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).AAA production values are great, but I don't understand how games still remain so massively over-scoped. Devs and publishers can look at Achievement/Trophy data and see that nobody is even finishing half of the campaign most of the time......so why are campaigns still so insanely bloated? Why does it take 60 hours to beat Assassin's Creed or Death Stranding?
I feel like a lot of the problems with budget and crunch could be solved simply by making smaller and more compact games.
What about shrinking games down a little? Like botw having 60-80 shrines, and 500 korok seeds and the world being 75/80% of the size.
Hey it's just like when the guy who made DirectX was trying to justify running his company like a human rights violation.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 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).
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.Pretty sure it's because consumers demand bigger and bigger. Only the small minority want to pay full price for a game that is only 5-7 hours long. This is partly why open world games have exploded in popularity.
yup
Of course, the scope of the games we're used to, even the top-budget ones, could be done without crunch if it weren't for the pursuit of infinite growth.
We don't know for certain that those games didn't have crunch though just because they are not AAA.Last year was a very good year for me finding some really spectacular games that weren't necessarily "triple-A".
Between stuff like Plague Tale, Greedfall, Gris, Celeste, Yooka-Laylee and the Impossible Lair, Hellblade, and even Power Rangers: Battle for the Grid, I was pretty content with what I tried out last year.
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.We don't know for certain that those games didn't have crunch though just because they are not AAA.
Funnily enough I finished A Plague's Tale last weekend and started Greedfall this weekend. :-)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.
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.
"If you want to make business and games in the AAA industry, crunch is a necessity"
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.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.
How did this guy go from creating Twisted Metal and God of War to being one of those streamers that rants in front of a wall of hideous cheap nerd-toys?
AAA game development is in a weird place. The games take much longer to produce than they used to even with crunch and are really expensive. Costs would rise even more without crunch since they would take even longer to make.
Someone is going to have to come up with a better solution because the course they're on just isn't sustainable.
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.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?
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.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"
Weird how it's always the employees and consumers asked to make sacrifices and never the CEO's and shareholders.
Crunch isn't a necessary ingredient to great games.
Love,
a AAA dev
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.
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.His point of why unions will never work in video games is because most devs are easily replaceable by outsourcing their work overseas (he says he's pro-union and anti-crunch in the video). I wonder if that's actually true, and whether you can get the same quality from overseas (especially when it comes to stuff like writing for big dev like Naughty Dog or CDPR who are known to crunch).
What about shrinking games down a little? Like botw having 60-80 shrines, and 500 korok seeds and the world being 75/80% of the size.
At the very least, AAA games need to MSRP for seventy. It's been way, way too long.
Yes please! There's so many games I don't buy because they are too big.What if I want my AAA games to have 66% of their bloated content cut right out them?
What if I want my AAA games to have 66% of their bloated content cut right out them?
not with all the mtxs currently found in games, and we all no publishers wont give that up.At the very least, AAA games need to MSRP for seventy. It's been way, way too long.
Not all games can effectively monetize like that. If we want AAA single player experiences, it's gonna be done.not with all the mtxs currently found in games, and we all no publishers wont give that up.