Rusty Shackelford
Member
You can make a AAA game with about 20 people. Maybe less. These studios really don't need hundreds of people working on a game or even two or three. There's the high cost right there.
-
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.
Harada: "Development costs are now 10 times more expensive than in the 90's and more than double or nearly triple the cost of Tekken 7"
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
- Game Dev
Roman Empire
Member
Well, devs can always downscale the scope of their projects you know... No one is asking for every new game to be a bombastic Triple-A title. We know the industry as of now is heading towards an unsustainable future, but at the same time, there's a bright side to all of this with a bunch of Double-A titles selling in droves that prove that going bigger is never always the answer.
Don't let the industry try to gaslight you into buying the idea about justifying raising prices across the board. There are more avenues to monetize a game than ever in the Triple-A market. We are already paying more (sometimes for lesser experiences even). It's the consumer who makes the price in any given segment.
Don't let the industry try to gaslight you into buying the idea about justifying raising prices across the board. There are more avenues to monetize a game than ever in the Triple-A market. We are already paying more (sometimes for lesser experiences even). It's the consumer who makes the price in any given segment.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
Personally i prefer it when Tekken 2 was a single + local multiplayer game. Sell me a game with enough content to justify it's price tag and i'm good. I don't need to play online with strangers, i don't care about additional content, i don't need to be "serviced". Gaming was fine before all this online and service crap.
BabyfaceRe
Member
Such glorious gaslighting.
Yes games do cost 10X more than in the 90s. The question is, does that actually matter from a business perceptive?
The answer is absolutely not, not at all, nope.
The only thing that matters is the bottom-line. We can see, factually, that these companies are NOT losing money and infact make MORE money now than in the 90s.... a lot more. How much you spend doesn't matter at all, what matters are profits. End of discussion. When companies can realistically come out and claim that AAA pricing is killing thier company, I will listen but it's total BS.
Sony for example keep crying about 200million budgets. 1. that's thier choice and by no means mandatory. 2. It's part od thier brand identity ffs, they wouldn't even have a successful platform without the support of those ip. Ffs look at what's happening to MS due to thier lack of such titles.
They are not crying about not making money, they are crying about not make as much money as they would like. If they really wanted to up thier profits quickly they could just lay off a bunch of staff..... oh wait.
Yes games do cost 10X more than in the 90s. The question is, does that actually matter from a business perceptive?
The answer is absolutely not, not at all, nope.
The only thing that matters is the bottom-line. We can see, factually, that these companies are NOT losing money and infact make MORE money now than in the 90s.... a lot more. How much you spend doesn't matter at all, what matters are profits. End of discussion. When companies can realistically come out and claim that AAA pricing is killing thier company, I will listen but it's total BS.
Sony for example keep crying about 200million budgets. 1. that's thier choice and by no means mandatory. 2. It's part od thier brand identity ffs, they wouldn't even have a successful platform without the support of those ip. Ffs look at what's happening to MS due to thier lack of such titles.
They are not crying about not making money, they are crying about not make as much money as they would like. If they really wanted to up thier profits quickly they could just lay off a bunch of staff..... oh wait.
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
A few do, most do not. Big franchises need to keep scaling up and getting bigger than the last, in order to outsell their previous iteration. But that comes At the expense of people having the time or money to buy as many games as they used to. So then you play it safe and just keep buying only your most favorite series latest title.
The issue is a game could be profitable after 100,000 sales back in the N64 days. Now it would need to be a multi-million seller to break even and then become profitable. And some games need to sell 10+ million to be considered successful now, which is insane.
Last edited:
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Yeah, he said 2-3 times more, and no it’s not that much more impressive looking. It’s a slightly prettier Tekken. Diminishing returns.
Kokoloko85
Member
I dont understand how Tekken 8 could be triple the price of Tekken 7. Engine was already used. Its a graphical leap, thats about it
NeverYouMind
Member
Probably the server hosted lobbies, which are ghost towns. Would really prefer a quick match and practice mode for Tekken Ball instead.
MagiusNecros
Gilgamesh Fan Annoyance
Development costs more because they waste more money on things they don't need or don't have talent that is right for the job. And lots of companies waste a LOT of money.
Tech should be so good they can just make several great AA games instead of 1 or 2 AAA games.
And if they spend a couple hundred million making a game for it to only sell at best 20 million? I'm not seeing the logic in that.
Tech should be so good they can just make several great AA games instead of 1 or 2 AAA games.
And if they spend a couple hundred million making a game for it to only sell at best 20 million? I'm not seeing the logic in that.
ValiantTraveler
Member
Lots of good points in this topic discussion.
However, if developers of fighting games were to scale back on production values, their new games would get fustigated by players and critics alike. The main selling point of new entries in fighting IPs is better graphics, seconded by new and returning characters. Gameplay stays 90% the same. So these games cost a lot to look prettier than the previous entries, but if they didn’t they would sell less.
However, if developers of fighting games were to scale back on production values, their new games would get fustigated by players and critics alike. The main selling point of new entries in fighting IPs is better graphics, seconded by new and returning characters. Gameplay stays 90% the same. So these games cost a lot to look prettier than the previous entries, but if they didn’t they would sell less.
Thick Thighs Save Lives
NeoGAF's Physical Games Advocate Extraordinaire
Dunno about that chief; the lighting has been completely overhauled and the character models have been hugely upgraded and they're probably made from scratch. Same with the stage visuals.
Tekken 8 on the left and Tekken 7 on the right.
Last edited:
mayham2199
Member
Everyone in the industry keep saying this and most gamers just don't want to hear it or even care. Not sure where things are headed in gaming but seems like prices will increase again and mostly when PS6 comes out.
Guilty_AI
Member
A single dev made a game that looks like this in ~5 years, sells it for $25:
So yeah, sorry i don't buy the whole "costs going up and there's nothing we can do about it" narrative
GreenAlien
Member
That's what they are doing. More efficient means less staff is needed. Those AAA games that have a fraction of the budget also use a fraction of the manpower.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Dunno about that chief; the lighting has been completely overhauled and the character models have been hugely upgraded and they're probably made from scratch. Same with the stage visuals.
Tekken 8 on the left and Tekken 7 on the right.
Ok, side by side it’s noticeably nicer. But playing the demo, it just didn’t strike me as a big leap. Maybe I’m just getting desensitized to a lot of these graphics.
Roxkis_ii
Banned
I get that consumers have expectations they would like met, but we don't set the game budgets or game scope. If the budgets are unsustainable then change the scope to make it sustainable.
I don't get why we as customers should care about game budgets. It's up to each company to handle their own businesses.
I don't get why we as customers should care about game budgets. It's up to each company to handle their own businesses.
SSfox
Member
Not every game tho.There are a lot of great polished games that are worth the money, you just need to be smarter and stop supporting the gales that you think are scummy
Slothbeing1209
Member
The game is 70$ and try to sell you dlc characters. I'm okay with dlc characters since they've done it with tekken 7.
But the customize is poor compares to previous games. They just try to makes excuses for the mtx outfits.
And no one care about fighting lounge btw.
But the customize is poor compares to previous games. They just try to makes excuses for the mtx outfits.
And no one care about fighting lounge btw.
mayham2199
Member
Is this supposed to be impressive? This looks like a very old FPS game.
Anyways whatever neither of us our developers. I just listen to the pros and you just choose to call them liars. I gave up on gamers when devs kept telling them that the Series S was a bottle neck and people just started calling all the developers lazy. It wasn't until Larian had issues with the Series S that people finally shut up. They realized trying to call Larian lazy was going to sound irrational.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
If you add in multi-transactions and the increase in games.........maybe.
Guilty_AI
Member
If giving games a retro-ish look (a mighty impressive one too) is all it takes for the costs to go down (hint: it isn't), i'd gladly take it any day of the week over $70 games filled with MTX and millionaire CEOs whining about game costs.
Last edited:
MiguelItUp
Member
Exactly. It's why the AAA industry's behavior has been the way it has been over the last few years. So many AAA developers and publishers are concerned about blowing tons of money into projects that feel too risky because they don't want them to fail. It also explains why so many games felt so "similar" over the years IMO. Or the constant sequels, remakes, etc. It's all a safety net. The indie and AA (and adjacent) studios continue to carry video games when it comes to new IPs, fresh/unique ideas, etc.
I know Death Stranding isn't everyone's cup of tea, totally understandable. But I personally respected it so much because it was a new AAA IP with extremely divisive gameplay. Kojima just made what he wanted to make, and saw it all the way through to completion. It felt like something we hadn't seen in so long at the time. It continues to feel that way now any time there's a one of a kind game that drops. Especially ones with such a huge budget, AAA or similar.
I know it's hard to let go of the way games used to be, but we can still hope for a positive outcome as we continue in the future. We've definitely seen and experienced the ups and downs, and continue to. But here's to hoping we see improvements sooner than later.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
These most gamers across the world NEVER say.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Fire some people, scale down the games and focus on what matters. Works for Nintendo.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
If you love games and are also on a gaming forum talking about games.............then you should care bout game budgets.
poodaddy
Member
This industry's current trajectory is factually and very obviously not sustainable. Mass layoffs + record maintenance costs= something must change or everything will change. Mark my words.
I see AAA game development being completely rethought, remonetized, and reorganized in the next five years; in what capacity is hard to say but it stands to reason that these maintenance costs are going to fall to us at some point. I don't think it's out of the question for fighting games to eventually have subscription fees not unlike Gamepass or PS Plus, and that will be in addition to upfront premium sale prices and micro transactions.
I got a feeling the industry's future, as far as the AAA ecosystem is concerned, will not include me as a consumer...., and that's ok. The AA and indie space is where I've gotten the most hours of gaming the last decade anyway.
I see AAA game development being completely rethought, remonetized, and reorganized in the next five years; in what capacity is hard to say but it stands to reason that these maintenance costs are going to fall to us at some point. I don't think it's out of the question for fighting games to eventually have subscription fees not unlike Gamepass or PS Plus, and that will be in addition to upfront premium sale prices and micro transactions.
I got a feeling the industry's future, as far as the AAA ecosystem is concerned, will not include me as a consumer...., and that's ok. The AA and indie space is where I've gotten the most hours of gaming the last decade anyway.
Astral Dog
Member
I remember when developers could make GOTY with 20-40 people teams, back on the PS2 generation. And they would release multiple games/sequels on a single console.
now, while the current cost and complexity is getting unsane, we can't do anything about it, thankfully gaming has expanded to the point a big part of the costs have been covered with more sales.there will be a big change eventually, but for now we can just enjoy the games that are being done with the current model
now, while the current cost and complexity is getting unsane, we can't do anything about it, thankfully gaming has expanded to the point a big part of the costs have been covered with more sales.there will be a big change eventually, but for now we can just enjoy the games that are being done with the current model
SEGAvangelist
Member
All I fucking play is Brotato lately, and I'm happy.
ProtoByte
Weeb Underling
There's no gaslighting. You're just failing to understand a few things, or not acknowledging them. I think you've only half thought this through.
Firstly, I bet you haven't done any comparative analysis on the balance sheets of the 90s versus now. Whatever the numbers are, I can guarantee you that if you really inspect them, profits made today are more reliant on things other than just selling the game as compared to back then. People were actually paying way more for games back then, not just adjusted for inflation. Yes, the audience was smaller, and that problem was somewhat solved with the boost in the number of gamers (which was a direct result of the increased budgets and technological advances in the medium - no matter how much people pretend like tech, graphics and visuals don't matter now), but that number is not growing like it used to and getting outpaced by the amount of time, money and effort that goes into this stuff.
Which leads into the second point: If you were making a game in the 90s or 2000s, the project generally lasted 2-3 years max with tens of people at most. If you make a 10 million dollar profit, especially in 2000s money, that's golden.
As you know, that's not the case today. There is so much more money, so much more time, and so much more at risk when embarking on the production of a major game today. And Harada is talking from a fighting game perspective, a genre that's stayed about the same in scope for most of 30 years at this point. Do I need to get into the 5-7 year productions that most major, non-annual titles have to go through now? The thousands that have a direct hand in the game's production over those years?
So if you make 30 million dollars on a 200-300 million dollar investment over 6 years of medium-high intensity development, it's almost not worth it. The profit motive is not as present, especially since you're on the hook for a loss just as high or much bigger if just a few things go wrong.
I would've thought more people understood this post Insomniac leak.
poodaddy
Member
My most played games in the last decade are bound to be Streets of Rogue, Third Strike, (yes still), random Yakuza games, and Blasphemous despite having, for some reason, purchased most of the big AAA titles at some point or another or having access to them through either PS Plus or Gamepass, trying them for a half hour, and just putting them down out of boredom.
At some point, developers forgot that spending 200 million dollars on a game, while nice and all, doesn't mean it's automatically fun, and if it's not fun....why bother? If I want cinematic masterpieces I can browse through my library and grab a Kubrick or Coppola, but if I want fun then dammit I'm playing something with a satisfying loop, fun art, rad music, and great sound design.
Hydroxy
Member
I
If they reduce the scope of the games and shorter development cycle the budget will come down significantly aa well. People aren't demanding most cutting edge graphics anymore. They want good games.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
On average? No. Also it's less about sales and more about profits. A AAA game back in 1998 that costed say $10 million to make, $5 million to market & distribute and sold 5 million copies @ $50 each would have a revenue of $250 million against a $15 million total budget. But adjusted for today's inflation rate, that'd actually be $473 million of revenue on a $28 million budget (budget-to-revenue ratio of ~ 1:16.6)
How many AAA games are pulling margins like that these days? I'd say zero. Of course you have AAA games these days that can "easily" do 10 million or even 20 million copies instead of just 5 million, but they're working with budgets at least 20x that $12 million to make a game that can sell those 10-20 million copies (budget-to-revenue ratio of ~ 1:3 for 10 million copies @ $70 each on a $240 million budget).
So yeah, the average AAA game or I'd say even the average game in general today is selling more raw copies than games in the '90s, but they aren't generating budget-to-revenue or profit margins at scale with games in the '90s, that's for sure. Which is a way to say, they're making a bit more money on average, but need more copies sold to do it, while spending a lot more on development creating much smaller margins compared to a similar type of game from the '90s.
100% agreed. I think with rare exceptions, the typical budgets of what we'd call "AAA" games back in the late '90s was probably around $10-$20 million, and often that also included marketing. If not, then at most marketing expenses shot up to $10 million for the absolute biggest games (keep in mind, even in 1995 or 1996, spending $25 million on a marketing campaign for an entire console was considered "big money").
Big games nowadays might typically move 10 million copies instead of the 3-5 million vast majority of big games did in the '90s (or through most of the '00s, even), but the margins from the '90s or early/mid '00s haven't scaled upward enough on the revenue fronts to keep profit margins the same. The profit margins have shrunk considerably (for B2P sales), even when moving 2-3x the number of copies at full price, because development costs have ballooned at a much faster rate than the increase in revenue.
Hence why a lot of the revenue and higher profit margins from big games today come from DLC, and MTX add-on content.
Last edited:
Roxkis_ii
Banned
If gaming budgets are unsustainable, how are we as consumers supposed to stop that??
Assuming it's nothing we as customers we can do about how gaming budgets are decided, why care about something not in your control?
LordBlodgett
Member
I'm almost never worried about developers using DLC to fleece the whales and get their money back. As long as the game play is awesome and I'm not forced to buy shit to play (Pay to Win is a no go). I won't waste time playing grindy games, but Tekken 8 is not that.
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
Here’s an insane idea. Hear me out. How about a gameplay focus game with a creative idea, modest budget and a realistic timeframe?
justiceiro
Marlboro: Other M
Wild idea, but hear me out: maybe a out of context tweet from harada during a discussion with randons on the internet is not the most reliable source of information regarding budget of games in general.
Even his declaration is not that well thought, he start talking about server costs and suddenly talk about quality of assets?
Tweets are just brain farts guys, we all know that and we farted a lot there too. Let's move on.
Even his declaration is not that well thought, he start talking about server costs and suddenly talk about quality of assets?
Tweets are just brain farts guys, we all know that and we farted a lot there too. Let's move on.
SlimeGooGoo
Banned
.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Because it can and will affect the thing that you love. Plus.....stop crapping on games that are "ONLY" 10 hours in length will help too.
Roxkis_ii
Banned
It may affect some games I like but if it's nothing I can do about it personally, it doesn't seem worth my limited amount of fucks I have to give.
I wise man once said:
"God please give me the patience to reconcile what I am unable to change. Give me the strength to change what I can, and the wisdom to distinguish between the two."
Love gaming, but not so much that you stress yourself over something you have no control of. If AAA gaming dies overnight, pleople will still be gaming the next day, and it will still be people who have a desire to make and sell games (and the cycle would likely start over again).
I personally don't mind smaller games. In fact I think games need to have their scope reduced to balance their budgets.
CamHostage
Member
I'm pretty sure that you're going to find any major games from the PS1 era to now which have increased sales 50X+ or more. Tekken 3 sold approx 8.3 million copies; Tekken 7 sold approx 12m. That's not even 2X. Grand Theft Auto 1 did 3mil, GTA 5 is recorded at 140m over its 10-year run, which is just shy of that (but also is an insane figure not likely to be duplicated; the next-nearest GTA only did 25m.)
Also, game prices have generally not leapt up with the price of inflation. Games tend to be more than they were in the PS1 era (when discs allowed manufacturing/distribution to not be murder on the total budget), but not 79.54% more after 25-30 years of inflation. (And that's not counting indies, which fill up the low end of the market that used to be the bargain-bin of old games or the shelves of used games.)
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
Yeah, it seems like the systems were way more different back then. Now it's just X86 PCs with different performance levels (outside of Switch).
Sinfulgore
Member
One of the biggest expenses in game development is salaries so the more employees working on a project and the longer it takes to make the more expensive it will be. And having lots of employees and spending 5+ years on a game doesn't mean it will be great. In earlier generations, we got God of War 1-3 and Gears of War 1-3 all in the span of 5 years. Now on average, it's 4 years between each release, and at least in my opinion, God of War and Gears of War 1-3 are far superior to their modern releases.
Sure but why treat it as if that’s just a thing devs have decided to do? This has been a dance for two - gamers have been demanding ever more spectacular graphics and production standards and its long since become insane.
For proof just see any one of 124,367 different threads here where poster after poster has mouth-frothing meltdowns because a game doesn’t have 10 trillion polygons per mm (you get my point).
The standards that many gamers have now are truly out of control.
It takes two to tango, so don’t just blame the studios like they weren’t serving a demand from the market.
Last edited:
Wow, so simple. Why didn’t the studios think of that? Why are they needlessly maintaining such expensive high headcounts?
The weird thing is that are people who seriously believe this kind of glib nonsense.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
Cause most corpos are stupid and don't know how game dev work. Far too many think you can solve stuff by just throwing people at the problem.