Nintendo, MS, Square welcome us to the era of fewer big video games. AAA slowdown has begun

[Johnny Awesome]

There IS some evidence of this and QPlayer I think has some knowledge behind the scenes.

 

[Cyan]

Former Sony chairman Shawn Layden believes AAA games are a burden on the industry because of their expensive developments: ''It wasn't a great prediction'' he says.

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

It was back in 2020 when Shawn Layden began sounding the alarm around rising game development costs.

Speaking as part of Gamelab Live, Layden said the current rising cost of AAA game development was become unsustainable, and that when the industry moves to the PS5 and Xbox Series X generation (which was due to take place later that year), the industry might struggle to grow.

"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," Layden explains. "So should we continue to build games that are unlikely for most of the people to even see the end of it?

"It was such a big deal in the early days of gaming. In the PlayStation 1, 2 and 3 generations, [length] was like your top review poin. We kept judging games by you know how much gameplay you get for your dollar. And maybe that was a decent metric back in the times when the average gamer was late teens/early 20s, which means they're time rich and money poor, so having to sit down for that long of a sesh to get through some huge RPG seemed reasonable. I just think now the average age of gamers is approaching early 30s, you got the flip, they're more money rich and time poor. You have to really kind of strap on some free time if you're going to sit down with Red Dead Redemption 2 and get through that.

"We need to understand what our customers are looking for. Do they want a high impact, high enjoyment piece of gaming, which may not include large sections of the game where you're going on a quest to find this blue rock to bring it to the red Troll and he'll open a door for you. It's just kind of like burning time. It's called grinding for a reason."

"We've made a lot about the visual quality of games, the graphic quality, the resolution, the near photorealism that so many games seem to chase," Layden says. "And our fans thought that was a was a was a noble journey, and we saw the difference between graphics on PlayStation 1 where Lara Croft is 800 polygons and, if you squint, kind-of looks like a person. And now we get to the highly realized modelling. But did it improve the gameplay? Did it improve the story?

"I don't believe you can get across the uncanny valley, I think that will always be just five steps ahead. So instead of chasing that, let's go back to exciting game design. I love a good anime. I love highly realized animated characters. They are exciting, because they can tell a different kind of story."

My fav:

"We're in the realm of graphical differences that only dogs can hear"

So many interesting tidbits in that interview.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I just think now the average age of gamers is approaching early 30s,

That's like saying the "average age of TV watchers is..." Every age plays games - there is no average. Best average here is the average age of the target for the classic AAA game concept is early 30s. that means when considering a 'AAA game' consider that age and the limiting factors. However, if you pick an age, like 14-16 year olds, you can make a game for them that can sell many millions. Or pick 60+ and make a game that can sell many millions. Stop aiming 'AAA' and instead pick audience and write for that.

 

[Nesh]

Former Sony chairman Shawn Layden believes AAA games are a burden on the industry because of their expensive developments: ''It wasn't a great prediction'' he says.

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

My fav:



So many interesting tidbits in that interview.

Some of the greatest games ever made during the PS1 and PS2 era didn't require 30-100hours to finish. Many of them even lasted as much as 7 hours max. And yet they were the most dense experiences ever that you were more likely to replay. Some old reviews in the 90s even had a score for replayability. Many modern top rated games lack this element. Often not even finished. Games today are dragging the player into tons of unenjoyable wasteful hours.

 

[Nesh]

In fact, this can already be observed this year, in the second half of the year 6-7 Microsoft games will be released, and next year MANY AAA games will be released.

If those games are games produced by Zenimax or ABK, they aren't exactly accelerated production/releases. They only shifted the name of the publisher.

 

[Cyan]

Some of the greatest games ever made during the PS1 and PS2 era didn't require 30-100hours to finish. Many of them even lasted as much as 7 hours max. And yet they were the most dense experiences ever that you were more likely to replay. Some old reviews in the 90s even had a score for replayability. Many modern top rated games lack this element. Often not even finished. Games today are dragging the player into tons of unenjoyable wasteful hours.

Still Wakes the Deep is an excellent example of that. It's a fun, interesting game. Sometimes I have more fun just playing things like Ghosts n' Goblins Resurrection -which has coop- or Still Waked the Deep, than certain AAA games. It's a dangerous game Sony and MS are playing publishing super expensive games that maybe aren't as fan.

The super complex way of making those games maybe has the effect on developers of not being fun to develop, and it translates into the gameplay..., who knows. But the myriad of graphics effects can't compensate the lack of fun and soul of some games.

 

[arandomguy]

Content value became a higher emphasis as gaming moved more towards a primary/singular hobby (for people playing dozens of hours a week vs. a couple of hours a weekend, amount of content matters much more), wider socioeconomic adoption (buyers who need to stretch their money more), more towards ownership (as opposed to just sharing/renting/reselling/etc.), and cheaper alternatives (eg. F2P games with high replayability).

As for the AAA issue something I feel that should be factored in here is that AAA shouldn't be a moving bar. Even many indie games these days have much higher polish, fidelity, scope, and etc. than that of AAA games of the past, but just not the extent of actual current AAA games. But at some point the game is good enough from a production quality stand point, and most users will just be looking at what that game specifically offers. From a major developer stand point this might be hard to navigate but for actual gamers I do think we have much more tailored high quality choices now then ever before.

 

[Frenetic Pony]

Content value became a higher emphasis as gaming moved more towards a primary/singular hobby (for people playing dozens of hours a week vs. a couple of hours a weekend, amount of content matters much more), wider socioeconomic adoption (buyers who need to stretch their money more), more towards ownership (as opposed to just sharing/renting/reselling/etc.), and cheaper alternatives (eg. F2P games with high replayability).

That's just for one type of game, video games can be, literally, anything. Anything you can imagine, that's a video game.

They don't have to be a lifestyle, they don't have to suck your life away like a vampire, there's more than enough room for multiple types of games to exist. Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart lasts all of 8 hours, and sold millions of copies. People loved it, it made a good amount of money, Insomniac doesn't need to be shut down so another Destiny wannabe clone can take their place. Some executives believe only the highest tier profitable market segment is the only valid target possible, that everyone will be in a Metaverse everything game and if they can just get there "first" they'll be the richest people in existence forever.

But making that 8 hour game is not some lost opportunity to make a billion dollar live service game. Some other developer can make that live service game simultaneously, and can sell that game to a different audience, the two are not somehow mutually exclusive.

 

[Nesh]

That's just for one type of game, video games can be, literally, anything. Anything you can imagine, that's a video game.

They don't have to be a lifestyle, they don't have to suck your life away like a vampire, there's more than enough room for multiple types of games to exist. Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart lasts all of 8 hours, and sold millions of copies. People loved it, it made a good amount of money, Insomniac doesn't need to be shut down so another Destiny wannabe clone can take their place. Some executives believe only the highest tier profitable market segment is the only valid target possible, that everyone will be in a Metaverse everything game and if they can just get there "first" they'll be the richest people in existence forever.

But making that 8 hour game is not some lost opportunity to make a billion dollar live service game. Some other developer can make that live service game simultaneously, and can sell that game to a different audience, the two are not somehow mutually exclusive.

Totally agree. It's those type of games that allow the market to grow. People tend to narrow their perception of the industry down to those super successful outliers like Fortnite and tend do think these games serve as examples of games that most gamers are interested in.

There is definitely a market for smaller and shorter games. It is why there is room for indies and why former veterans form smaller studios.

Yet we can still have AAA 8 hour experiences. Those games that suck hundreds of hours are not letting the market grow. They are super expensive to produce, high risk, and take away time that can be invested in other games.

Shorter AAA games like R&C, are less expensive, require less time to finish, allow for more games to exist, more games to be purchased and more games to be enjoyed.

God of War doesn't need to be 30hs plus. GoW 3 was one hell of an intense ride that required 6 hours, but every section of the game was dense, memorable and super impactful because the developers have more time to put on every area than spread it across a 30h title

Most games I play today, I finish and I can't recall most of their content.

I remember a lot more from shorter AAA games

 

[Johnny Awesome]

That's why it doesn't bother me at all that Hellblade 2 is only 8 hours long. It's a feature, not a bug for me.

 

[eastmen]

That's why it doesn't bother me at all that Hellblade 2 is only 8 hours long. It's a feature, not a bug for me.

Meh. I would still prefer a 20 hour game or thereabouts . For an rpg it should be in the 50 hour range. That is just me however

 

[Cyan]

As for the AAA issue something I feel that should be factored in here is that AAA shouldn't be a moving bar. Even many indie games these days have much higher polish, fidelity, scope, and etc. than that of AAA games of the past, but just not the extent of actual current AAA games. But at some point the game is good enough from a production quality stand point, and most users will just be looking at what that game specifically offers. From a major developer stand point this might be hard to navigate but for actual gamers I do think we have much more tailored high quality choices now then ever before.

the AAA industry has changed so much, and now we also have the "forever games" as @Shifty Geezer defined once, destroying your time to play other games.

If we define an AAA by its budget, there weren't AAAs in the past... The most expensive game to make in 1996 was Wing Commander IV, which cost $10 million, and featured top-notch actors and many real-world scenarios... Just by comparison, 12 million dollars was what Kevin Spacey charged to appear in Call of Duty, a clear example of how budgets have skyrocketed in a couple of decades...

 

[Cyan]

this is the intro of Wing Commander IV, a game from 1996 -when AAAs didn't exist- and it was an expensive game to make (10 million dollars).

Real first-rate actors (Mark Hamill -Star Wars-, the british actor Malcolm McDowell , british actor John Rhys-Davies -Indiana Jones-, etc), luxury costumes and many real scenarios.

 

[cheapchips]

$10m in 1996 is equivalent to $20m in today's money. Still cheap then!

 

[Jay]

Just saw article that Avowed is disappointingly short. Said was in the outerworlds length territory.
So even though everyone saying games don't have to be long, can be short and good, we still get reporting like that.

Probably be able to find a report from them that the industry needs to embrace all lengths and production costs of games.

I hardly play games, and personally rather shorter games than longer.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Just saw article that Avowed is disappointingly short. Said was in the outerworlds length territory.
So even though everyone saying games don't have to be long, can be short and good, we still get reporting like that.

That's because there are lots of different people with different values, who will express different opinions. For some, shorter games are better, but not all. the only take-home is there's no one-size solution, so as a dev, pick your target.

Here's a relatively short game that is loved and sold well, because it was good at what it did:

How long is It Takes Two? | HowLongToBeat

How long is It Takes Two? HowLongToBeat has the answer. Create a backlog, submit your game times and compete with your friends!

howlongtobeat.com

 

[Jay]

That's because there are lots of different people with different values, who will express different opinions. For some, shorter games are better, but not all. the only take-home is there's no one-size solution, so as a dev, pick your target.

Here's a relatively short game that is loved and sold well, because it was good at what it did:

How long is It Takes Two? | HowLongToBeat

How long is It Takes Two? HowLongToBeat has the answer. Create a backlog, submit your game times and compete with your friends!

howlongtobeat.com

I just found the article strange all things considered, and the game isn't out yet.

If played it and then said it was too short or too long I could understand.

But given the state of the industry that kind of early complaint is unfortunate to me.
As I said, I think there's not only space but a need for all lengths of games. (if I didn't say it I meant to)

Guess we can have AI pad out lots of side quests soon enough.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Just have farming grind to craft high-level junk. Seems to work in most popular time-sinks.

 

[arandomguy]

the AAA industry has changed so much, and now we also have the "forever games" as @Shifty Geezer defined once, destroying your time to play other games.

If we define an AAA by its budget, there weren't AAAs in the past... The most expensive game to make in 1996 was Wing Commander IV, which cost $10 million, and featured top-notch actors and many real-world scenarios... Just by comparison, 12 million dollars was what Kevin Spacey charged to appear in Call of Duty, a clear example of how budgets have skyrocketed in a couple of decades...

But what I'm saying is we should look at how we define AAA games or at least what matters to the user when we say AAA game.

I feel when most players say they want an AAA game what they are really looking for a certain "acceptable" level of production values. The thing is nowdays with how much the industry has grown and how much more accessible development resources is in many ways that level of production values is achievable even by smaller indie projects.

For example since you mention voice acting, there was a time voice acting was reserved for the biggest titles but now competent voice acting is hardly seen as some something special. An AAA game isn't required for competent voice acting. And that's really good enough for most of the audience.

I'm also not sure if a "forever game" that destroys your time is really something new. At least for the PC forever games have been quite prevalent ever since I'd say the late 90s and many (actually most) of the "iconic" games most would remember would fit in that category.

 

[arandomguy]

That's just for one type of game, video games can be, literally, anything. Anything you can imagine, that's a video game.

They don't have to be a lifestyle, they don't have to suck your life away like a vampire, there's more than enough room for multiple types of games to exist. Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart lasts all of 8 hours, and sold millions of copies. People loved it, it made a good amount of money, Insomniac doesn't need to be shut down so another Destiny wannabe clone can take their place. Some executives believe only the highest tier profitable market segment is the only valid target possible, that everyone will be in a Metaverse everything game and if they can just get there "first" they'll be the richest people in existence forever.

But making that 8 hour game is not some lost opportunity to make a billion dollar live service game. Some other developer can make that live service game simultaneously, and can sell that game to a different audience, the two are not somehow mutually exclusive.

I'm not exactly following what you're trying to say here, at least in the context of the reply to my post as I did not say all games need to be of one type?

I did however lay down reasons on why the audience is has largely shifted towards longer games, and by extention this would mean the industry would shift towards the greater audience. This doesn't mean everyone has the same preference but we have to acknowledge here the realities in terms of what the make up is today.

Also there's a lot of inbetween with live services MP games and basically I guess infinite replayability and short form SP games. Lets' take something like BGS games (TES, Fallout, Starfield), they aren't live service but they aren't short <10 hour SP experiences either. Civilization is another series off hand, it's highly replayable game just in a SP format that people sink hundreds of hours+ into. There's a tier with games that tens of hours for example as well.

Lastly I have maybe a very different view on the state of the gaming industry in that I find variety is now higher then ever. Why? Because this is related to my above post in that game development is much more accessible then ever before. I don't at all feel that the industry is moving towards some sort of scenario in which live service games are the only choice going forward for gamers. But I also don't feel beholden to some concept of AAA games in terms of their relative budget size. AAA games of the past have lower production values then non AAA games of today, I certainly didn't find those "janky" so why would I find similar levels of production quality "janky" now? Just because there are more expensive games being made?