AAA Gaming Sustainable?

[EgonSpengler]

I wonder if the costs wouldn’t actually come down as technology improves, moving away from needing as many technical personnel and more into the creative aspects.

In film & television, the reverse has been true. On the one hand, companies like Disney dramatically ramped up their output, putting huge stress on the SFX studios, fully at the expense of the creative aspects of filmmaking. Simultaneously, as the use of CGI drifts down from the "nerdy" genres, shows like Mindhunter, The Crown, and Babylon Berlin used copious amounts of it. I just finished rewatching Mindhunter, which was canceled after 2 series because of high costs. There's a lot of unexpected CGI in that show, and it's partly due to the creative people thinking about how to use it for more than just scifi and action. There was something I was watching recently - I don't think it was Mindhunter, I think it was something else - and the characters are sitting inside a car, with the windows up, and the camera drifts towards them, goes inside the car through the window glass and pans around inside the car. That was a lot of CGI, just filming a conversation in an interesting way. Some lunatic could make a $100-million version of Diner or Before Sunrise today, if they were allowed to.

This obviously doesn't translate 1-1 to video games, where nothing is done with practical effects, but I wouldn't be shocked if game production companies are constantly pushing their designers to make games on whatever the cutting-edge is that day.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

It doesn’t seem sustainable; gratuitous layoffs, hundreds of millions of dollars per game. Sony’s stock just tanked because after having profit margins of 12-13% in their gaming division during the PS4 era they’re at about 6% in the PS5 era due entirely to the fact games are so expensive to make.

The only thing I will say is that we did have his conversation before. In the late 2000s it really seemed like EA was going to go bankrupt and gaming was going to have to have a huge correction and… it did no such thing and kept chugging along. But it does show why microtransactions and stores are everywhere. These companies have to make up the difference somewhere to please shareholders.

The other thing I’ll say is that gaming as an industry retracted 1% in 2023 compared to other entertainment like music and movies having double digit growth. A lot of that is because gaming exploded under covid and now people are leaving the house again for live entertainment. But you do have to wonder how many games expecting to take all your time and all your money can exist at any given time before customers revolt.

 

[Zardnaar]

The problem isn't so much DLC as it is the concept of eternal money farms. Which are impossible, but hey. Hence the more recent drive to "live service" games where the actual concept of a game (say, the new Suicide Squad one) gets taken apart to serve a theoretically-endless gameplay loop that ultimately puts off fans and results in the game being shuttered before the content even gets fleshed out.

(while also being sold for the premium AAA bucks release price)

DLC was an earlier iteration on the same concept that you don't see as much of, despite the fact that the EA meal-chopped-up meme is still a pretty common reaction image online. Still used, of course, but not the current trend all the big publishers are chasing.

(the additional problem with live service games is, like mobile games, they require a relative monopoly on player time, which means by default you can't have a player paying for ten of them with the intent to keep playing all ten - it's just unsustainable)

Live service works BUT you need a good game to begin with. Eg GTA Online. You can't really design a money farm first, game second.

Also helps if it's optional add on stuff vs cutting content and charging for it.

Live service and DLC is a side effect of increased costs. A rare few games can do without it.

 

[Gorbles]

Live service games all ultimately draw from the same playerbase. People. This means that no, the requirement isn't "a good game". It means they compete for attention. All games do, ultimately (given matching interests, etc). But live service games compete more.

And no, it's not about costs. It's just the latest trend. That's why so many are trying it at once. Like layoffs. It's not need, it's a need to follow what others do so their stock can be evaluated appropriately.

 

[amadeus]

The problem isn't so much DLC as it is the concept of eternal money farms.

That’s how I meant it, sorry for the confusion. I remember before the internet sometimes you could physically mail your disks back to game publishers and they would patch it up to the most recent version.

In film & television, the reverse has been true.

Just as it is true for games now, but I’m not sure it is always going to hold that we‘re going to need ever-increasing numbers of staff. Now here at the low-end, and that’s me, I can produce TV graphics and things that in the seventies the big broadcasters paid $10,000 per hour for.

Where was I? Oh yeah, so I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. No, I mean that I think if any kind of generative AI becomes a valuable tool, that kind of quality/quantity can be replicated by smaller and smaller groups. Or I could be completely wrong, I don‘t know, I’m just putting the idea out there.

 

[Moriarte]

A work of art is a rare coincidence. Look at Hollywood: you can industrialise the means to produce art, but it doesn’t mean the art will always come on demand. Popularity of cinema goes in waves, as industry explores new directions. Success of some of those directions can only be revealed post release. There are many Great technical specialists in the industry, but not nearly as many of those, who can conceptualise popular demand right Now, and in great detail.

Why so many fan-favourite movies off all times were produced in the 80-ies and 90-ies? There must be a reason for the concentration. We still have many great writers, directors, producers, set designers. We have far better camera operators than we had previously, not to mention cameras themselves. Yet it’s the nineties, where everything “clicked”. These periods in the movies, and in gaming need to be explored. And we do, in a way. By doing re-makes and other adaptations of popular lineages.

Then there’s buyer’s fatigue.

Misjudgement of core audiences needs.

Cultural disconnect between aged developers (30+) and their target audiences (12+).

Corporate reality of profitability above all.

Many things can get in the way of a good piece of art.

In Gaming, to make sure less of those things get in the way, the key is community participation - the feedback link between the buyer and the seller. The devs who understand this - spend resources, listen and take seriously ideas that come from those outspoken and supported members of community. There are interesting exploding popularity examples to explore, games like Escape from Tarkov, No Man’s Sky, which had cold and hostile reception at release only to become fan favourites few years later, diligently fixing code and employing players of their own game, so that they have access to objective opinion.

My own example about misjudgement & disconnect - Battlefield game series. Part 1 was about WW2. Parts 2, 3, 4 were about modern warfare - infantry, tanks, planes, helicopters, attack boats, jet ski, drones, etc. Then the exploration phase kicked in - part 5 - we’re back to WW1 - horses and bayonets. Slow triplanes, turtle speed tanks, no water transport or helicopters. To understand hilarity of that decision - imagine millions of players honing their skills, for years, teaming up as jet pilots, rapid tank brigades, helicopter aces in a modern battlefield. Suddenly, you guys and your skills are not needed anymore, go ride a horse and stab each other with bayonets.

Such disrespectful, arrogant disconnect resulted in a lot of those people, who sang songs to their favourite franchise on youtube 24/7 wave goodbye and move on to other games. Electronic Arts went downhill from there, when it comes to BF series.

To answer your question, I think yes, AAA gaming is sustainable, if it’s structured correctly. We should have both corporate and small projects compete to bring us better games.

 

[Kyriakos]

This obviously doesn't translate 1-1 to video games, where nothing is done with practical effects, but I wouldn't be shocked if game production companies are constantly pushing their designers to make games on whatever the cutting-edge is that day.

Some games - granted, it is very rare - use filmed claymation for sprites and backgrounds ^^

 

[EgonSpengler]

Some games - granted, it is very rare - use filmed claymation for sprites and backgrounds ^^

Is that much cheaper?

 

[Kyriakos]

Depends. The games I have in mind, were indie ones, so once again it only cost time (or, I don't know, buying a few more bits of clay? ). In theory you can just film with your mobile phone.
All that said, AI is quickly getting to the point of being able to create animation which is usable (transparent background, consistency of forms etc), so it will not even cost you time.

 

[Zardnaar]

A work of art is a rare coincidence. Look at Hollywood: you can industrialise the means to produce art, but it doesn’t mean the art will always come on demand. Popularity of cinema goes in waves, as industry explores new directions. Success of some of those directions can only be revealed post release. There are many Great technical specialists in the industry, but not nearly as many of those, who can conceptualise popular demand right Now, and in great detail.

Why so many fan-favourite movies off all times were produced in the 80-ies and 90-ies? There must be a reason for the concentration. We still have many great writers, directors, producers, set designers. We have far better camera operators than we had previously, not to mention cameras themselves. Yet it’s the nineties, where everything “clicked”. These periods in the movies, and in gaming need to be explored. And we do, in a way. By doing re-makes and other adaptations of popular lineages.

Then there’s buyer’s fatigue.

Misjudgement of core audiences needs.

Cultural disconnect between aged developers (30+) and their target audiences (12+).

Corporate reality of profitability above all.

Many things can get in the way of a good piece of art.

In Gaming, to make sure less of those things get in the way, the key is community participation - the feedback link between the buyer and the seller. The devs who understand this - spend resources, listen and take seriously ideas that come from those outspoken and supported members of community. There are interesting exploding popularity examples to explore, games like Escape from Tarkov, No Man’s Sky, which had cold and hostile reception at release only to become fan favourites few years later, diligently fixing code and employing players of their own game, so that they have access to objective opinion.

My own example about misjudgement & disconnect - Battlefield game series. Part 1 was about WW2. Parts 2, 3, 4 were about modern warfare - infantry, tanks, planes, helicopters, attack boats, jet ski, drones, etc. Then the exploration phase kicked in - part 5 - we’re back to WW1 - horses and bayonets. Slow triplanes, turtle speed tanks, no water transport or helicopters. To understand hilarity of that decision - imagine millions of players honing their skills, for years, teaming up as jet pilots, rapid tank brigades, helicopter aces in a modern battlefield. Suddenly, you guys and your skills are not needed anymore, go ride a horse and stab each other with bayonets.

Such disrespectful, arrogant disconnect resulted in a lot of those people, who sang songs to their favourite franchise on youtube 24/7 wave goodbye and move on to other games. Electronic Arts went downhill from there, when it comes to BF series.

To answer your question, I think yes, AAA gaming is sustainable, if it’s structured correctly. We should have both corporate and small projects compete to bring us better games.

80s and 90s are fairly easy to explain. Lots of genres and movie budgets were a lot lower. Combined with no competition eg streaming.

And VHS. Some movies made more on the back end.

Alot of 80s movies cost peanuts comparatively. 30 odd million or less. Adjusted for inflation way cheaper.

 

[Broken_Erika]

The Clayfighter series were made by Interplay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClayFighter

 

[Gori the Grey]

Literature has pretty much gone downhill since Homer.

 

[Kyriakos]

Like Cavafy says, "every latin who thinks he can write verses, imagines himself as celebrated as Menander" ^^

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

We're all headed for pachinko.

 

[Akka]

zzz

My own example about misjudgement & disconnect - Battlefield game series. Part 1 was about WW2. Parts 2, 3, 4 were about modern warfare - infantry, tanks, planes, helicopters, attack boats, jet ski, drones, etc. Then the exploration phase kicked in - part 5 - we’re back to WW1 - horses and bayonets. Slow triplanes, turtle speed tanks, no water transport or helicopters. To understand hilarity of that decision - imagine millions of players honing their skills, for years, teaming up as jet pilots, rapid tank brigades, helicopter aces in a modern battlefield. Suddenly, you guys and your skills are not needed anymore, go ride a horse and stab each other with bayonets.

Such disrespectful, arrogant disconnect resulted in a lot of those people, who sang songs to their favourite franchise on youtube 24/7 wave goodbye and move on to other games. Electronic Arts went downhill from there, when it comes to BF series.

I'd actually chalk more the disrespect and disconnect of Battlefield One into making the default side the US and putting all the actual main participants of the war into DLC.
That certainly ruffled a lot of feathers.

 

[Ordnael]

I play on a Nintendo Switch mostly, my more recent AAA games (game release date, not me getting around to play it) are all Nintendo IP, and I don't mean Mario stuff (nothing against that, I also enjoy a good Mario and friends game from time to time). I am currently tackling Xenoblade Chronicles 3, already got over 180hours in, that's game from Monolith Soft, Nintendo owned, previously as in recent(ish) release for the Switch I played Bayonetta 3, before that Astral Chain (both Platinum made Nintendo exclusive games) , I also played Luigi's Mansion 3 and Breath of The Wild. I think these are all fairly recent AAA games (except Tloz Botw, almost 7 years old!).

So my answer would be it that AAA sustainability depends on the platform. Nintendo can make or order AAA games without going crazy over budget and still get decent returns...I am not checking figures here but I am pretty certain the latest Spiderman Miles game cost a lot more developing than Tloz Botw, however the Zelda game sold almost triple, 3 years apart but still.

 

[Gorbles]

Nintendo is a fun example because of how Gamefreak have been treated in developing Pokemon (to the detriment of those games as they were forced to release a game a year).

Gamers blamed the devs, but the devs just weren't given the resource.

 

[Kyriakos]

Nintendo games used to be pretty basic, tbh. And of course very expensive.
I haven't played any after SNES, though, maybe they became better than the non-Nintendo titles for the later machines.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Tears of the Kingdom was delayed a full year 'cause the devs didn't think it was perfect enough.
One of the results being that you can build war machines.

Spoiler :