Do you think there will be a mid gen refresh console from Sony and Microsoft?

[iroboto]

What's not comparable is entire major publishers versus a game studio, come on dude. smh

And just cuz there's some extreme studios like at Ubisoft with 800+ people doesn't mean anything less is suddenly not AAA anymore and you know it. 450+ is firmly, undeniably AAA. If it's not, then you'd have to argue there's only a handful of AAA studios in existence, which is absurd.

The idea that you think some plucky indie dev could create a game with the scale and presentation values of Baldur's Gate 3 is similarly absurd.

Please dont waste a bunch of our time trying to stubbornly argue that 450 people is a 'small' studio dude. Seriously.

Most of these major publishers loop several of their studios together to work on a single title.

naughty Dog is only 300 but they contracted out 2000 more to work on TLOU2.

I would agree that they aren’t some indie developer. But calling them full on AAA has a very different meaning. They’re just about breaching AAA size, smaller if they have divided their studio to handle more than 1 title.

Typically, unless I have something wrong, as for titles, the grading level is determined by how much funding the title has been afforded. Not the size of studio.

 

[Nesh]

Xbox didn't think highly of 'second-run Stadia PC RPG' Baldur's Gate 3

In a 2022 email chain ranking new games to potentially add to Game Pass, Xbox wrote off what's become one of 2023's biggest games.

mobilesyrup.com

They never had any faith that it was ever going to be released this year. Second run is code for post timed-exclusivity because quite frankly that exclusivity was owned by Stadia.

To move the release timeline up for Xbox, they dropped the co-op mode on Series S. That isn’t the same as giving Larian a full year to release the game proper on Xbox.
If you followed BG3 on PS5, it still was riddled with performance issues as well. Even on PC, they are still far from resolving all of their bugs.

They are a small studio, they don’t have the resources to make everything at the same time equally.

TLDR; features for all games are constantly removed and descoped to make release dates. I think there has to be some nuance between saying Series S is incapable of split screen do to its hardware spec, and actually having enough time to properly implement the feature.

No matter the case, the Series S did impose an additional challenge. The co-op was later dropped altogether with an agreement with MS to make the release happen since the default agreement demands feature parity.
A time exclusivity would have otherwise given extra time for optimization. But it was clearly the S making things extra difficult for this small team

 

[iroboto]

No matter the case, the Series S did impose an additional challenge. The co-op was later dropped altogether with an agreement with MS to make the release happen since the default agreement demands feature parity.
A time exclusivity would have otherwise given extra time for optimization. But it was clearly the S making things extra difficult for this small team

I don’t disagree with that, and that’s going to come with the territory that PC is the lead platform (and PS5 on console) and it’s significantly larger than Series S.

It’s like making PS5 pro the lead platform and suddenly struggle to fit games back onto PS5. It’s much easier to scale up than it is down, and that’s the cause and effect we are seeing. Like we see RDR2 show up on Nintendo switch right.

It just takes more time going the reverse direction. If they had an extra year it probably would not have been a problem. The controversy is that post release if they will actually work to put splitscreen back in at a later date, and I think they won’t.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Most of these major publishers loop several of their studios together to work on a single title.

naughty Dog is only 300 but they contracted out 2000 more to work on TLOU2.

I would agree that they aren’t some indie developer. But calling them full on AAA has a very different meaning. They’re just about breaching AAA size, smaller if they have divided their studio to handle more than 1 title.

Typically, unless I have something wrong, as for titles, the grading level is determined by how much funding the title has been afforded. Not the size of studio.

Yup AAA studios usually have multiple times their actual employees working on a modern AAA project.

At most Larian is a high AA studio. They don't have the funds to contract out to as many 3rd party specialized studios nor the access to a publisher's stable of helper studios in order to get things done.

That said it also shows the sad state of affairs for modern day AAA game development that a studio with 450+ still can't actually do a modern AAA title. Hence why many non-platform owned AAA studios are itching to find a buyer so they can get out of AAA game development.

We see that even smaller publishers are starting to feel the crunch of modern day game development with Paradox letting a studio go that just released a critically acclaimed game. Thankfully they came to an agreement where the studio was allowed to go independent again rather than Paradox just closing them down.

Regards,
SB

 

[techuse]

Full on AAA is Ubisoft. And EA.
450 employees versus 20K and 13.5K employees.

It’s not really comparable.

This would mean none of Sony first party games are AAA since they all have 300-500 employees at most.

Again, they almost do themselves a disservice when releasing these mid-gen upgraded consoles and remastered games at higher resolutions. It absolutely dilutes the impact coming from one gen to another... and as these jumps in power become smaller and smaller, eventually people will NOT be satisfied with what the "next generation" is bringing.. and it will hit them hard.

Eventually they're going to have to cut BC off.

I don’t understand why they even bothered with BC this gen. The benefits are minuscule given they have to manually patch games to offer a meaningful improvement.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I like BC.

The S is fine. It's filling the niche it was designed for. Devs are always going to complain when they have to work harder. I don't care. Get back to work!

 

[Flappy Pannus]

I don’t understand why they even bothered with BC this gen. The benefits are minuscule given they have to manually patch games to offer a meaningful improvement.

That they can offer a meaningful improvement with only a 'patch' is one of those benefits from BC.

 

[techuse]

That they can offer a meaningful improvement with only a 'patch' is one of those benefits from BC.

It was only for a small handful of games over the last 3 years. A clean break may very well have resulted in a superior console.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It was only for a small handful of games over the last 3 years. A clean break may very well have resulted in a superior console.

As well as the console industry going kaput. One of the largest benefits is that game developers and publishers didn't see a massive nosedive in terms of revenue with this console generation...because of BC.

Basically, the cost of AAA game development is so astronomically high for this generation that they absolutely needed to be able to have games be as simple to make cross generation as possible. I imagine we'd see a lot more AAA studios and publishers up for sale or going bankrupt this generation if not for BC on both consoles.

Regards,
SB

 

[iroboto]

This would mean none of Sony first party games are AAA since they all have 300-500 employees at most.

Right, which is why grading levels should be done by funding per tittle as opposed to studio size. The more funding the more contractors and external studios hired to assist.

 

[techuse]

Right, which is why grading levels should be done by funding per tittle as opposed to studio size. The more funding the more contractors and external studios hired to assist.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Sony first party just outsource for some art asset creation? Where as EA and Ubisoft assign multiple studios to actually develop aspects of the game? Sony titles certainly do seem to be cheaper to develop than AAA titles like AC or BF.

 

[Globalisateur]

It was only for a small handful of games over the last 3 years. A clean break may very well have resulted in a superior console.

That's simply not true. plenty of PS4 games got either a free 60fps patche or run much better due to higher clocks.

 

[iroboto]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Sony first party just outsource for some art asset creation? Where as EA and Ubisoft assign multiple studios to actually develop aspects of the game? Sony titles certainly do seem to be cheaper to develop than AAA titles like AC or BF.

it’s hard to say. You don’t usually get a breakdown of who is hired, but TLOU went up to 2300 total people working on it. A game like Halo Infinite had a massive number of contractors on it as well and it’s pointed out to being a big issue for them for development.

Ubisoft in particular has global studios, and they usually have a lead studio and several assisting studios depending on the facilities they have at that studio. For instance Ubisoft Toronto is usually brought in for cinematics and motion capture.

It really comes down to the size of the title and what they need assistance with.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Typically, unless I have something wrong, as for titles, the grading level is determined by how much funding the title has been afforded. Not the size of studio.

Given there's no actual grading specification, the whole term AA and AAA is relative to the subjective assessment of whomever is grading them. In some cases a game could be AAA in terms of what's accomplished even if the studio is a small indie, while another massive investment could produce a B grade game in terms of quality.

People wanting to make a serious argument should talk about investment or studio size directly, and not refer to the Bogomips of game classification.

 

[Seanspeed]

Typically, unless I have something wrong, as for titles, the grading level is determined by how much funding the title has been afforded. Not the size of studio.

Size is budget.

Multiply 450 x decent salary x 6 years. It's undeniably AAA unless you want to move the goalposts for what kind of budget constitutes AAA as well, as if Naughty Dog or Ubisoft-sized projects are the norm.

I cant believe this really has to be argued.

 

[iroboto]

Size is budget.

Multiply 450 x decent salary x 6 years. It's undeniably AAA unless you want to move the goalposts for what kind of budget constitutes AAA as well, as if Naughty Dog or Ubisoft-sized projects are the norm.

I cant believe this really has to be argued.

Studios work on more than 1 project at a time so size if a studio is not a factor if they are working on 3 different titles.

And Baldurs gate was funded by early access and then via exclusivity via Stadia and whatever other private funding they had.

You very seldom see any AAA follow
This path. the only one coming to mind is Star Citizen.

I would not classify Baldurs gate 3 as a AAA game, most Larian titles are kickstarter prior to.

Larian is typically an AA game studio. Large enough studio, great experience, but more niche titles not designed to be massive mainstream games with big marketing and massive development budgets.

 

[BitByte]

It's difficult to define something as sub or 4k. If you dial up everything outside of resolution you will have to sacrifice resolution to maintain performance. There is no limit on how much a dev wants to dial up things. There are different trade offs between res, performance and what's displayed on screen. Devs might balance everything for a 4k, smooth performing, visually appealing game, or overshoot one of them at the cost of the other two.

If you cram up everything to Ultra in a game that is too ambitious, and want 60 fps or even 120fps of course your res is going to nosedive.

The Series S is certainly underpowered, but it serves as an afterthought for most devs and for MS. Optimising for X and PS5 first, downgrading on Series S.

Unfortunately, I disagree. The Series S does not represent a generational step up from the PS4 talk-less of the mid gen refreshes. At least when it comes to the GPU. As a result, its not surprising that it's struggling to keep pace with the pack. This is not a case of devs dialing things up but a case of insufficient hardware. As a console, it truly is a waste of silicon. Like I said in my previous post, a next gen console must be better than a last gen console in all aspects. As much as people like to argue, the One X and PS4 Pro are last gen consoles. Millions of people bought those consoles to play last gen games and the Series S is hardly better than those boxes.

 

[Seanspeed]

Studios work on more than 1 project at a time

SOME studios work on more than one project at a time. There's absolutely zero evidence that Larian does this. By what we actually know, they were entirely committed to Baldur's Gate 3 and nothing else.

You're literally just going to argue anything to avoid admitting it's a AAA game, huh? We're not having a discussion, you're just trying to 'win' the argument.

 

[Nesh]

Unfortunately, I disagree. The Series S does not represent a generational step up from the PS4 talk-less of the mid gen refreshes. At least when it comes to the GPU. As a result, its not surprising that it's struggling to keep pace with the pack. This is not a case of devs dialing things up but a case of insufficient hardware. As a console, it truly is a waste of silicon. Like I said in my previous post, a next gen console must be better than a last gen console in all aspects. As much as people like to argue, the One X and PS4 Pro are last gen consoles. Millions of people bought those consoles to play last gen games and the Series S is hardly better than those boxes.

I agree that it is very underpowered. But my point is that the meat is on X. It is subjective whether we can describe X and PS5 as sub 4K consoles because resolution depends on how much the devs want to dial up other areas.
Now S is pretty much a budget console and a Frankenstein regarding where it falls as a gen leap. The Series S was sold cheaper than One X. Of course it's gonna have large compromises. But excluding the resolutions and other visual cut backs it at least keeps the game experience largely intact.
I don't think the S console was meant to give a next gen leap. It's meant to keep the XBOX adoption as large as possible by attracting people who want X games on a budget

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Size is budget.

Multiply 450 x decent salary x 6 years. It's undeniably AAA unless you want to move the goalposts for what kind of budget constitutes AAA as well, as if Naughty Dog or Ubisoft-sized projects are the norm.

I cant believe this really has to be argued.

450+ versus the 1000+ and often 2000+ of a typical AAA game. You really do need to factor in any contracted work that is done outside of a studio in addition to just the studio's own headcount.

Hence, why Iroboto mentions that budget is a more meaningful number for modern game development than just studio headcount.

Regards,
SB