If Sony huge cinematic 3 person action/adventure games are so successful, why there’s no other publishers trying to make this type of games?

[Era of not Yakuza]

MS has been trying to replicate this since 2013 without success. Making games is hard, it takes time, resources, most companies have investors and they want that bonus at the end of the semester. This is something that Seamus Blackley said. Sony had the luxury of coming from the music business before making video games and they knew that creative work takes time.

Seamus explaining how it was to develop games at MS in the earlier years

 

[Deleted member 91227]

There's more money to be made with MP/service games that can be monetized without MTs a d expansions, map packs etc. IF they find success and build a base.

I think more AAA publishers are willing to take a chance in achieving that IF. Plus budgets are often probably lower so even if they don't catch on the loss is probably smaller than dumping $100+ million into a cinematic single player game that needs to sell a lot of copies to make a profit.

 

[Platy]

But we've been having that for years especially in regards to Zelda and Pokemon. Shit you even have a good amount of mobile knockoffs.

It's in the AAA space we've not been having stuff like that and you could even argue that Nintendo has only just recently been bring their games into the AAA space as well.

Click to shrink...

Most of the zelda and pokemon copies are indies, which does not even enter A territory

 

[ILikeFeet]

Most of the zelda and pokemon copies are indies, which does not even enter A territory

Click to shrink...

That reminds me, how is Temtem doing?

 

[IOTS]

literally every second game tried to be uncharted for a while.

Click to shrink...

People often say this but the only games that come to mind is the Tomb Raider reboot. Even GOW had more games like Dantes Inferno and Castlevania Lords of Shadow (both pretty great btw.) going for the GOW likeness.

 

[RedSwirl]

Mechanically they're very similar to Ubisoft games but Sony 1st party games focus way more on cinematic presentation, making huge leaps in animation in particular, making the acting and character drama a major selling point at the same time.

People have already mentioned this kind of game is simultaneously expensive as shit to make and also hard to monetize -- Mario Kart 8 and Animal Crossing probably cost a lot less to make but are selling a shitload more than Last of Us 2.

Maybe Sony has just cultivated and maintained a certain talent in those areas over the years at studios like Naughty Dog and Santa Monica, but another reason they can make games with those qualities from a business perspective is because they're 1st party. They're designed to sell consoles and are subsidized by hardware sales. Rockstar can do it because it's been smartly cultivating its brand for 20 years ever since the explosive success of GTAIII, so they have enough money and creative security to spend the better part of a decade making Red Dead 2.

 

[nib95]

Several other studios and publishers do, but the reality is many do it with varying levels of success, polish etc, eg Gears of War, Tomb Raider, Ryse, Mad Max, Mafia III, Assassin's Creed, LA Noire, Quantum Break, Control etc.

Hell, even Sony has fumbled hard in this area, eg The Order 1886, though I appreciate that was made by Ready at Dawn and not actually Sony.

It's not like some of these games aren't super expensive or didn't take years and years to develop either, they just weren't all as successful or critically acclaimed.

 

[Speevy]

I don't know what secret sauce Sony has to make these types of games, but a company saying "Let's
do that." in regards to The Last of Us is probably not a recipe for success.

 

[SuperFakerBros]

You could also ask why Sony isn't making big online games like CoD or Fortnite or why other folk aren't making games like Animal Crossing or why Nintendo hasn't made a game like League of Legends or World of Warcraft. You don't need to make everything, especially when what you already have is successful, and sometimes it's very difficult to break into something so completely different either due to what your studios focus on or because others are firmly established within them

Nintendo has really good years without a doubt like 2017 and 2019 which a lot of those games you listed are from but they also have their drought years like 2018 and 2020.

Click to shrink...

Not exactly different from any other publisher. Hell, even those "drought" years had some multi-million sellers. They just stand out more as they're the ones whom have to primarily support their platform

A lot of good games flop. A lot of games better than what nintendo produces sell not even a tenth of what some nintendo games sell.

Click to shrink...

Lol I wonder if you'd apply the same logic for games better than what Sony puts out also flopping. Like some of y'all ain't even subtle with your console warring

 

[Rosenkrantz]

Ok, reading this topic, I can say that I have no clue what constitutes for "cinematic 3rd person action-adventure" because seemingly everything from The Last of Us to The Witcher to Ubi Open Worlds is that.

 

[iksenpets]

Sony got good at them, but also Sony reaps additional benefits in terms of the prestige high-end exclusives bring to their console brand that no 3rd party would ever get. A series on consistently good games brings Sony profits beyond just the sales of each of those games in isolation, and that's just not true for 3rd parties.

 

[F2BBm3ga]

It's because those games are really really expensive. Like several hundred million dollar each.

Click to shrink...

wait, what you mean several hundred million dollars each? That would be more than your biggest blockbuster movies.

are you including marketing dollars?

 

[Unlovedjew]

i would guess its something to do with the seemingly limitless budget and development time sony is willing to give to their first party big games. Nintendo does a similar thing but with a whole gameplay first over cinematic storytelling approach

 

[Deleted member 10737]

um... there's tons of devs and publishers releasing cinematic 3rd person action adventure games.

 

[Cheesebu]

People really trying to say AC, Tomb Raider and Jedi Fallen Order are on that level?

Maybe they are reaching some of the lower tier Sony projects but they are miles away from Naughty Dog, Suckerpunch and Insomniac. Graphics, game feel, moment to moment gameplay are just not even close.

They have a vested interest in making those games shine the way they do, but that doesn't change the facts imo.

RDR2 is definitely on the same level though. And gameplay wise, Nintendo does the same. I don't think they have the same drive to make big cinematic AAA games but they let Mario and Zelda cook for as long as is necessary to make sure it meets their standards.

 

[SuperFakerBros]

People really trying to say AC, Tomb Raider and Jedi Fallen Order are on that level?

Maybe they are reaching some of the lower tier Sony projects but they are miles away from Naughty Dog, Suckerpunch and Insomniac. Graphics, game feel, moment to moment gameplay are just not even close.

They have a vested interest in making those games shine the way they do, but that doesn't change the facts imo.

RDR2 is definitely on the same level though. And gameplay wise, Nintendo does the same. I don't think they have the same drive to make big cinematic AAA games but they let Mario and Zelda cook for as long as is necessary to make sure it meets their standards.

Click to shrink...

In terms of budget, they're more or less in line and, even when it comes to graphics, I wouldn't say that they're super far apart anything. They look pretty good. This isn't like how it was on the PS3, where most games weren't anywhere near as nice looking as Uncharted or God of War

 

[modiz]

If Jason's article didn't make that obvious, it's because they are super expensive to make. At the same time they only have one way of generating revenue via one time payment and maybe an expansion. So in essence, publishers see it as more of a production risk than other kinds of games.

 

[IOTS]

Lol I wonder if you'd apply the same logic for games better than what Sony puts out also flopping. Like some of y'all ain't even subtle with your console warring

Click to shrink...

Sigh, you console warriors really need to stop projecting.

Was it really such a controversial statement to make that a good game is no garuantee for success? That there are better games than something Nintendo produces that dont sell nearly as much as some Nintendo games?

I would take a bunch of low selling games over the Uncharted franchise. Happy now?

 

[Japanmanx3]

Commitment to quality isn't the same. Sony has the budget to ensure it. It's not the PS2/GCN/Xbox era where platformers and 3rd person multiplatform games all have room to live. I appreciate the effort PlayStation Studios gives though. Not many other games compare...

 

[Cheesebu]

In terms of budget, they're more or less in line and, even when it comes to graphics, I wouldn't say that they're super far apart anything. They look pretty good. This isn't like how it was on the PS3, where most games weren't anywhere near as nice looking as Uncharted or God of War

Click to shrink...

I know the budgets aren't hugely different but they are making games for two systems, or three counting PC. And I'm not saying they don't look good, but I can't say they are anywhere near TLoU2 or GOW. It's been a while since I played Spider-Man but my memory was that it was up there for the type of game it is.

None of the three 3rd party games I listed are really close to those. Which is understandable, but still true imo. I agree that it's not on the level of PS3 exclusives, but there is still an obvious and tangible gulf.

 

[Nintendo]

People really trying to say AC, Tomb Raider and Jedi Fallen Order are on that level?

Maybe they are reaching some of the lower tier Sony projects but they are miles away from Naughty Dog, Suckerpunch and Insomniac. Graphics, game feel, moment to moment gameplay are just not even close.

They have a vested interest in making those games shine the way they do, but that doesn't change the facts imo.

RDR2 is definitely on the same level though. And gameplay wise, Nintendo does the same. I don't think they have the same drive to make big cinematic AAA games but they let Mario and Zelda cook for as long as is necessary to make sure it meets their standards.

Click to shrink...

Only Naughty Dog and Santa Monica games are above that. Suckerpunch, Guerilla, and Insomniac games are on the same as AC, Tomb Raider,...etc. if not even lower.

 

[craven68]

They cost a lot of money but there are a lot of games beside sony.
From microsoft, gears of war or even halo, you can put them there .
From square, you have tomb raider, final fantasy.
from capcom, you have devil may cry.
From ubisoft, the Ac ip, valhalla is clearly there ( even if you love the story or not ).
There are a lot of other but it's true that other publisher, they are only making one or two but sony are all in in this kind of games ( and i m happy with it since after jrpg, this is what i love the most ).

edit: Cheesebu Maybe for you, but i really like god of war but prefer valhalla ( even more the side quest in valhalla that felt like playing god of war).
Spiderman, story wise was not that good, i really like the ending, but felt too much long ( i have to play miles morales, shorter and maybe better for me).
For me, clearly naughty dog are above the other studio from sony ( or other studio in general) but not all. Uncharted are amazing, last of us 1 remake, i did it for the first time only some weeks ago and was clearly amazed by how good is it even for today standard. ( i have to play last of us 2 ).
But saying that all sony studio are better is wrong, the coalion that made gears of war 4 and 5 are so good too , remedy with quantum break it was magic too ( i prefer it than control ).
Capcom with DMC 5 delivered a game with such a smooth gameplay, beautiful cutscene etc....
we should be happy to have so many studio making such a great game in all platform.
I m just sad that nintendo didn't try to make at least one game like that ( even if we can put astral chain in that category)

 

[Rosenkrantz]

I know the budgets aren't hugely different but they are making games for two systems, or three counting PC. And I'm not saying they don't look good, but I can't say they are anywhere near TLoU2 or GOW. It's been a while since I played Spider-Man but my memory was that it was up there for the type of game it is.

None of the three 3rd party games I listed are really close to those. Which is understandable, but still true imo. I agree that it's not on the level of PS3 exclusives, but there is still an obvious and tangible gulf.

Click to shrink...

I've bought Horizon: Zero Dawn recently and the game most definitely has worse facial animation and lyp synching than CD's Tomb Raider trilogy or good chunk of recent AssCreeds, sometimes to the point of being barely above of pre-patched Andromeda. It's not as cut and dry as you make it sound.

 

[SuperFakerBros]

I know the budgets aren't hugely different but they are making games for two systems, or three counting PC. And I'm not saying they don't look good, but I can't say they are anywhere near TLoU2 or GOW. It's been a while since I played Spider-Man but my memory was that it was up there for the type of game it is.

None of the three 3rd party games I listed are really close to those. Which is understandable, but still true imo. I agree that it's not on the level of PS3 exclusives, but there is still an obvious and tangible gulf.

Click to shrink...

In terms of visuals, I'd say they're close enough or at least enough for me to not really care. Like it's only really a big gulf for those who are anal about it and, even then, it's mainly for Naughty Dog or Sony Santa Monica, whom I'd argue are beaten by someone like Rockstar. The rest aren't exactly putting out games that seem far and beyond everyone else when it comes to production values. Like Spider-Man has never once felt or looked like something beyond most 3rd party games on PS4 to me

Sigh, you console warriors really need to stop projecting.

Was it really such a controversial statement to make that a good game is no garuantee for success? That there are better games than something Nintendo produces that dont sell nearly as much as some Nintendo games?

I would take a bunch of low selling games over the Uncharted franchise. Happy now?

Click to shrink...

Fam, you've made and make plenty of console warring posts and, yeah, that is one of them. For some reason, on my end, I have never needed to try to downplay the success of Sony games. I wonder why

It's only really a point to bring up if you're trying to knock down the success of their games as more to do with their brand than their quality

That is in no way equal to what you said before

 

[Cheesebu]

Only Naughty Dog and Santa Monica games are above that. Suckerpunch, Guerilla, and Insomniac games are on the same as AC, Tomb Raider,...etc.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure what the etc refers to, but I can't agree with those two. Horizon is miles above those. GoT is easily above those in both gameplay and overall look and feel.

 

[vhoanox]

If Red Dead Redemption 2 sells as much as TLOU, GOW or GOT ... it will be a major flop.

3rd party studios do not have the same advantage as Sony's 1st party (license fee, 30% store sale cut ... ). Their expectations are much higher. You often hear they need 10 millions to be called successful, new Rockstar games at least 30 40 millions to be worth their efforts.

One other thing: TIME. When development time ranges from 4 to 7 years, how many these cinematic AAA games one studio can make in one generation: one or two. Even more companies push for it, you will get just a few new games, not exactly flood the market.

 

[Jencks]

Only Naughty Dog and Santa Monica games are above that. Suckerpunch, Guerilla, and Insomniac games are on the same as AC, Tomb Raider,...etc. if not even lower.

Click to shrink...

Have to agree with this. Santa Monica and Naughty Dog are top of the line but everything else is pretty standard stuff. Horizon, GoT, and Spider-Man look nice enough but the gameplay is pretty by the numbers.

 

[Morrdji]

Risk reward thing i'm assuming. High risk with potentially bad reward

 

[craven68]

Horizon 1 is really good but can never be at top because of his shitty presentation for dialogue where people feel like horrible to watch, but the game is beautiful ( too bad it crashed so many time on my pc, waiting for the ps give away )

 

[Bookman]

I think that you all forgetting something.

Do you'll remember when singelplayer was dead and then Skirim came? There is obviously trends in gaming and they are changing constantly. I don't think that the resent revival of 3d action adv games has had the time to produce new games with the exception for Jedi fallen order.

And that is one interesting exception. It's basically EA trying out exactly what you are saying and it seems to have worked? Just as capcoms resident evil remake etc...

So a big answer to your question is that the industry hasn't had time to make business decisions made on the success of the lates singel player games and , perhaps more important, the failure of athem, avangers etc...

Another interesting aspects is the potential sale for GAS vs singelplayer games.
I have no idea how avengers will sell in a cople of years and what the cost will be to maintain servers etc...
But I have noticed that Assassin's Creed Syndicate is on sale on stadia. We haven't really had digital sale on cross platform (and with subscription services) before. Neither this attitude towards backward compatibility.

A singelplayer game like Assassin's Creed Syndicate is making revenue 5 years after release. If course not that much but still. Will it make money in another 5 or ten years? 20?
The thing is if you as a developer only saw potential big sale the first months and a tale of lesser numbers 1-2 yers from release you may have to reconsider now.

I mean even tombrider (who many of you used as a example) didn't live upp to expectations but I wounder how much the first game actually have been selling now? I mean its on every plattform (except swich?) and when new user grow in to the media it will probably continue to sell for a long time.

Another aspect is that gamedeveloping takes long time. Games like Jedi fallen order started development in ca 2013 approximate around the time xbox one was realeast. Think about that for a second. The last of us hadn't been released (?)or had just been released.
Hell we probably didn't now if the new consoles was going to have any users or if people would just play on mobiles.

Now I'm not saying that this singelplayer is more profitable then other games I'm just saying that the industry hasn't had time to really react to the success of example JFO, resident evil remake, sonys lates success, the impact of gamepass, potential sales via backward compatibility ore even the success of the new consoles ... and that could mean that many now rethinking their business model.

As you all say it's very expensive to make them and perhaps the risk is bigger? Then you need the talent etc but I do think that more singelplayer are coming within a few years and that sony absolutely won't be alone in that niche.

Edit: actually its sort of already happened. We have remedys game control, EA seems to working on sinfelplayer dragon age I don't know how the new batman games will turn out but both rocksteady and Ubisoft seems to make some sort of cinematic 3d person avd games in some sort of GAS style.

 

[Roshin]

The boring answer is that they probably looked at what would bring in the most money with as little risk as possible and went with that.

 

[aronmayo]

Ignoring publisher cuts and salary hierarchy...my theory is that big budget is not a viable business model for majority of organisations.

A very loose example:

Small budget: A game made for $10m with 30 people that goes on to make $100m (and there are plenty of these, these days) makes each developer $3million. Only $10m needs to be reinvested to build the next game.

Big budget: A game made for $100m with 500 people that goes on to make $500m (there are not many of these but Sony makes a lot of them) makes each developer $800k. $100m needs to be reinvested into making the next game, too.

Everyone is chasing better percentages and return on investment. The choice is clear IMO. In reality it's not this simple, but I think it's a good, simplified take on the differences and why big budget isn't as common anymore.

 

[MizziPizzi]

I wouldn't say that, a lot of companies make them. The only difference is production value, Sony is willing to throw larger amounts of money into them compared to others.

 

[Deleted member 23046]

That's where things are becoming interesting, because to fill up these new consoles with more visual granularity isn't simple as pumping graphical settings on a last-gen game. While it's a great opportunity for small and medium scaled projects to reach a far better rendering without compromises, for the bigger one it's surely a challenge that will take years to be streamlined.

Only Naughty Dog and Santa Monica games are above that. Suckerpunch, Guerilla, and Insomniac games are on the same as AC, Tomb Raider,...etc. if not even lower.

Click to shrink...

Have to agree with this. Santa Monica and Naughty Dog are top of the line but everything else is pretty standard stuff. Horizon, GoT, and Spider-Man look nice enough but the gameplay is pretty by the numbers.

Click to shrink...

If you are talking about a setup or a formula regarding quest design or world building it's surely evident or debatable but gameplay is what differentiates these games.

HZD is a Mecha Hunter funfair where you are the prey and have to focus on moving and surviving as much as using the proper arsenal and targeting ; GoT focus on giving strong feedback and impacts with a melee flow dictated by ennemies classes and an escapist environment - and Spiderman is a rhythm game where the style is as important as the kill count and opponents notes to use on an environnemental music sheet.

So it's quite the opposite for me, the gameplay is the least formulaic aspect of these games, although it doesn't reinvent the wheel on everything you clearly feel the amount of work provided on to make it feel polished and varied.

 

[Ombala]

They are actually very expensive too make and not safe bets that ppl tend too think.

 

[JSG87]

Bro Mario Kart 8 is about to probably hit 40 million by end of gen if not more and not a Kart racer in sight.

Noone has to copy. Its not neccessary.

Click to shrink...

I agree. Each platform holder had their thing when it comes to video games. Nintendo's is 2D/3D Platformers with other big games on the side.

Sony do Big Cinematic AAA Masterpieces.

Microsoft, I have no idea. Shooting games? I've never owned an Xbox 🤣BUT they do have Gamepass which is a boon for them.

I'd say that's also the main reason why all three are doing well because they all cater to their own audience.

If every developer and platform holder started released massive AAA budget cinematic games, well I'm sure you'd see a fair few people out of work.

 

[En-ou]

Only Naughty Dog and Santa Monica games are above that. Suckerpunch, Guerilla, and Insomniac games are on the same as AC, Tomb Raider,...etc. if not even lower.

Click to shrink...

Tomb Raider, AC, etc are miles above ND recent outputs which are movie games with standard TPS gameplay. Most of it is pretty graphics and animation. That's it. SM is probably the best at Sony.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

Tomb Raider, AC, etc are miles above ND recent outputs which are movie games with standard TPS gameplay. Most of it is pretty graphics and animation. That's it. SM is probably the best at Sony.

Click to shrink...

I'm no fan of current ND at all, but new TR trilogy literally modeled after Uncharted (full circle and all).

AC is a more "gamey" game series tho, no denying that.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Tomb Raider, AC, etc are miles above ND recent outputs which are movie games with standard TPS gameplay. Most of it is pretty graphics and animation. That's it. SM is probably the best at Sony.

Click to shrink...

Don't know, looks pretty good to me

 

[Nestunt]

It's not about the genre. It's about the threshold.

Hearing that games like Days Gone won't get a sequel anytime soon. The lack of will to give Ready at Dawn another shot at that level. Or even the rumors that God of War (2018) and The Last of Us (2013) were in an "unacceptable" state months before launch...

This makes me think that other publishers would have green-lit these projects with quite a different curatorship.

 

[mjp2417]

Naughty Dog is an immensely talented studio who just happens to specialize in linear "cinematic" 3rd person action games (but those descriptors are largely incidental to why their games are actually good); there's no real special sauce beyond that. Most of Sony's other big budget western stuff is either pretty conventional open world games like Spiderman, Horizon, and Ghost of Tsushima, or nu-God of War which straddles the line between both but isn't particularly good at either.

 

[giapel]

The answer is, they do. They're just not as good as Sony's.
It's like asking why aren't we getting more platformers like Mario since Mario sells like hotcakes? Well we do, they're just not as good.

 

[Redcrayon]

Building up to have studios specialised in putting out high quality, huge games that are critically acclaimed and successful and reliably so over a decade or more takes a lot of time, money and talent focused in that direction. Not all publishers are happy to stay the course when the risk of failure is studio closure over a budget of €500 million these days, and not all of them have something like the talent at Naughty Dog to base a company-wide strategy for multiple studios around with these type of games. It makes sense for large publishers to build a long-term strategy around what their studios are reliably good at, which is why Nintendo isn't leaping to making cinematic action adventures when people show up for their stuff on a regular basis over decades. Ubisoft does much the same with Assassins Creed, where it's not just one studio focused on it, the whole publisher plans worldwide around multiple studios that are directed to support production on that level, as the projects are that massive and important for them. Half a decade to make and they can't afford to fail as it ends in closed studios. Hundreds of millions to develop, hundreds of millions more in marketing. That's a risk worth taking and basing a business around once you've developed the pipeline (see also: the MCU) as it's then a differentiating factor not many can match. But it's way beyond what any one studio can do without top-level support and strategy these days, and it's risky as hell to decide to get into if you haven't organically built it up.

Essentially, 'reliable success' and a massive support pipeline is what you want to support Sony's strategy, built up over time, but that's hard to make happen when chasing industry trends (see: EA) or trying to start from scratch (see: Amazon's crazed 'everything needs to be CoD' example), and most studios find something a bit less risky to focus on along the way.

 

[grand]

Because opportunity cost is a thing

 

[Redcrayon]

Because opportunity cost is a thing

Click to shrink...

I love how you summarised my long post in six words :D

 

[nelsonroyale]

Not that easy to get right plus banking on other approaches.

 

[squidyj]

some of y'all ain't even subtle with your console warring

Click to shrink...

I can't even

 

[Deleted member 81269]

TLOU2 gameplay on par with Tomb Raider???

 

[SuperFakerBros]

I can't even

Click to shrink...

???

 

[Decarb]

TLOU2 gameplay on par with Tomb Raider???

Click to shrink...

You read amazing things on Era sometimes.