Stephen Totilo - Nintendo, Microsoft, Square welcome us to the era of fewer big video games
- Thread starter Smitch
- Start date
22 and I just don't have the energy for big games any more, though that's for disability reasons. I have about an hour to play any game at a time and I want to feel like I make meaningful progress in that time and big cinematic games and RPGs just don't do that for me any more. Level based or mission based games are good for the most part as are run based games as long as I don't feel like I'm butting my head against a wall. RPGs aimed at children too also are quite good.
Seriously. All the time I see posts on here about wanting smaller games, and yet Steam is full of them.
People want the game companies they grew up with to make these smaller games but they're not going to, so its time to start looking elsewhere.
Haven't we been living in that era for at least a decade? If not more?
Costs rise, the number of big games lower, most major publishers had been like that for the past two generations or so.
Costs rise, the number of big games lower, most major publishers had been like that for the past two generations or so.
Pretty misleading to include Nintendo. The only reason they have fewer titles is because they went from having 2 or 3 platforms on the market to 1. They aren't doing "fewer, but bigger titles," their bread and butter is still AA. Furukawa simply acknowledging a fact regarding game dev is not him saying they are focusing on fewer titles. Nintendo's answer is hiring tons more people, which they've been doing, and they are making a new, massive building to facilitate way more hiring.
Even if the whole industry moves all it takes is a studio that wants to jump from AA to aaa like cdpr for the comparisons to start again like the Witcher 3 comparisons that were rampant in the 2010s
Heck people use BG3 as a weapon against the "lazy devs" trope without understanding how long or hard that dev cycle was (or that they had 3 years of EA feedback)
Feels like a severe misreading of Nintendo's position compared to these other companies. Both in terms of them expanding while not churning through tons of developers and that Nintendo has devs working on games at all levels of budget and being hugely successful.
I feel like Nintendo have managed to get everything right. They saw long ago getting in the power war was futile. They noped out of the E3 rhythm of game announcements, took a pause on power, focused on delivery and - with the potential of AI supported uplifting - they're in a great position for the next round of hardware. They're economical and know the benefit of not throwing cash into a fire to deliver a game.
As someone who grew up in the 90s...welcome to the new age of the N64!!!*
* I remember only having like 3-5 games to even play in the first 3 months of the N64's launch. Lucky for Nintendo that half of them were instant classics.
* I remember only having like 3-5 games to even play in the first 3 months of the N64's launch. Lucky for Nintendo that half of them were instant classics.
I had a ton of fun with Gears 1-3 and Halo 1-3, Oblivion, Skyrim, a ton of other 360 stuff…just saying.
Sometimes bigger and prettier isn't always better.
I don't know who made that graph but I don't know what 10 games Nintendo published for the 3DS in 2019. This is aside from my annoyance with them using five fucking shades of blue to differentiate the systems, its real amateur hour whoever made it.
Game File made it, but the data is from Nintendo.
Article also says Nintendo said they will longer be reporting such data, with no explanation as to why. My guess is that they don't want to keep noting how much their output is slowing.
Last edited:
From a personal level, I can't say I'm pressed about the idea of there being fewer games. I can't keep up as it is, so having more time between games I'm interested in doesn't sound like a bad thing.
The issue is that many of these companies are putting everything into these 5-7 year-long, hyper expensive projects. If we look at a company like Square-Enix, the games I enjoyed from them the most over the last generation or so (so lets say since 2013) are the "smaller" titles -- games like Octopath, Triangle Strategy, Neo TWEWY, Trials of Mana Remake, Nier Automata(? I'm not sure if this is considered a mid-tier/AA game) rather than the big blockbuster Final Fantasies. If S-E forgoes the above games for just making Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy... while I would enjoy those games (I did like 7 Remake and DQ11 after all), if we get an entry I don't enjoy, I'm waiting another 7 years to get a new game. At that point I'm probably moving on.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that while I'm fine with fewer games, I don't necessarily want them to all be AAA mega-blockbusters. And I know indies can fill that void in some capacity, but I find they still struggle to fill that "AA" gap from my experience. Some get there, but not too many.
And then that's not even getting into the economics of one of these mega-projects failing. I'd rather not publishers be one failure away catastrophe.
The issue is that many of these companies are putting everything into these 5-7 year-long, hyper expensive projects. If we look at a company like Square-Enix, the games I enjoyed from them the most over the last generation or so (so lets say since 2013) are the "smaller" titles -- games like Octopath, Triangle Strategy, Neo TWEWY, Trials of Mana Remake, Nier Automata(? I'm not sure if this is considered a mid-tier/AA game) rather than the big blockbuster Final Fantasies. If S-E forgoes the above games for just making Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy... while I would enjoy those games (I did like 7 Remake and DQ11 after all), if we get an entry I don't enjoy, I'm waiting another 7 years to get a new game. At that point I'm probably moving on.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that while I'm fine with fewer games, I don't necessarily want them to all be AAA mega-blockbusters. And I know indies can fill that void in some capacity, but I find they still struggle to fill that "AA" gap from my experience. Some get there, but not too many.
And then that's not even getting into the economics of one of these mega-projects failing. I'd rather not publishers be one failure away catastrophe.
Believe it or not, that chart is correct there. However, it does get into a situation that Astrogamer mentioned that of the ten games they published that fiscal year, three were Yokai Watch titles (including two versions of Blasters) that were published in the west after a year or two in Japan. It was pretty slim picking for original games by that point, with only Dillon's Dead Heat Breakers, Sushi Striker, and WarioWare Gold being the only releases in that time to qualify for the distinction, with the rest being filled out with expanded ports (Captain Toad, Luigi's Mansion and Kirby's Epic Yarn) and one remake (Mario & Luigi: Bower's Inside Story).
Last edited:
The article goes into why Nintendo is included. They already make less games. Yes they consolidated their output which the article states. They still have less games because they all take longer to make.
The article also notes that Nintendo will no longer tally their total games from now on.
The article also notes that Nintendo will no longer tally their total games from now on.
Nintendo aren't idiots - they aren't about to do a Square Enix and literally flood the market with their own software to completely cannibalise each other. They carefully plan and schedule this stuff as to maximise total software sales - releasing more games at some point just starts to dilute the overall sales of software and means you are spending more on dev for less of a return. They have literally perfected their cadence of releases this generation.
And look at their sales. They know exactly what they are doing
The stuff about Nintendo not reporting any more numbers is almost assuredly wrong seeing as you know - they can't hide what their software output is unless they are finally calling it a day and going all in playing cards lol
And look at their sales. They know exactly what they are doing
The stuff about Nintendo not reporting any more numbers is almost assuredly wrong seeing as you know - they can't hide what their software output is unless they are finally calling it a day and going all in playing cards lol
Right, so there's a giant asterisk next to these numbers. L5 published those games in Japan where Nintendo handled the rest worldwide. I wouldn't count YW3 or the Blaster titles "Nintendo developed games" nor would I expect most people to. Ports are fine to count but its not like Nintendo has two platforms where its necessary to do so anymore like the examples you gave.
Nintendo and Square actually produce games compared to MS which just buys studios and IPs.
Their actual 1st party are all stuck in dev hell it seems
Their actual 1st party are all stuck in dev hell it seems
It took Nintendo over six years to make Tears of the Kingdom though.
That is weird but also not really necessary. It generally can be done without Nintendo's confirmation. Also, double checking the count, it looks like last year, they counted the DLC bundle version of Scarlet & Violet (and counting each version of Pokemon separately). It also isn't counting any packaged title that isn't in the US (i.e. Mario+Rabbids or the Mario Kart Booster Course Pass bundle for Japan or Buddy Mission Bond) or counting any digital title or major DLC like F-Zero 99 or the Splatoon 3 Expansion Pass so, you can see the more recent inaccuracy in the chart.
But we still get big games on a steady clip from Nintendo.
?
how is this any different than microsoft? all of microsoft's non-bethesda/activision studios also produce games. They also take 6 years to make. This is the throughline of the article from Totilo.
Maybe not big games but they are really good at balancing stuff out. For example there was a six year gap between two major Mario releases (Mario Odyssey and Wonder). Five year gap between Splatoon 2 and 3 (cushioned by post-game content and paid DLC). Not to mention Metroid Prime 4 has been in development for the entire Switch lifespan.
I just like to play good games! Small/Big, expensive/cheap, doesn't really matter. Outside of the impact to workers who lose their jobs from this market shift, I don't really care how the sausage is made (in terms of the publisher/corporate strategy). The amount of stories about it lately have been exhausting
Not to mention the big publishers have been doing this for years (EA, Ubi, Activision, Sony), so I'm not sure why some of these Q1 earnings/press releases read like this is something new. I feel like some of the recent interviews and earnings releases are meant for us to feel empathy towards the poor little rich boy corporations and executives who have to deal with the cyclical nature of the industry or economy, inflation, and the length it takes to make a game. That's your fucking job to run the business by analyzing data, financials, the competition and industry trends to create and change your strategy. I'm just the consumer, I don't care that your P&L doesn't look as good because of rising costs or because everyone is playing Fortnite. My sympathy goes to the people you just fired.
Just make a good game, accessible to as many people and platforms that is strategically viable.
It's awesome when success stories like Palworld and Helldivers 2 happen. These are smaller, nimble teams that had the backing of a larger company. I don't think it's a coincidence that they blew up how they did because they reached more players by taking the GamePass bag and releasing day and date on steam, either.
What sucks, are when situations like Redfall happen. A game started when Zenimax was trying to pivot to GaaS, when through a management and ownership change with MS allegedly not paying attention to the troubled development which resulted in a fairly mediocre or bad game that they HAD to support for the next year, to just then get blindsided with a company closure. Those people suffer because of shitty decisions of management made over years of development. They're the ones just trying to make a fun game.
Good leadership can result in higher quality which increases their likelihood of success. Shitty leadership, support, and decision making result in people losing their jobs.
Just give me good games made by people passionate about the project.
Not to mention the big publishers have been doing this for years (EA, Ubi, Activision, Sony), so I'm not sure why some of these Q1 earnings/press releases read like this is something new. I feel like some of the recent interviews and earnings releases are meant for us to feel empathy towards the poor little rich boy corporations and executives who have to deal with the cyclical nature of the industry or economy, inflation, and the length it takes to make a game. That's your fucking job to run the business by analyzing data, financials, the competition and industry trends to create and change your strategy. I'm just the consumer, I don't care that your P&L doesn't look as good because of rising costs or because everyone is playing Fortnite. My sympathy goes to the people you just fired.
Just make a good game, accessible to as many people and platforms that is strategically viable.
It's awesome when success stories like Palworld and Helldivers 2 happen. These are smaller, nimble teams that had the backing of a larger company. I don't think it's a coincidence that they blew up how they did because they reached more players by taking the GamePass bag and releasing day and date on steam, either.
What sucks, are when situations like Redfall happen. A game started when Zenimax was trying to pivot to GaaS, when through a management and ownership change with MS allegedly not paying attention to the troubled development which resulted in a fairly mediocre or bad game that they HAD to support for the next year, to just then get blindsided with a company closure. Those people suffer because of shitty decisions of management made over years of development. They're the ones just trying to make a fun game.
Good leadership can result in higher quality which increases their likelihood of success. Shitty leadership, support, and decision making result in people losing their jobs.
Just give me good games made by people passionate about the project.
If only every studio was blessed with a Swen Vincke (Larian CEO) type at the helm.
My point is MS is especially bad with the number of games produced.
In the last 4 years I can count Gears 5, Halo Infinite, Sea of Thieves and Forza off the top of my head (there's more but those are the big ones)
Nintendo for example make these many games in a single year.
I'm of course not saying game development is easy or shouldn't take any time, but there are obviously issues in production and/or management within MS 1st party studios.
I think it's too optimistic to say that this is the goal for the people making the decisions, but it is weird to me that so many people act like it's not even possible that personnel could be managed differently with a different model in place.
Nintendo will make games and sit on them for years. TOTK didn't take six.
edit: TOTK started full dev after BOTW DLC in mid 2018, was waylaid through Covid, and was still content complete by March 2022. They gave it an extra year for polish and release strategy but that's not usual for Nintendo or a change in strategy. They've been operating like this for decades.
Last edited:
It makes sense then the shift to live service experiences that can last 5 years between big releases
Edit: you seemed to have answered my question. So it was closer to five years in development, which seems to be the standard for big triple A games nowadays.
I get that Nintendo recently came out saying what other companies have already said re: modern game development but I don't understand why they're in this article. They're the last major publisher to still put out smaller games. We just got Princess Peach when that literally could have been shelved for whatever games are in development for Switch 2. It's such a stark contrast to Microsoft and Square (don't even get me started on the lack of Sony mentioned) who quite literally seem to only focus on large, tent pole releases, with the former shutting down studios left and right for no reason. I feel like they've already been releasing fewer large budget games but maybe I'm wrong? They have plenty of once per generation series.
We don't need to read comments like that in the most disingenuous way possible. It's possible to have the opinion of "I'm ok with fewer big games"AND "I'm disappointed people will lose their jobs."
Their market view is really something very special. They have the ability to see the problem far ahead and shift their approach as soon as they see things will get problematic. Yes, they aren't popular with the counting polygons crowd, but they manage to no only survive in this industry but to thrive, time and time again.
Nintendo has a lot of problem, the way they manage their business is not one of them.
makes a lot of sense i'm buying way fewer games now than before
i hope it does lead to an explosion in indie and smaller budget games from smaller studios which are created as people leave big corporations. may be a fantasy idea but i haven't really enjoyed most AAA games for a while now, still really like some indie games but rarely have time to play much because i still have a massive backlog of big AAA games I wanna play.
i hope it does lead to an explosion in indie and smaller budget games from smaller studios which are created as people leave big corporations. may be a fantasy idea but i haven't really enjoyed most AAA games for a while now, still really like some indie games but rarely have time to play much because i still have a massive backlog of big AAA games I wanna play.
It's like they didn't learn a thing these past few years. Throwing most of your resources into something big has been a recipe for disaster
I wrote about this from Nintendos perspective back in 2021. The issue there began in earnest in 2019 too which makes it harder to pin on the pandemic. The raw numbers hide the extent of the issue. Take out published games developed by outside developers and ports and Nintendo have only been releasing a handful of original new games per year for years now. Even 6 years ago that would have felt unthinkable. A bit outdated but I break it down in more detail below.
www.heypoorplayer.com
The Pipeline Of Original Nintendo Titles Is Broken
A History Of Split Support From 1989 until 2017, Nintendo actively supported at least two platforms at all times. While they’ve always maintained a foothold in the home console space, often to significant success, they also
www.heypoorplayer.com
It's not just games
Movies have been doing very similar things since the mcu started and they are only now slowly pivoting out of it
Television studios are doing 4-10 series a year when they were doing 20+ series during the 90s/00s
Two things can be true at the same time:
- Nintendo has weathered this problem better than other publishers, especially compared to other first-party publishers. They most likely will continue to weather it better unless something changes, which could happen.
- This problem has still affected Nintendo and will continue to do so, most likely at an increasing rate. This is why they've ramped up their hiring so much.
- Nintendo has weathered this problem better than other publishers, especially compared to other first-party publishers. They most likely will continue to weather it better unless something changes, which could happen.
- This problem has still affected Nintendo and will continue to do so, most likely at an increasing rate. This is why they've ramped up their hiring so much.
It's funny how postets don't want to accept trends that are affecting all publishers as quickly as they accept others. No one's the victim here either. I'll say it again we are at an infection point for the games industry. Unfortunately the games industry we grew up with is changing due to increased financial risk. Things like graphical fidelity, paying devs over long dev cycles, massive amounts of game published each year. Classic mid budget games just don't make as much sense as they used to. Flops are devastating studio destroyers. Publishers are being forced to pivot. It's sad times if the classic 20 hour video game is your preferred way to play. This is the gaming industry though, every generation I'm surprised by something I never knew I wanted. These times feel similar to transition from arcade games to console. We survived that and new types of games will be created. Same thing will happen here... gaming will just look different.
Maybe one of these days devs will finally prioritize getting their house in order and make the changes necessary to release games on time and on budget. It's been needed for a long time.
There are some devs who are better at this, but it seems like most games either get delayed, have the entire population of planet earth working on the game at the same time to avoid delays, or both.
There are some devs who are better at this, but it seems like most games either get delayed, have the entire population of planet earth working on the game at the same time to avoid delays, or both.
And on the other end, there's that rumor thread about Sega making sure that Persona, Like a Dragon, and Sonic are all annual franchises (which to be fair, they're pretty close to being already).
People have been complaining about there being too many games coming out for a long time now. Seems like this is a bit self-correcting.
