Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
- Achtung Englander
- Posts: 2196
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:37 pm
- Location: Wokingham
Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/ ... en-gamelab
In a nutshell game budgets have escalated to $80M - $100M 25+ hour experiences while retaining the $60 or £50 price tag. Sooner or later something will give.
Discuss.
In a nutshell game budgets have escalated to $80M - $100M 25+ hour experiences while retaining the $60 or £50 price tag. Sooner or later something will give.
Discuss.
Games playing : Bioshock (Remastered) / Total War Britannia / Dirt 4
- DjchunKfunK
- Bar Staff
- Posts: 2197
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:02 am
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
If only he had been in a position in which he could have made this change.
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
Part of the problem is that too many games are open world games when they shouldn't be. He mentions RDR2 and God of War, which are good examples of this: RDR2 absolutely warranted being open world as it was central to the experience, whereas God of War for me would have been just as good (if not better) as a linear 15 hour game. The game was about Kratos and his son - I didn't care that I could unlock all sorts of extra bits by exploring off the beaten path, so I didn't bother.
I also wonder how much of the huge development cost of a AAA game is due to their typically huge scale and how much is down to technological expectations such as better graphics, etc. Another major consideration in cost has to be the increasing use of voice talent, especially with games where there is branching dialogue or where the player's character has to voice different genders and races. It's a huge undertaking, and honestly there are some games where I'd prefer they'd shut up and let me read instead. Pillars of Eternity springs to mind - there is lots of voiced dialogue mixed in with non-voiced narrative text, which means you're frequently listening to one thing while trying to read another. I'd rather they'd saved the money of the (admittedly great) voice talent and let me imagine my own character voices instead.
I also wonder how much of the huge development cost of a AAA game is due to their typically huge scale and how much is down to technological expectations such as better graphics, etc. Another major consideration in cost has to be the increasing use of voice talent, especially with games where there is branching dialogue or where the player's character has to voice different genders and races. It's a huge undertaking, and honestly there are some games where I'd prefer they'd shut up and let me read instead. Pillars of Eternity springs to mind - there is lots of voiced dialogue mixed in with non-voiced narrative text, which means you're frequently listening to one thing while trying to read another. I'd rather they'd saved the money of the (admittedly great) voice talent and let me imagine my own character voices instead.
- DjchunKfunK
- Bar Staff
- Posts: 2197
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:02 am
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
I disagree on God of War, I thought it struck a good balance between being an open world game and a more linear story. If it had just gone down the linear route it would have been a lot like the previous games which I wasn't really interested in.
The one thing nobody really mentions when they talk about the explosion of these types of games is the human cost, RDR 2 and Last of Us 2 might be huge technically impressive worlds but they have caused great harm to employees. Same will probably apply to Cyberpunk as well, making these worlds really sing takes not only a lot of money but a lot of sacrifice.
The one thing nobody really mentions when they talk about the explosion of these types of games is the human cost, RDR 2 and Last of Us 2 might be huge technically impressive worlds but they have caused great harm to employees. Same will probably apply to Cyberpunk as well, making these worlds really sing takes not only a lot of money but a lot of sacrifice.
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
I always feel hesitant to give much of an opinion on these things, since I'm one of those who refuses to pay full RRP for modern games regardless of their length. They're too expensive all round for me. I just wait and play it for half-price or less. A lot less in some cases. Or get a cheap key (got BL3 for £30 less than RRP recently).
BL3 actually got me thinking. It's huge - twice as large an area overall than BL2 I reckon. And sure, a single playthrough took about 50 hours to complete it instead of around 30 for BL2. But the additional length added nothing itself; if anything one or two areas began to drag, which never happened with BL2. (Although I still enjoyed BL3 just as much overall).
So in this instance they didn't really need to make it bigger I don't think. But other games really do need to be massive - pure open-world/exploration games for example.
BL3 actually got me thinking. It's huge - twice as large an area overall than BL2 I reckon. And sure, a single playthrough took about 50 hours to complete it instead of around 30 for BL2. But the additional length added nothing itself; if anything one or two areas began to drag, which never happened with BL2. (Although I still enjoyed BL3 just as much overall).
So in this instance they didn't really need to make it bigger I don't think. But other games really do need to be massive - pure open-world/exploration games for example.
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
Firstly, I think 25 hours is too long for a game unless it has an absolutely stellar core gameplay loop. I could play Doom 2016 or Eternal for a hundred hours for example, but I get tired of the vast majority of games long before they end, and it's the reason I could probably count on my fingers the number of games I've finished in the last five years. Having a length of 25 hours means that the run time is going to be padded out with other activities, and that loss of focus on the core game means both parts usually suffer.
But secondly, and perhaps closer to the actual point, whether a game is considered profitable or not depends very much on the expectations for it. Remember when 3.4million copies of Tomb Raider was vastly below expectations? Sadly AAA publishers are beholden to their shareholders in most cases, and so whether a game is profitable or not may not really be down to how well it sells.
But secondly, and perhaps closer to the actual point, whether a game is considered profitable or not depends very much on the expectations for it. Remember when 3.4million copies of Tomb Raider was vastly below expectations? Sadly AAA publishers are beholden to their shareholders in most cases, and so whether a game is profitable or not may not really be down to how well it sells.
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
And service based games which continue to generate revenue are always going to be a better investment for shareholders than one off purchases which you don't play again when you've finished the campaign. That's why the industry has moved so far in this direction over the years, it simply isn't considered viable enough for a customer to pay £40 for a game and then leave it be; the publisher wants it to hook the player and keep them coming back through DLC, having a huge open world to soak up hours, adding microtransactions and other similar mechanics. GTA V still routinely makes more money from Shark Cards for Take Two than a whole host of their other games do with outright sales.Raid wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:30 pmFirstly, I think 25 hours is too long for a game unless it has an absolutely stellar core gameplay loop. I could play Doom 2016 or Eternal for a hundred hours for example, but I get tired of the vast majority of games long before they end, and it's the reason I could probably count on my fingers the number of games I've finished in the last five years. Having a length of 25 hours means that the run time is going to be padded out with other activities, and that loss of focus on the core game means both parts usually suffer.
But secondly, and perhaps closer to the actual point, whether a game is considered profitable or not depends very much on the expectations for it. Remember when 3.4million copies of Tomb Raider was vastly below expectations? Sadly AAA publishers are beholden to their shareholders in most cases, and so whether a game is profitable or not may not really be down to how well it sells.
There was nothing wrong with the model of releasing smaller self contained games which didn't balloon to huge development costs. The only problem with it was that it was less profitable than the "Games as a service" model which most AAA publishers have been pushing on us for years. I lost interest in it all a long time ago and very rarely buy any AAA games at all anymore.
The huge backlash against blocking progress behind microtransactions and such has pushed us back a little as the games as a service model hasn't been hugely accepted by consumers, but we're still very much living in that kind of industry. It's just that the lines are more clearly drawn in terms of what consumers are willing to accept now.
I would love to go back to an age of publishers being willing to spend less on development but take more risks with new IPs and interesting games. I don't need 100 hour long open world games in my life anymore, 95% of them are all fundamentally the same. Give me 10-15 hour long stories from lots of different smaller developers with fresh ideas and I'll start buying games on release again.
- Achtung Englander
- Posts: 2196
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:37 pm
- Location: Wokingham
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
superb points Mantis.
The industry has really got itself into a mess over this. I have always opted for quality over quantity and more smaller games than fewer huge one but that is not what most "gamers" want. No one is buying mid tier games - it's either indies that catch the zeitgeist or huge games.
The industry has really got itself into a mess over this. I have always opted for quality over quantity and more smaller games than fewer huge one but that is not what most "gamers" want. No one is buying mid tier games - it's either indies that catch the zeitgeist or huge games.
Games playing : Bioshock (Remastered) / Total War Britannia / Dirt 4
- DjchunKfunK
- Bar Staff
- Posts: 2197
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:02 am
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
I'm going to have to disagree slightly with some of your points Mantis. One of the big reasons that publishers moved to the games as service model is because games were costing more money to make and people were unwilling to pay more upfront. So in order to cover the increased costs you either needed to sell many more units, or have a way of monetising the game after the fact. Publishers had tried micro-transactions and DLC to varying levels of success and games as a service was just a natural extension of that. This is also why you see so many stupid special editions of games, it's a way of increasing the cost of the game whilst tricking customers into thinking they are getting added value.
It is this combined with needing to sell more units that has lead to more games being openworld. Those are the types of games that work best as games as service games and also they are the most popular genre, so if you want to sell more of your game or you want to recoup costs through games as a service without having to sell millions more you need to make an openworld game.
We might all want 10-15 hour games but the truth is the market doesn't, just look at how Control sold which was a narrative driven short experience that was really well made.
I think the only company that can get away with making short experiences is Nintendo as their games hold their value so you are getting a consistent revenue and additionally they are not going up against loads of big openworld games. So customers are more willing to fork out £50 for a shorter experience.
It is this combined with needing to sell more units that has lead to more games being openworld. Those are the types of games that work best as games as service games and also they are the most popular genre, so if you want to sell more of your game or you want to recoup costs through games as a service without having to sell millions more you need to make an openworld game.
We might all want 10-15 hour games but the truth is the market doesn't, just look at how Control sold which was a narrative driven short experience that was really well made.
I think the only company that can get away with making short experiences is Nintendo as their games hold their value so you are getting a consistent revenue and additionally they are not going up against loads of big openworld games. So customers are more willing to fork out £50 for a shorter experience.
- Achtung Englander
- Posts: 2196
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:37 pm
- Location: Wokingham
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
The fact that as you say Control under performed in sales. There was also Prey. Titanfall 2 (although that most likely due to a utterly idiotic release date) is another example. People want to play these stupidly huge worlds than complain they don't have enough hours to play them and few people complete ("beat") them
I mean wtf
It is arguing for a 20 hour directors cut of The Godfather and complaining the film is too long and than wanting Coppola to make The Godfather II 30 hours long.
I mean wtf
It is arguing for a 20 hour directors cut of The Godfather and complaining the film is too long and than wanting Coppola to make The Godfather II 30 hours long.
Games playing : Bioshock (Remastered) / Total War Britannia / Dirt 4
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
I've never come across anyone who said they wanted huge game worlds AND then complained they don't have the time to complete them. Surely, people who want huge game worlds already know it's going to take longer to complete.Achtung Englander wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:35 pmPeople want to play these stupidly huge worlds than complain they don't have enough hours to play them and few people complete ("beat") them
I mean wtf
It is arguing for a 20 hour directors cut of The Godfather and complaining the film is too long and than wanting Coppola to make The Godfather II 30 hours long.
Also, there's nothing wrong with large games. I love 'em. Just like there's nothing wrong with short games.
Some of us love to get wrapped up in an epic journey. It's no less worthy than a shorter game experience.
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
That's certainly the public rationale for live service titles, but I'm just not convinced it's actually true. If the live service model was there to offset the costs of development, then surely there'd be modest increases in profits, but as an example Activision's quarterly profits have doubled over the last five years, and we're talking an extra four billion dollars here. As an extreme example, Take Two's have *tripled* since the launch of GTAV. I'm not saying that games aren't more expensive to produce, but I don't think the live service micro-transaction model is anything more than an unsustainable cash grab.DjchunKfunK wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 12:40 pmOne of the big reasons that publishers moved to the games as service model is because games were costing more money to make and people were unwilling to pay more upfront. So in order to cover the increased costs you either needed to sell many more units, or have a way of monetising the game after the fact.
- DjchunKfunK
- Bar Staff
- Posts: 2197
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:02 am
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
I don't think a large increase in profits disproves that this was not the rationale behind the move and as with all business decisions it isn't just about offsetting costs but also making a profit. If they thought they could get away with it I'm sure companies would both raise the cost of a game and continue to sell you stuff after it comes out.Raid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:19 pmThat's certainly the public rationale for live service titles, but I'm just not convinced it's actually true. If the live service model was there to offset the costs of development, then surely there'd be modest increases in profits, but as an example Activision's quarterly profits have doubled over the last five years, and we're talking an extra four billion dollars here. As an extreme example, Take Two's have *tripled* since the launch of GTAV. I'm not saying that games aren't more expensive to produce, but I don't think the live service micro-transaction model is anything more than an unsustainable cash grab.DjchunKfunK wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 12:40 pmOne of the big reasons that publishers moved to the games as service model is because games were costing more money to make and people were unwilling to pay more upfront. So in order to cover the increased costs you either needed to sell many more units, or have a way of monetising the game after the fact.
Re: Shawn Layden "AAA model not sustainable"
I'm not suggesting the meagre evidence I've accumulated from a five minute googling is enough to condemn publishers outright, I'm just not convinced by this line we've been fed. I reckon they've done their research and worked out that an increase in the up-front cost will put people off purchasing the game to begin with, but increasingly insidious microtransactions will grab more income without that initial purchase penalty. I just think there's too much awful shit being researched that only serves to milk money out of people to give them the benefit of the doubt.