-
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.
Want AAA Games? Embrace Crunch, Reject Unions!
- Thread starter Deleted member 8196
- Start date
Jaffe is just trying to justify his fucked up personal life, just listen to this https://youtu.be/dpXOX5XZrIs?t=637
I'm paraphrasing but basically:
"I crunched so bad on God of War that it costed me my marriage, but that's what it takes to keep #winning"
I'm paraphrasing but basically:
"I crunched so bad on God of War that it costed me my marriage, but that's what it takes to keep #winning"
I agree personally, however, according to sales people, the market has seen sales of smaller scope games decrease quite a bit, and there seems to be an expectation among consumers that a $60 game should give them some amount of playtime in order to meet their threshold of value (which is questionable as a position for several reasons, but it does seem to be the case).
For example, here's Mat Piscatella from NPD saying things to that extent:
That might sound great to some but many won't likely be happy when they hear that the sequel to BOTW is not even half the size as its predecessor.
Outsourcing isn't unique to the videogame industry, Jaffe isn't nearly as smart as he believes.
Hey it's just like when the guy who made DirectX was trying to justify running his company like a human rights violation.
Open-world games can still exist, and last 20+ hours. It just strikes me that even if they had half the authored content, games like RDR, GTA, and AC would probably still sell just as many copies. Developers are just doing a lot of extra time and a lot of extra work that they probably don't have to.
"Good enough" is "not enough". For markets which have to keep growth going, which of course is a direct consequence of our crony capitalist present day hellscape
The industry should be making the games they can within constraints that discourage crunch. Adequate compensation for overtime hours, the option not to parcipate, etc.
You can see with the stories of Anthem's development how a cavalier attitude towards last minute crunch impedes proper management.
It isn't people suffering for their art. It's employees suffering to keep their jobs and secure their boss' bonuses.
You can see with the stories of Anthem's development how a cavalier attitude towards last minute crunch impedes proper management.
It isn't people suffering for their art. It's employees suffering to keep their jobs and secure their boss' bonuses.
I'm having a lot more fun with AA titles, maybe soul destroying crunch isn't a positive doctor in the final product.
We don't know for certain that those games didn't have crunch though just because they are not AAA.
Correct. INDIE games can have crunch. The size, scale, and budget of a game doesn't determine that. I know of triple-A studios that don't have crunch as a rule.
I was mostly just plugging for smaller-scale titles. Triple-A gaming demands do sadly sprinkle down to smaller titles.
Like, Greedfall isn't the best game of last year. I'd give it a 7/10 and a recommendation. But you had people who were expecting a triple-A experience in polish, animations, presentation, etc, even though it had a fraction of the budget and a team of around 20 devs compared to something like Bioware or Bethesda.
Triple-A expectations in terms of polish and content for smaller titles is something I'd watch out for and I'll vocally argue against. Keep those expectations in check.
Funnily enough I finished A Plague's Tale last weekend and started Greedfall this weekend. :-)
GTAVI wouldn't sell nearly as much as GTAV or be as well received if it had a ton of features missing or had less content and failed to push the scope further. I wouldn't mind shorter games personally but that is simply not what most of the install base expects and wants. These companies have data that supports this, it's why AAA games are like this.
Jaffe is an insufferable ass but he sadly has a decent point here. AAA games have become so massive in scope it's incredibly hard to deliver something up to the standards of gamers without insane amounts of crunch after years of getting used to it in dev cycle. The whole thing is rotten, and I have great respect for studios like Respawn that try their hardest to avoid crunch regardless of it meaning less potential profit. in capitalism it's going to be incredibly hard to unionize when people keep asking for more and more, and it's only going to get worse next gen. It makes it really hard to feel excited for AAA gaming.
And yes, of course indie games can have crunch, but I think generally in the gaming space, a studio that's not making AAA high budget console games for a major publisher are way less likely to have crunch than one that does.
And yes, of course indie games can have crunch, but I think generally in the gaming space, a studio that's not making AAA high budget console games for a major publisher are way less likely to have crunch than one that does.
God of War is better now maybe not in Jaffe's eyes but I think God of War 2 will be incredible.
Except that TakeTwo is now publicly pushing for shorter development times on Rockstar titles, which I take as an acknowledgement that their games are over-scoped.
Will games with a lowered scope sell exactly as much as previous "bigger" games? Maybe, maybe not. But past a certain point you reach seriously diminishing returns. Maybe there are some people that will turn up their noses at a GTA that is 25 hours long instead of 60 hours long, but if catering to those people means you have to spend an extra 2 years and 50 million dollars then is it really worth it to satisfy them?
PS1's TM and PS2's GoW are extremely juvenile so, I can see the link between them IMO
Reduce scope or extend development time.
Weird how it's always the employees and consumers asked to make sacrifices and never the CEO's and shareholders.
All this says to me is that TakeTwo wants more games not less crunch. I'm seriously skeptical that anything will change seeing how successful RDR2 and GTAV were. If anything things are likely to get worse and not better as next gen will likely require even more resources.
From a publishers perspective it seems to be worth it because they keep doing it since these games keep selling. I mean there is a reason why Neil came out when he showed The Last of Us Part 2 and proclaimed "This is the biggest game Naughty Dog has ever made"
One of the worst things I feel GAF helped amplify was making everything this man farts news. Everyone raced to make a thread on whatever he tweeted or said, which in turn feed all the blogs and sites to write articles about it the next day.
There is ultimately this conundrum that developers feel compelled to push how big and long their games are......gamers seem to want big, long games.....but by and large they don't seem to actually be playing or experiencing half of the content they claim to value.
It is ultimately in everyone's best interest to stop pushing the "More is better" line though, because they will eventually have to hit a ceiling where the size of the audience has capped and it is no longer economical to make every new iteration have more content than the last (particularly as production values go up). Everyone is going to hit the Pokemon dilemma, where matching the amount of content from previous games is no longer possible. GTA has certainly survived down-scoping; San Andreas was more stuffed full than GTA4 and GTA5. I don't expect TakeTwo to eliminate or reduce crunch in future titles, but I think they have figured out that they are simply making games bigger than they really need to be. Not spending five years on every game is just about optimizing the way they make money, not improving the lives of employees.
I consider titles like God of War and Jedi Fallen Order to be a part of the burgeoning "Faux-pen World" genre -- linear experiences strung together by an overworld and progression system that gives off the appearance of being huge even when they aren't. The games can be sold and marketed as if they are open-world titles even though they're really just linear games with a ton of needless padding. It's a good way for single-player narrative experiences to stay commercially viable, but it may also be an effective way for traditionally open-world games to scale downward while retaining satisfied customers.
I thought this was going to be satire.
But fuck that. Anyone that's anti-union and anti-work-life-balance is a narcissistic head-up-their-ass bastard that only serves to hold everyone back. I learned long ago to stop working at those places that stressed me out. What's the point of that work if it leads to a quicker death and you didn't have time to enjoy the best years of your life?
But fuck that. Anyone that's anti-union and anti-work-life-balance is a narcissistic head-up-their-ass bastard that only serves to hold everyone back. I learned long ago to stop working at those places that stressed me out. What's the point of that work if it leads to a quicker death and you didn't have time to enjoy the best years of your life?
I primarily play AAA games. But I'd be fine with developers unionizing and I can simply quit gaming if nothing appeals to me. I'd rather people be paid fairly for their work and not working a billion hours than continue my gaming habit. It's not that crucial.
There's already too much similar content out there. If we can't get an Assassin's Creed every year or two and have to wait four or five years per entry instead, I'm fine.
And if these games have half as much bloated content in them when they do arrive, they'll be better off for it.
But that said, American business culture is full of wasteful busywork, followed by crunching on the real work due to poor project management, followed by cleaning up the fucking fires started by a bunch of mentally destroyed people working all of their waking hours.
It's that way because of the sociopathy inherent to most businesses. It's less about getting a perfect product out and more about controlling other people, constantly testing their loyalty, etc. Insisting this is the only way to do things is, frankly, idiotic.
Especially because in games in particular, burnout sends people out of the industry entirely. So much institutional memory that could help on the next project, gone. Acting like that is irrelevant is, again: idiotic.
And if these games have half as much bloated content in them when they do arrive, they'll be better off for it.
But that said, American business culture is full of wasteful busywork, followed by crunching on the real work due to poor project management, followed by cleaning up the fucking fires started by a bunch of mentally destroyed people working all of their waking hours.
It's that way because of the sociopathy inherent to most businesses. It's less about getting a perfect product out and more about controlling other people, constantly testing their loyalty, etc. Insisting this is the only way to do things is, frankly, idiotic.
Especially because in games in particular, burnout sends people out of the industry entirely. So much institutional memory that could help on the next project, gone. Acting like that is irrelevant is, again: idiotic.
Crunch isn't a necessary ingredient to great games -- it is a mandated solution for mismanagement and wheel-spinning.
Love,
a AAA dev
Love,
a AAA dev
Last edited:
People in leadership positions work stupid hours, often far more than regular employees.
The other alternative is that games take like 6-10 years to make, and then we get threads going "rockstar just made one game this gen, it's unacceptable"
AAA game development with the current model is just going to become more and more unsustainable. A few years ago I would have said service games are the answer but we saw how Fortnite is able to stay on top just because of crunch and the moment Alex slowed down their crunch they lost so much momentum and attention. I don't think any path is sustainable unless games scale back, but scaling back also could mean the return on investment is smaller so companies would be even more risk averse and in the end the workers will lose. I don't think there's a sustainable path to avoid crunch with the current gaming industry at large. Sure, some places will avoid it, but that will be the exception and not the norm.
I wish AAA devs would slow down with their pursuit of graphical videlity. The games can still be big and complex, but there would be much less work to do without having to focus on visuals.
I believe some work are best outsourced, while some others should be fully done internally. Writing falls to the second category. Also, writing should be started at the earlier stage of game development, unlike other things like visuals, sounds, animation, and polishing. All can be outsourced.
Yup shrinking games down is a good solution.
Also, longer development cycles for games with the scope of something like BOTW.
There are studios out there that have put AAA games to market without crunch and proved that it is not a necessary component to great AAA games
Yes please! There's so many games I don't buy because they are too big.
It's the good stuff that requires the person-hours that lead to crunch, not the bloated filler.
not with all the mtxs currently found in games, and we all no publishers wont give that up.
Not all games can effectively monetize like that. If we want AAA single player experiences, it's gonna be done.