Ex-PlayStation Boss Believes Current AAA Development Growth Is Unsustainable

[Rekkapryde]

Breh buggin' out here. Acting like there wasn't a solid few year stretch when the PlayStation division was literally keeping the company afloat.

that ain't true either, but for the purposes of this thread, I'll abstain.

 

[Rekkapryde]

Y’all nikkas playing console democrats vs Republicans aside, this is actually an interesting topic.

Seems like a lot of publishers aren’t willing to take as many financial risks with new IP’s these days and it’s almost creating this weird divide between the indie and AA games vs the super-hyped AAA ones. There’s hardly a “middle class” any more if that makes sense. And the more “hype” a game has, the more expectation there is from shareholders, publishers etc and we get the shoe-horned online multiplayer and microtransaction nonsense thrown onto said games in order for them to make as much as they can off it. You see how Rockstar STILL trying to monetize a game that will now span across 3 generations and that game was one of the most expensive to ever make when it came out

stop charging AAA prices for AA games then.

That Iron Man VR that's dropping next week will only be 40 bucks. Need more of that shyt than everything being mandatory 60 out the gate for 99% of games nowadays.

Ordered that Iron Man VR Bundle so I can't wait to try this shyt out.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Game companies are in it for the money. AAA games are the most risky for the most investment

I think a perfect example of this is GTAV

The single player portion took ~5 years and millions of dollars to exist.

The multiplayer portion took a fraction of that yet the multiplayer portion is what makes them the most money still 8 years later.

As a publisher how do you look at this situation and decide to invest a bunch of money into a single player narrative driven game(The most expensive and least return on investment style of game) When you could spend way less and reach for the next Minecraft/Fortnight/GTAVonline

This is an interesting convo and I agree with what dude says about how AAA games should go back to focused ~15 hour experiences instead of trying to be 30 hour epics.

Orherwise AAA games will cease to exist outside the 1 or 2 per year that actually make money.

 

[DaSk8D00D]

stop charging AAA prices for AA games then.

That Iron Man VR that's dropping next week will only be 40 bucks. Need more of that shyt than everything being mandatory 60 out the gate for 99% of games nowadays.

Ordered that Iron Man VR Bundle so I can't wait to try this shyt out.

I agree, but a lot of these companies are always gonna start with that $60 simply due to optics. Theyll charge $60 for $30 game simply because they don't want it to look "lesser" next to anything else that's full price on the shelf. They gotta know shyt is going on sale anyways, but figure they might as well shoot for $60, see who buys, then lower the price from there

 

[Fatboi1]

I agree, but a lot of these companies are always gonna start with that $60 simply due to optics. Theyll charge $60 for $30 game simply because they don't want it to look "lesser" next to anything else that's full price on the shelf. They gotta know shyt is going on sale anyways, but figure they might as well shoot for $60, see who buys, then lower the price from there

Nintendo is guilty of this. Charging $60 for all their games yet the same games like Crash Bandicoot, Ratchet, Dreams etc are only $40 on PS4.

 

[DaSk8D00D]

Nintendo is guilty of this. Charging $60 for all their games yet the same games like Crash Bandicoot, Ratchet, Dreams etc are only $40 on PS4.

Man they really got it made. Don’t even have to compete directly with Sony/MS and they can crank out pokemon shovelware at full price and people still cop. Not to mention they raping your wallets with controllers/peripherals too

Love my switch but the only deals you getting there are off one-off online sales and buying used cartridges for $55

 

[Diondon]

I don't see how wasting time and resources on small AA games makes sense for a top dawg developer. In fact they rarely do.
The blockbuster AAA game is their bread and butter.
Now a smaller developer its more feasible.
And the industry needs both due to the longer development time of the AAA.
Context is key.

 

[-DMP-]

I’m cool if they want up the price to 69.99. Some of these games are more than deserving,imo.
But they kinda already do that with all these editions they release.

 

[Jimmy ValenTime]

Just responding to the 1st post cause this thread went a bunch of weird directions


I think realistically what's gonna happen is games could go up till $100 and even then in may not be profitable at that price point

but I could see like a further dlcing of game brands and big titles like selling people 2 to 4 hours of content for $10 or $20 then a 40 hour + game for 60

 

[Jimmy ValenTime]

Also I do think that over the next 5 years Sony xbox PC it's all bleeding together


A bunch of Sony exclusive have gone to computers etc

Xbox has the game pass thing can play on computers

Steam's always getting old games remastered

It's all the same shyt basically


Nintendo the only one that has a strong identity and their games look cheaper to develop

 

[Kairi Irving]

I don't see how wasting time and resources on small AA games makes sense for a top dawg developer. In fact they rarely do.
The blockbuster AAA game is their bread and butter.
Now a smaller developer its more feasible.
And the industry needs both due to the longer development time of the AAA.
Context is key.

i'd rather multiple AA games from a studio (Bully 2, Manhunt 3, Midnight Club 5) over 1 AAA game getting milked thats preventing other titles development (GTA V)

 

[Fatboi1]

Also I do think that over the next 5 years Sony xbox PC it's all bleeding together


A bunch of Sony exclusive have gone to computers etc

Xbox has the game pass thing can play on computers

Steam's always getting old games remastered

It's all the same shyt basically


Nintendo the only one that has a strong identity and their games look cheaper to develop

Two games really lol.

 

[qwasi]

This sounds like the Luciferian ramblings of a disillusioned Executive with an ulterior motive. The entirety of his argument isn't sustainability but turning Profit. Never once does he discuss the evolution/maturation of gaming audiences and the need to match this demand resulting in high production values. How convenient he mentioned the $59.99 or rather price stagnation point. Ignoring that Studios and Developers have found "unethical" methods to finesse Loot Boxes, Seasonal Passes, Packs, Exclusive Editions and Collectible Variations. Ubisoft being the most egregious culprit. Playstation 4's AAA Exclusives were hoovering around 8-16 million units. This means were talking 480 to 950M+ in revenue. Furthermore, unless there's significant jumps across Generation, the costs associated with procedural generation software/hardware used to develop successive series, is minimal. If this is such a big concern, Sony can consider giving access to PC demographic -- this will easily compensate for the differences.

EDIT -- I just saw @Fatboi1 post. Thread premise was a cherry picked quotation. Executive explains more in detail.

 

[Pressure]

Some of y'all love these companies more than the people who work there.

 

[Master Teacher]

all those AAA games are garbage, interactive movies with very little gameplay mechanics, I mean the Last of Us Two is same thing as the first game which was a ps3 game, just like all those Uncharted Games which were the exact same each and every one of them, Naughty Dog is the most overrated gaming studio