushed fucking plot, reused assets and more glitches than either Miles Morales or SM1. "No crunch" (they still actually crunched), efficient Insomniac, everyone!

Obviously it doesn't work the same way for single player, but Layden's peers are always taking about how much engagement matters. The games staying on the charts for years on end and making the salivating money get played for thousands of hours.

When you do look at single player though, there's also the fact that the biggest breakout critical and financial hits over the last generation are games that are either open world, went open world, or set franchise highs for game length. The Witcher 3, Persona 5, FF15, Elden Ring, Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Monster Hunter World, God Of War '18, Horizon Zero Dawn, Hogwarts Legacy, Baldur's Gate 3 etc.

People will play and, more importantly, pay for long games they enjoy. If your game has that low a completion rate, it's probably not great.

Like, when he says this:

"We live in a world where only 32% of gamers actually finish the game, so we're making a lot of game that 68% of the people aren't seeing. So should we continue to build games that are unlikely for most of the people to even see the end of it?"
Click to expand...
Does he realise that more people played and completed TLOU2 and Uncharted 4 than The Order 1886? At least, by available data, they were similar? And forget about sales. So when do you stop reducing length?

Obviously the next Naughty Dog game shouldn't be 50 or even 40 hours long to complete, but come on dude
 
Last edited:
M

mdkirby

Member
ProtoByte said:
Spider-Man 2 anyone? Rushed fucking plot, reused assets and more glitches than either Miles Morales or SM1. "No crunch" (they still actually crunched), efficient Insomniac, everyone!

Obviously it doesn't work the same way for single player, but Layden's peers are always taking about how much engagement matters. The games staying on the charts for years on end and making the salivating money get played for thousands of hours.

When you do look at single player though, there's also the fact that the biggest breakout critical and financial hits over the last generation are games that are either open world, went open world, or set franchise highs for game length. The Witcher 3, Persona 5, FF15, Elden Ring, Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Monster Hunter World, God Of War '18, Horizon Zero Dawn, Hogwarts Legacy, etc.

People will play and, more importantly, pay for long games they enjoy. If your game has that low a completion rate, it's probably not great.

Like, when he says this:


Does he realise that more people played and completed TLOU2 and Uncharted 4 than The Order 1886? At least, by available data, they were similar? And forget about sales. So when do you stop reducing length?

Obviously the next Naughty Dog game shouldn't be 50 or even 40 hours long to complete, but come on dude
Click to expand...
I seem to recall reading spider man 2 cost $315million to develop. I have no idea how.
 
Trogdor1123

Trogdor1123

Member
Id like to know at what stages the funnel narrows at for game progression. If the top 70-80% drop off after an hour and the remaining number play it through, the issue isnt the end of the game, it’s the start so his logic might be completely wrong on that point.

I’m sure he knows all of this of course.
 
ProtoByte

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
mdkirby said:
I seem to recall reading spider man 2 cost $315million to develop. I have no idea how.
Click to expand...
It's a little misleading, because Marvel charged them 100 million dollars for the license for that installment. Actually, Miles Morales cost more in licensing fees than development. That kind of thing is going to fuck them over and stop publishers from taking their IP until they bring down the price dramatically.

Other than that, record number of employees working for California salaries and benefits packages for even 3 years is expensive as shit. I would add on work-from-home inefficiencies into that formula, but that's a personal opinion.
 
DownLikeBCPowder

DownLikeBCPowder

Member
ProtoByte said:
It's a little misleading, because Marvel charged them 100 million dollars for the license for that installment. Actually, Miles Morales cost more in licensing fees than development. That kind of thing is going to fuck them over and stop publishers from taking their IP until they bring down the price dramatically.

Other than that, record number of employees working for California salaries and benefits packages for even 3 years is expensive as shit. I would add on work-from-home inefficiencies into that formula, but that's a personal opinion.
Click to expand...
Crazy to think about such mega fees.
 
realcool

realcool

Member
These are prescriptions for sustainable profit margins. All of these prescriptions result in a degraded gamer experience. Go back to the drawing board, Shawn.
 
Robb

Robb

Gold Member
Is the length itself really the problem when people don’t see the end of a game?

Hellblade 2 is what? 7 hours? I could barely make it through 3 of those. Make better games with actual fun gameplay that people want to engage with and actually play.
 
Last edited:
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Hudo

Hudo

Member
DeepEnigma said:
Meanwhile...

www.neogaf.com

News - Hype - Shadow of The Erdtree offers over 65 hours of content, over half of the size of the main game

Miyazaki is a liar. Shadow of the Erdtree is more than half the size of Elden Ring. It is a massive expansion that shatters expectations, and I've played 65 hours of it and am still discovering new places and items as of last night. The map of Shadow of the Erdtree is better designed than the...
www.neogaf.com www.neogaf.com
Click to expand...
Good point. But you also have to factor in that From Software aren't retarded.
 
TGO

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
15-25 hour games are needed, not 75 Hours of side missions in game that's not even a RPG
you can't even set aside time to play a RPG because the other games are so fucking long winded filled with filler shit that they rival RPG's but without the substance.
 
Men_in_Boxes

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
Or...or...and this is crazy...just look at what the 5 - 10 most successful games each year are doing and do that, but better.

Short games are not the answer.
 
ProtoByte

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
What are these long games people refer to anyway? Only ones I see people complain about it for is with AC. And it's not so much the length as it is the bloat.
 
Humdinger

Humdinger

Member
ProtoByte said:
What are these long games people refer to anyway? Only ones I see people complain about it for is with AC. And it's not so much the length as it is the bloat.
Click to expand...

Pretty much any big, open world game. Games that take 40-80 hours to finish.

I personally am tired of those sorts of games, both because of the bloat and the time investment required. It's like sitting down with a 900-page novel. Sometimes I'm in the mood for that, but not often. More often I want a short novel or short story. Same with games.

Naturally, that will vary by person. Some people love the big, epic open world games. I used to like them a lot more than I do now. I just got tired of seeing so many of them.
 
Wildebeest

Wildebeest

Member
If Mass Effect trilogy was made today, it would be all three games content in one package, only with more samey feeling content and with no innovations or engine upgrades between chapters.
 
ProtoByte

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
ChorizoPicozo said:
NT was barley a AA studio
Click to expand...
I would still expect a AA studio to manage to do something new or better within the context of their previous game given at least 5 years and a lot more institutional backing.

ChorizoPicozo said:
Is clear that people have unrealistic expectations, they always want more and better.
Click to expand...
Better, yes. More, yes and no.

I personally want fleshed out stories (I think the sweet spot is 20-30 hours for main story for AAA), contemporary technology, and solid gameplay that actually seems designed based off of foundation past 20 years of game dev. Sometimes I play games and wonder why the design philosophy seems more basic and watered down than stuff we were getting in the early 2000s. Like, it's somehow a revelation that CoD in 2024 is getting mechanics Max Payne had in 2001.
 
Warablo

Warablo

Member
Games are longer and more open world now because gamers didn't find value in purchasing shorter games at a $60 price tag.
 
LavitzSlambert

LavitzSlambert

Member
Zannegan said:
Honestly, not bad advice given the bloated dev times and budgets of many games today. Needs a few caveats though:

1. If you're going to develop shorter experiences, the games should be complete, content should be meaningful, and the price tag should match the content ($40-60 games, instead of $70-80 starter packs).

2. Hard to disagree here, but this shouldn't translate to every game looking like Fortnite or No Man's Sky. You can still have a pleasing realistic artstyle with PS4-level asset.

3. AI is coming and will (hopefully) revolutionize development, but ethically speaking, there need to be a lot of controls in place. Bare minimum, it should be trained on the art of your own in-house artists who should be owed some residuals every time anything trained on their art is used rather than ripping off free internet searches... but that won't happen.

4. This is probably the most important of all. Feature creep is killing game devs. It's not even that the games need to be shorter, but that they need to be more focused instead of trying to be all things to all people all the time.
Click to expand...

Whaaaat? Doesn't every game need a crafting/looting/card minigame system??? With RPG elements and upgrades!!!
 
LavitzSlambert

LavitzSlambert

Member
Humdinger said:
Pretty much any big, open world game. Games that take 40-80 hours to finish.

I personally am tired of those sorts of games, both because of the bloat and the time investment required. It's like sitting down with a 900-page novel. Sometimes I'm in the mood for that, but not often. More often I want a short novel or short story. Same with games.

Naturally, that will vary by person. Some people love the big, epic open world games. I used to like them a lot more than I do now. I just got tired of seeing so many of them.
Click to expand...

These games used to be special because they were few, and they were filled with interesting content. Even today Elder Scrolls and Fallout are simply on another level compared to Ass Creed, Horizon, Days Gone, etc. We don't need more cookie cutter padding.
 
Crayon

Crayon

Member
Shorter games don't get too much flak if they are made to be re-playable.

If the story is really important to the game, that will take some creativity. Not that designing the gameplay to be re-playable is easy in itself.

New game+ is great and all but imo an unimaginative way to do this. The key is making subsequent plays that cater specifically to the people who do make it through the game once. Stuff that you wouldn't necessarily want to put in the main game.
 
bender

bender

What time is it?
TGO said:
15-25 hour games are needed, not 75 Hours of side missions in game that's not even a RPG
you can't even set aside time to play a RPG because the other games are so fucking long winded filled with filler shit that they rival RPG's but without the substance.
Click to expand...

Stellar Blade is the most recent poster child for this phenomenon.
 
Bernardougf

Bernardougf

Member
Shorter games, less bloated games, good graphics without worrying about reflexes in puddles and thick grass ... is not rocket science. Its to obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[GI.biz] Are games consoles facing extinction? Shawn Layden, Van Burnham and Michael Pachter debate....
2
85
4K
Shadowstar39 replied
[GIBiz] Former PlayStation boss Shawn Layden issues warning about non-endemics breaking into games
Opinion Business 2
99
8K
DenchDeckard replied
Do game developers still want to publish on Xbox? A survey of independents and small studios
39
3K
SNG32 replied
Swen Vincke interview: Larian Studio size sustainable for a good number of years, new games not going to "dwarf" BG3, and more
7
859
amigastar replied
Card game developer says it paid an 'AI artist' $90,000 to generate card art because 'no one comes close to the quality he delivers'
Drama Game Dev 2 3
122
12K
Little Chicken replied
Top Bottom