No, it is not. I don't know how to explain this in the most direct and obvious way. It simply is not. That's it. Feel free to ignore if you disagree. :)
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Amy Hennig: ‘AAA development has become unsustainable’
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
No, it is not. I don't know how to explain this in the most direct and obvious way. It simply is not. That's it. Feel free to ignore if you disagree. :)
The thing I just don't see is how a game is seperated from the monetization it has. I suppose maybe cosmetic-only, but there's something to be said about the vibe and mood a game gives off, and how the mere sight or incentive, or ad signaling you to put out your wallet alone diminishes the creative side of a game experience.
In the past you'd pay upfront, 60 bucks or return 3 months later for a DLC, but you're never interrupted or encouraged inside the game to be reminded that "Hey this is a product" and "Hey, remember you can buy virtual items inside a piece of software".
For Multiplayer focused gaming or competitive, there's zero problems here whenever it's not Pay2Win. For people like me who care less for those experiences and more about experiential games or adventure/action games, it's a huge problem that hurts that artistry the industry used to have.
I definitely wonder how a company like Rockstar will be moving forward. Just looking at how long RDR2 took to make, and with every studio working on it.
There's something to be said about opening a development studio deliberately in a state with low cost of living, so the salaries could more realistically reflect that.
The problem is capitalism, not the single actions of a company.
When gamers realize these companies aren't their friends and just care about maximizing their profits and not to deliver a quality game, then things will change.
When gamers realize these companies aren't their friends and just care about maximizing their profits and not to deliver a quality game, then things will change.
Not all AAA developers are equal.
In some cases, there is extreme amount of bloat, especially in the executive ladder.
Those guys are going to feel it most.
What she should have said, and probably meant, is 'AAA development is no longer sustainable for some studios, and big changes are needed in those companies'
A blanket statement that 'all' studios are failing in the AAA market is just simply not true.
In some cases, there is extreme amount of bloat, especially in the executive ladder.
Those guys are going to feel it most.
What she should have said, and probably meant, is 'AAA development is no longer sustainable for some studios, and big changes are needed in those companies'
A blanket statement that 'all' studios are failing in the AAA market is just simply not true.
All the more gut wrenching for the developers (and the publisher) when these enormous projects are poorly received and don't sell well. But I fear AAA games will continue to lean toward safe, reliably profitable structure at the cost of creativity, they'll cut corners in certain places where effort would have been appreciated.
I don't necessarily think AAA gaming is dying anytime soon but I definitely think pubs will either double down on safe bets or scale back their major games to save cash. When you see things like BFV labelled failures after selling millions then you know something is wrong.
I must be blind because I cannot find where she said that. This seems to be mostly about big studios and their work process.
In any case, AAA won't go away but obviously companies will adjust their development pipelines and some will be more successful (Ubisoft) and some will be less successful (EA).
In any case, AAA won't go away but obviously companies will adjust their development pipelines and some will be more successful (Ubisoft) and some will be less successful (EA).
An even more proper assessment would be 'Capitalism has never been sustainable'.
Triple-AAA studios would be fine if they would just stop with the mindset that the bar must constantly get raised and every game must do GTA levels of money. Gamers now are perfectly willing to enjoy weirder, lower budget and less polished games, perhaps more than ever before. (Well, okay, I guess you could argue the PS1/PS2 era, but everything was kinda jank then.)
The industry appears quite healthy in terms of profits, but it is very unhealthy in how it normalizes the abuse of the workforce. There clearly needs to be a big change. Moreover, that change IS coming. The question is, are the big players going to help build the infrastructure and adapt alongside it, or are the workers going to have to tear down the infrastructure as it stands right now, forcing the big players to adapt on the fly as their traditional practices are thrown in their faces.
This would inevitably happen. AAA budgets have skyrocketted to dangerous and irresponsible levels, endangering the whole gaming biz following this direction. We can see the rise of indie gaming and the return of japanese developers to stardom thanks to the stalement of the western AAA development model. It's time for the industry and the major supporters of this direction to make a serious reevaluation of their current model or they might face inevitable financial struggles.
I fundamentally disagree. Enjoyed Resident Evil 2,7,MGSV,Bloodborne,Alien Isolation, God of War, BotW, Odyssey, TLG, Doom etc etc etc more than most indie games this gen.
I suspect I will enjoy Dreams, Death Stranding, Cyberpunk etc more than most indie games too.
Not sure if those all count As AAA but I have enjoyed 60 dollar boxed games with amazing experiences over the smaller 20 dollar indie games this gen.
In all fairness to Amy, I'm in the VFX industry and I don't believe she quite understands what she's talking about.
First of all, while most workers are on contract, they're not really replaced often, if you're doing an OK job usually they'll renew you, as every studio has it's own workflow etc etc and this takes time to adjust to, making new hires always a worst idea.
Second, VFX projects aren't Games, the typical project runs for 6-8 months from start to finish while games can, and often go beyond the 2 year mark, given you wouldn't want to get new hires all the time, what would be the point to put people on contracts?.
Third, VFX is wayyyy less lucrative then gaming. (for the studio).
As a bystander, the biggest problem of the gaming industry is the executives and publishers, while important to maximize the product's income, typically over pay their executives for no reason, willing to create low quality products and completely destabilizing gaming's worth in the eyes of gamers.
The audience wants quality games and are willing to wait and pay, it's the executives that are pushing towards practices such as loot boxes to get more money, for what?, honestly, for nothing, gaming is a lucrative business when managed right.
First of all, while most workers are on contract, they're not really replaced often, if you're doing an OK job usually they'll renew you, as every studio has it's own workflow etc etc and this takes time to adjust to, making new hires always a worst idea.
Second, VFX projects aren't Games, the typical project runs for 6-8 months from start to finish while games can, and often go beyond the 2 year mark, given you wouldn't want to get new hires all the time, what would be the point to put people on contracts?.
Third, VFX is wayyyy less lucrative then gaming. (for the studio).
As a bystander, the biggest problem of the gaming industry is the executives and publishers, while important to maximize the product's income, typically over pay their executives for no reason, willing to create low quality products and completely destabilizing gaming's worth in the eyes of gamers.
The audience wants quality games and are willing to wait and pay, it's the executives that are pushing towards practices such as loot boxes to get more money, for what?, honestly, for nothing, gaming is a lucrative business when managed right.
I just picked up Battlefield V for $24. Didn't that come out only a few months ago?
?
How is that a problem with capitalism? It sounds like "AAA gamers" being morons to me, which I think we all agree is a wider and very toxic issue.
If tomorrow nobody purchased games like anthem, then what we call AAA would vanish overnight. The fact is that there is a market for these things, it just isn't big enough to support all the people who want to play in it. That makes it incredibly risky, which is ironically what all these monetisation schemes were supposed to reduce.
The solution is obvious. Stop making AAA games and leave those people behind. If you really want to just make money? Sell car insurance or some shit. Sure you are no longer making games, but making AAA targeted services isn't about making a good game either.
If you go back to simply making the best game you run the risk of screwing it up and being out of business. But what we have seen is that this is less risky, no doubt much more rewarding and better for gamers to boot.
Ironically, I've enjoyed many of the same titles you've listed myself (RE2, Alien, Doom, etc.). I'd throw Hitman and Prey on the pile too.
But for myself I'd say that those titles account for an extreme minority of what excites me in the modern age. They're more the exception to the rule.
People's tastes are going to vary so I'm not trying to speak in absolutes. It simply feels like the most energy, viability & sustainability is coming from the AA and indie sector these days.
I think there will always be a market and budget for the spectacle AAA scene, but I get the sense that market is shrinking in the big scheme of things. Feels like there's too much risk in investing tens and millions of dollars into productions that aren't willing to cast the widest net to a broader audience. And the more people you try to please in order to recoup your investment, the less innovative and creative your end product becomes.
I look at the AAA space and feel a general sense of malaise and fatigue of the saminess of it all. Production studios stuffed with cash are chasing trends and spitting out follow the leader templates. It's just a bore, imo.
They all look pretty, I'll give them that. But it just feels rote after a while.
I personally get more charged with titles with a smaller focus. Games that have something more interesting to say and that don't need to speak to a wider audience in order be sustainable. That's where the risks are being taken. And that's where the freshest experiences are being made.
If companies make games that need to sell 5 - 6 million copies to break even, isn't it their own fault when it becomes unsustainable?
Not every game has to be the scale of RDR2. And I also don't understand people blaming consumers for this. Aren't games like RE2, Bloodborne, Zelda critically acclaimed and widely loved? As far as I know, none of these games need to sell 5 - 6 million to break even.
The excuse that all gamers demand cutting edge graphics seems nonsensical to me. Seems more like an excuse to introduce disgusting loot box mechanics into their games.
Not every game has to be the scale of RDR2. And I also don't understand people blaming consumers for this. Aren't games like RE2, Bloodborne, Zelda critically acclaimed and widely loved? As far as I know, none of these games need to sell 5 - 6 million to break even.
The excuse that all gamers demand cutting edge graphics seems nonsensical to me. Seems more like an excuse to introduce disgusting loot box mechanics into their games.
That's way too meta to me. I think you can have a sustainable business model under a for profit system.
It means high production budget.
They definitely exist back in the day.
Agreed with this especially on the front of new consoles. It largely feels like this generation just got started with consistent quality only 2 years ago, and we want to rush to the next thing because why? We naturally spectate towards it? Both PS4 and Switch are doing very well and could only do better, and we can actually get costs down, both during development and at retail. The games industry needs to learn how to operate more comfortably in this position and not always leap into the next thing.
This is taking the perspective that art can't, or shouldn't, be commoditized. You'd be hard-pressed to even get most artists to agree with you on this.
And I feel like I need to stress that monetization experts are hired to make monetization better, not simply to earn more. If monetization feels obtrusive, that means it was poorly designed.
Chasing power and movie like structure has only proved to become a major hurdle for development teams. When games take large teams and long time to make it isn't just a money issue; it's also about passion ans motivation.
Imagine working for 6 years on a project and having an awful experience with lots of pressure. And then after that releases you go at it again. It just isn't sustainable and inevitably quality suffers from it. We've seen it happen too often
Imagine working for 6 years on a project and having an awful experience with lots of pressure. And then after that releases you go at it again. It just isn't sustainable and inevitably quality suffers from it. We've seen it happen too often
Contracting/unionization does look like the future. Something like a cross between the concept team that's kind of taking off in Japan and Hollywood's approach of having small in house production staff sizes.
I think if it was only EA then she would have known it to be an EA issue, not an AAA issue.
When you look at who got layed off it was less about "fuck, we're losing money time to tighten belts" and more a course correction on strategy. They laid off big chunks of their eSports people. They laid off a big chunk of people working on mobile games. They laid off a lot of people in expensive locations. They laid off people in marketing/PR.
It wasn't a mass "fire 10% of employees, kinda random who" but more a targeted, "these people have skills that are no longer relevant to what we want to invest in". They are still hiring hundreds of people in different groups.
I really disagree with Ms. Hennigs assessment of the state of the industry too, I think its just more problematic at two specific companies: EA and Activision. Both are unfocused, have extremely poor leadership at multiple levels who can't seem to make smart decisions, and are facing the consequences. By contrast companies like Rockstar, Naughty Dog, and even Ubisoft seem to be thriving. Japanese dev studios are at the peak of their game and doing the best they have done in decades, more western publishers need to learn lessons from them and focus on delivery of games people absolutely love.
Battlefield 5, Fallout 76, Anthem, etc are examples of games driven by money or people who don't really have a solid plan. RDR2, Apex, Resident Evil 2, etc are games that have been embraced by fans because they were made for fans.
I don't think any of this goes away until there is some degree of labour organization. Profits will drop, some companies will close, but a new balance will be achieved whereby developer jobs have a measure of protection and decency.
Still waiting for it to all come crashing down for everyone with a couple of flops in a row.
Only then will there be a genuine change in the industry as a whole. Maybe even adopt a Nintendo like approach, preferring new and interesting styles instead of 'realism'.
Only then will there be a genuine change in the industry as a whole. Maybe even adopt a Nintendo like approach, preferring new and interesting styles instead of 'realism'.
High production budget and high marketing budget. Treating the game like a big blockbuster film. Nintendo practically invented it when they first announced Super Mario Bros. 3 via a movie.
I think AAA gaming has become more risky. It requires large financial investment and large development times with great variability in ultimate success rates for non-franchise (and even franchise at this point) games. The latter however I think is true for all games in general. AAA games have the ability to reach larger sales figures than mid tier games, serve as a competitive advantage for big publishers against smaller developers as they don't have the capital to produce games at this scale/level of spectacle and they also drive demand for the console market with their focus on graphics and presentation which is one of the key differentiators for consoles against competitors like handhelds or phones. So there's incentives for publishers to invest in AAA gaming outside of just making money on a specific game project. It's just when they underperform, the financial cost can be significant and much higher than for mid budget games. It's now a matter of whether publishers think it's worth it or not to bear this risk.
I don't know if it's always going to be this way, but I do see a lot of big-time feature creep problems in some of the newest games out there that unfortunately end up causing games to release with fewer features than even the brief glimpses shown in reveal trailers. I look at a game like Assassin's Creed Odyssey, which I thought was awesome, but I can't help but think how rare it is that a a game with that kind of breadth and length actually turns out to be that good, and how they probably could have made a smaller, 30-hour game that was just as good and sold just as well on a budget of tens of millions of dollars, rather than a 60+ hour game with a thousand features for 100+ million. And they're one of the only studios that actually has the workflow to handle this level of expense; others are falling flat on their faces all around the industry.
I mean, yeah, but when these companies are unable to turn a profit just selling millions of copies of $60 games, and instead need DLC, microtransactions, and loot boxes in order to be profitable, all part of a constant industry-wide ramping up of more and more monetization schemes while investors expect ever increasing profits.. that doesn't seem terribly sustainable either.
Actually, pointing to Sony prove her point, in the sense that first party funding is the only safe way to make AAA titles. That's not a healthy climate
