Why exactly are Triple A development costs being ALLOWED to rise so much?
- Thread starter Oly J
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sigh....every time I see this arguement it makes me want to reach through the monitor and slap the bejeesus out of people. Yes making an AAA game is expensive but it is NOT the problem. On the major titles development is not even a majority of the budget. Marketing for the top AAA games is in the tens to hundreds of million $. THAT is what makes it impossible to recoup costs unless its a runaway hit. Witcher 2 had a budget of 8.5 million dollars and it managed to have amazing graphics, but decided to pretty much sell on word of mouth thus easily making the money back. Compare that to the whole CoD3 vs Bf3 crap that went down late 2011 and cost a combined 300 million in marketing. Did Acti and EA recoup that, probably yes because those games sell in the tens of million but that kind of overlay requires a game to sell 5+ million to just break even.
It's a common misconception that the people in power or with the most wealth are more intelligent than the rest of us. Or even better than the rest of us.Oly J said:
It actually comes down to the family you come from and just stupid luck. There are plenty of brilliant people who will never be rich or in charge of anything and there's plenty of morons who from rich families who ass kiss and stumble their way into money and power. They want you to think they're better than you. Hell, they think they're better than you. But they're not. When you see one of them doing stupid shit it's not because he has some grand plan. It's because he's an idiot.
5ilver said:
All of these and other reasons equate to the current situation
Exactly how someone with only a vague background gets to make "suggestions" which then add another huge cost onto development is a point of frustration for us gamers
And yes, companies do have that mindset, game X sold this much, a sequel can sell this much, which often goes against all sense upto ignoring and alienating the fanbases of many formally good IP's
The Jimquisition covers many of these topics well, but I seriously think with tomb raider and other recent releases where an absurd number is given as "expected sales" some people on staff need to be thrown back into year 1 economics nose first, because they clearly weren't paying attention the first time
Imagine that there is a triangle with one of these concepts at each point: Speed, Quality and Cost. Realistically, you can only have two at any given time. The video game industry has gone with fast and high quality, but that is extremely expensive. If they used a longer development time the costs would likely come down. All they've done is compound their financial problems by trying to shorten development times, coincidentally also contributing to market saturation which is part of the reason they feel the need to spend money equal to or greater than production costs on marketing. They're in a vicious circle of their own design.Greg White said:
That's pretty much why I refuse to feel sorry for a lot of 3rd party devs and publishers; they constantly whine and moan about budgets swelling and needing to sell millions upon millions when in fact A) said problems can be fixed, but they either are unaware of it or just outright refuse to acknowledge it and B) it's their fault their in that mess in the first place.shirkbot said:
My thoughts on the matter are a whole lot of this. Huge ass budgets aren't necessary and it's the publisher/developer's fault of they can't make any money. I'm hoping the next gen is going to be better in terms of creativity and none of this over blown budget bull crap, because it seems like publishers are finally starting to realize that same old formula isn't going to work anymore and it'll be sink or swim if publishers like Ubisoft can't adapt. Unfortunately, I doubt the whole redirecting blame onto used games and piracy thing will go awayRyan Hughes said:
Because Graphics. Unless they spend X million making the most realistic bullet/explosion/profanity effects imaginable, people won't buy their game at all!
That's the thing most people figure. But overspending on Marketing is more likely the chief cause as stated above.
It also could be the same reason why my city recently had to spend $800,000 to construct a handful of rail fences and gates to prevent train/pedestrian accidents at crossings- Decadence. The CEO takes a bigger cut than he deserves, chief of marketing takes a bigger cut than he deserves, chief publisher takes a bigger cut than he deserves, upper management... you get the idea. All of which gets chalked up to the cost of actually making the game.
That's the thing most people figure. But overspending on Marketing is more likely the chief cause as stated above.
It also could be the same reason why my city recently had to spend $800,000 to construct a handful of rail fences and gates to prevent train/pedestrian accidents at crossings- Decadence. The CEO takes a bigger cut than he deserves, chief of marketing takes a bigger cut than he deserves, chief publisher takes a bigger cut than he deserves, upper management... you get the idea. All of which gets chalked up to the cost of actually making the game.
According to Reuters, Vivendi is trying to leech about $400m USD or 325m Euros off of Activision per year -depending on profits- and is seems that they are going to be able to do so. Even with today's ridiculously bloated costs, that is still the dev cost of about 40 good games per year. So, yeah things are not looking good for Activision, especially because of two things: WoW subscriptions are falling again, and their new MMO is pushed back to 2016. Also, CoD and Destiny are expensive titles, and could very well end up competing against one another in an over-saturated shooter market.Aiddon said:
Konami -despite some terrible screw-ups by its western employees, like Silent Hill HD- has played it smart as well; after MGS4, they circled the wagons in Japan and began working on their own proprietary engine, only developing for mobile, and smaller, mostly handheld titles. Most people see the company as fading after being one of the top 5 publishers in the early PS2 era, but the reality is that at no point have they lost any money this generation, even after the Nikkei crash and after the Tsunami. This as opposed to Ubisoft and EA, who have both posted massive losses at times.
Atlus as played things very smart as well, more or less sitting this generation out while making enough to keep afloat. Bamco has branched out a bit, but kept their initial development costs in check. Also, Bamco and Konami show the advantage of having diverse products, as both companies make much more than video games, as opposed to Square and Capcom.
In any event, we will see where things go from here, but I am convinced there will be a shake-up in the market this coming generation.
This is why I've noticed that these losses, constant push for power, constant priority of graphics and spectacle over gameplay, and overly bloated budgets are a uniquely Western thing. CAPCOM has had all of ONE extravagant game with a huge team and bloated budget and that was Resident Evil 6 (the only other one that came close was the attempted DMC reboot, though that was too quickly forgotten for anyone to care). Atlus, Nintendo, Namco, and a ton of other publishers from Japan take these slowly because the risks aren't worth it. Western pubs and devs waste money CONSTANTLY and keep demanding for bigger and bigger budgets.Ryan Hughes said:
You'd THINK that devs would just say "here's your damn budget, make the most of it." It's almost like there's a lack of professional behavior in the Western dev scene. They try to pull that "starving artist" act and pretend they're being oppressed by the mean old executives, when in fact the devs are just wasting time and money on stupid crap. While ambition can lead to neat ideas, it also has the habit of leading to arrogance, which the West is getting more and more of.
For as often as gamers are accused of "entitlement", I think the term really fits major publishers at this point. They've put together this definitive list of features for every AAA project, and it costs some 15-20 million dollars to check every box. After they soullessly, mindlessly trudge through every step in the process, working hundreds of developers to death over the course of just 12-18 months, they fully expect a very reliable, very predictable, and very lucrative return on their investment. As if it's some kind of technology or commodity, same as building an oil pipeline or a diamond mine or the latest computer architecture.
Meanwhile, the consumers are looking at the industry as purely optional entertainment, a luxury expense through and through. If the games don't "touch us" in some way as a creative endeavor, we'll just ignore them. We don't HAVE to play video games. We're not required to soak up every major AAA release with vigor.
It's a huge disconnect between the game makers and the game buyers, and the corporate suits are at the heart of it. People who make games should do so because they are creative, they have something they want to say or share, and they are talented enough to do so in a fashion that is financially self-sustained. The paint-by-numbers approach still works from time to time, but it's not a guarantee against failure. Nothing is, really, and that's an even greater overriding issue. For some reason, big business has decided it shouldn't have to take any risks to generate outlandish wealth. If something doesn't work out, it must be the fault of the consumer - not your fault for doing a bad job.
Meanwhile, the consumers are looking at the industry as purely optional entertainment, a luxury expense through and through. If the games don't "touch us" in some way as a creative endeavor, we'll just ignore them. We don't HAVE to play video games. We're not required to soak up every major AAA release with vigor.
It's a huge disconnect between the game makers and the game buyers, and the corporate suits are at the heart of it. People who make games should do so because they are creative, they have something they want to say or share, and they are talented enough to do so in a fashion that is financially self-sustained. The paint-by-numbers approach still works from time to time, but it's not a guarantee against failure. Nothing is, really, and that's an even greater overriding issue. For some reason, big business has decided it shouldn't have to take any risks to generate outlandish wealth. If something doesn't work out, it must be the fault of the consumer - not your fault for doing a bad job.
And have a concept people want to invest in. Which is A LOT harder than it sounds. Don't mind me, I'm just going to be laughing in the corner to myself.MammothBlade said:
Yeap, and yet somehow, my direct experience is not as valued as some random person's ignorance on the subject. It boggles the mind. Gotta love the arm-chair game developers - of course one would think you can make it cost less, but you have no idea how much work is involved.kiri2tsubasa said:
Take the Crysis vs. STALKER comparison. A dev can see the higher quality level in Crysis for the all the tech they've used, normal and spec maps, motion capture, and if you've looked at their editor, there's a lot of work involved in that too. Then look at STALKER and the quality level isn't as high, character motion is a bit stiff, textures are flat, not a lot of buildings, just flat wasteland type.
Mind you, I'm just talking graphics, not game design - I enjoyed both games to be honest, but I can see how Crytek used more money for their development - and it shows.
Yeah, I realise. Marketing creates an illusion that people want, no, NEED a product or service. And so, you need your fancy marketing teams with massive budgets, but really, correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of games are sold by word of mouth, snowballing, viral marketing, it seems that some traditional outlets have become quite redundant. If something is interesting enough, especially a sequelised, popular franchise, then it should be able to stand up with minimal marketing, shouldn't it? Or perhaps these saturation campaigns are a prestige thing.MrHide-Patten said:
Maybe the AAA branded games, but unless your are Notch or Tim Schafer, you are screwed in the Indie Department. People always talk about the concepts or stories and how the AAA industry is crap on those grounds, yet countless Indie games end up dead in the water.MammothBlade said:
TL;DR, People say they want new IP's and idea's but they hardly invest in them when they do come along. So I really can't get angry at the likes of Ubisoft and Square Enix, for wanting to cash in on sequels.
Extra Credits had a video discussing this whole scenario, and as a previous poster posted, so does Jim Sterling. From what I gathered from both of them the Triple A big guns such as EA, Square Enix, Capcom, etc. all spend normal amounts on the making of the game, but then go off and spend HUGE amounts on advertising the game. The problem however is that gaming is still relatively a niche, there are still many people who don't play video games and have no interest in them and find other ways to go about their days. So basically, you've got companies pushing to get everyone to buy their product, but there is just not enough people who currently play gaming to really make back the money they've spent. There's also the whole thing that most Triple A games have an MA15+ rating, thus negating a portion of gamers from actually buying their game.Oly J said:
Well, that's what I got from Jim and the Extra Credits people...