PS3/Vita General Topic

Weren't people saying that modern AAA games "weren't that expensive to develop"? Oh boy. Unless the PS4 is significantly cheaper to develop for than the PS3 or 360, this isn't going to stop anytime soon. Capcom, EA and Square are all struggling, THQ went completely down

I don't think it's development costs at all. Let's say a game costs $100 million to develop. Let's throw in $50 million more for marketing. That puts a AAA game cost at $150 million dollars, just messing with the numbers. I'm using exorbitant numbers like these to illustrate my argument. The reality is the only games out there that actually cost this much are games like Halo 4 and Grand Theft Auto. Even massive series like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed are developed for significantly less than 100 mil, even including marketing (often times in the neighborhood of 60 mil).

But let's continue with these numbers just to illustrate my point. If a game cost $150 million -- a massive sum -- to make and market, at $60 at retail, a dev "only" needs to sell 2.5 million copies to break even. So even with my ridiculous cost numbers, at more than 3 million units sold, Tomb Raider is already turning a tidy profit.

So really, I'm left to conclude that there's some serious mismanagement or ineptitude going in with Square Enix right now. How are they not making money with sales numbers like this? It's not quite like THQ whose games really just weren't selling. Square Enix has verifiable hits on its hands here. Development costs cannot be blamed for everything, and the CEO was right to resign.


( Edited 26.03.2013 20:56 by Jacob4000 )

The scary thing that validates the issue is that it's not just Square-Enix though. Square I think, yes, doesn't properly understand the western market and doesn't even understand their own demographics, there's some ineptitude there, but.

THQ games did sell (saint's row and others were very "successful"), Free Radical went bust after a single game failure, SEGA have expressed continued difficulty with developing, and Capcom and EA are both having to lower their sales expectations. That's practically every major developer except Activision (who let's be honest has a phenomenally successful asset) having serious problems with taking risks anymore; then there's this:

http://www.destructoid.com/the-game-industry-doesn-t-want-female-heroes-249067.phtml

I know I keep bringing this up, but it's pretty telling when game boxes can't have female characters, games can't have female protagonists, because it's "too risky"? When the console industry is so risky that the expensive games literally cannot afford a single mess up, well, it could be that games cost much more than $150million, so much more than not even $3million in a few weeks is enough to make a worthwhile profit. It's a bit worrying. Again like Jim said;

Mainstream videogames have officially gone wrong.

it could be that games cost much more than $150million

They don't. There's literally a handful of games that actually cost that much. Most are around half that (edit: as in AAA games -- there are reports that the average cost of a current gen game is ~30 million, but we're restricting our talk to big budget AAAs). And what were THQ's big success games these past few years? You mention Saint's Row, but I can't really think of much else...it could be I'm dead wrong, but THQ has been dying for a while now, right? Homefront was one of the final nails in the coffin. Why? Because they spent a metric-crap ton on advertising for a game that really wasn't that good. That's mismanagement.

Games cost a lot, and a single miss costs a hell of a lot. But when a company strings along three or four solid success and can't turn a profit -- that's a management problem.

There certainly is a crisis of creativity though. Under the guise of budget terror, devs simply won't dare to do anything original. Which is why games like Bioshock Infinite are frankly going to sell gangbusters. Because they're big budgets quality titles that actually do something unique. Bioshock Infinite is the proof that the problem doesn't lie with the money: it lies with the people making the decisions. In other words, publishers.

I'm tired of hearing big budgets being blamed for everything though. AAA games have gone wrong -- but it's because of that rampant pursuit of the bottom line without actually trying to develop games people want to play. You say that's a budget problem, but it really isn't one. That's also a form of mismanagement. Making cookie cutter $75 million games with only the bottom line in sight is mismanagement.

Indies will carve out their place for sure and will serve as a well of quality ideas. But the AAA stuff doesn't have to die. The math itself says they don't have to die. Publishers frankly just need to get their heads out of their asses. 

( Edited 26.03.2013 21:29 by Jacob4000 )

SuperLink said:
The scary thing that validates the issue is that it's not just Square-Enix though. Square I think, yes, doesn't properly understand the western market and doesn't even understand their own demographics, there's some ineptitude there, but.

THQ games did sell (saint's row and others were very "successful"), Free Radical went bust after a single game failure, SEGA have expressed continued difficulty with developing, and Capcom and EA are both having to lower their sales expectations. That's practically every major developer except Activision (who let's be honest has a phenomenally successful asset) having serious problems with taking risks anymore; then there's this:

http://www.destructoid.com/the-game-industry-doesn-t-want-female-heroes-249067.phtml

I know I keep bringing this up, but it's pretty telling when game boxes can't have female characters, games can't have female protagonists, because it's "too risky"? When the console industry is so risky that the expensive games literally cannot afford a single mess up, well, it could be that games cost much more than $150million, so much more than not even $3million in a few weeks is enough to make a worthwhile profit. It's a bit worrying. Again like Jim said;

Mainstream videogames have officially gone wrong.

Well how some of these games do not make a profit but yet still sell successfully is poor projections from the early board meetings. I mean lets look at Nintendo games, surely games like Skyward Sword would have had a ton of dev time, money and resource spent on it but only sold in the region of around 3.5million but yet still commercially successful. How does that happen? Are Eidos overspending or are Square Enix relying to much on Tomb Raider to turn millions?

Despite my comments in the other thread I have no problem playing as a female protagonist, and I can't imagine this really being the case for too many people? 

Jacob4000 said:

They don't. There's literally a handful of games that actually cost that much. Most are around half that (edit: as in AAA games -- there are reports that the average cost of a current gen game is ~30 million, but we're restricting our talk to big budget AAAs).

But the fact remains that there is a serious problem and developers need to stop focusing so much on power and cinematics out the ass and actually making good, interesting and unique games without worrying about spending so much on it.

There certainly is a crisis of creativity though. Under the guise of budget terror, devs simply won't dare to do anything original. Which is why games like Bioshock Infinite are frankly going to sell gangbusters. Because they're big budgets quality titles that actually do something unique. Bioshock Infinite is the proof that the problem doesn't lie with the money: it lies with the people making the decisions. In other words, publishers.

I'm tired of hearing big budgets being blamed for everything though. AAA games have gone wrong -- but it's because of that rampant pursuit of the bottom line without actually trying to develop games people want to play. You say that's a budget problem, but it really isn't one. That's also a form of mismanagement. Making cookie cutter $75 million games with only the bottom line in sight is mismanagement.

Indies will carve out their place for sure and will serve as a well of quality ideas. But the AAA stuff doesn't have to die. The math itself says they don't have to die. Publishers frankly just need to get their heads out of their asses. 

AAA games aren't going to stop being made because they're too expensive, I'm just holding out hope for the day publishers like EA get a reality check, that people actually don't need the most expensive possible game for it to be enjoyed and bought widely. Too many studios have virtually lost the freedom to make amazing games in an effort to keep up kicking and screaming with this tech-race.

EDIT: I guess my overall point is that development costs are part of why publishers are so immovable, they don't want to take risks because they're too busy pumping too much money into making games cinematic, not reaching a middle man for any well of creativity.

Flynnie said:
Well how some of these games do not make a profit but yet still sell successfully is poor projections from the early board meetings. I mean lets look at Nintendo games, surely games like Skyward Sword would have had a ton of dev time, money and resource spent on it but only sold in the region of around 3.5million but yet still commercially successful. How does that happen? Are Eidos overspending or are Square Enix relying to much on Tomb Raider to turn millions?

Despite my comments in the other thread I have no problem playing as a female protagonist, and I can't imagine this really being the case for too many people? 

And believe it or not it seems to effect a lot of people. I've been seeing people saying that they didn't want to play Skullgirls because all the characters are girls even though they love fighting games, because they're worried it'll make them look gay or transgender them against their will or something, lol. (male gamers are silly and insecure?)

( Edited 26.03.2013 21:57 by SuperLink )

I think that's simply untrue, here's the Skullgirls dev talking about how much characters in his indie game cost to make compared to the same in Battlefront 2 that he worked on, a 2005 PS2 game with many reused resources: http://youtu.be/U5SZIs5KzOc
It cost approximately $80mil, that was in 2005, before the huge development cost jumps of current gen. It turned a profit cause it was very successful, and really I'm as surprised as you that TR is seen as a failure, so it probably is Square's problem.

Oh, you can spend a crap-ton of money regardless of the time period or game in question. Shenmue, years ago cost more to develop than some current gen games do now. There's no question that there are exceptions to the cost rules I've outlined.

But this one example doesn't really disprove my argument; it just raises more questions. For instance, why is what they're doing there costing so much? Looks to me like some serious inefficiency, AKA more mismanagement. Just sayin -- I'm in a rush so can't research your example more thoroughly, but that's my first reaction to that. Any game in any generation can have a spiraling out of control budget. That can't necessarily be blamed automatically on rising development costs.

But besides this point, it looks like we're on the same page for the rest of the argument.

AAA games aren't going to stop being made because they're too expensive, I'm just holding out hope for the day publishers like EA get a reality check, that people actually don't need the most expensive possible game for it to be enjoyed and bought widely. Too many studios have virtually lost the freedom to make amazing games in an effort to keep up kicking and screaming with this tech-race

I think the reality checking is happening right now and will be unfolding over the next year. When games like Bioshock and Watchdogs (assuming it's released to good reviews as Bioshock is right now) shred their sales projections, it should send a strong message to publishers that there is a market that is positively starving for AAA titles that break the mold.

I hope anyhow. I shouldn't place too much faith in the big publishers though. They're a bit thick.

( Edited 26.03.2013 22:15 by Jacob4000 )

I wonder if they are closet-Skullgirls gamers? 

There is an element of risk of splashing the cash to make a AAA game but if that just means big-budget the the research and dev teams better know their stuff. 

I can imagine that games like Metal Gear Solid would cost a mint to make, but it sells well because its a strong IP and people are willing to engage with the story.

Likewise with movie studios, time after time people think if you throw money at it then it'll work. If you have the money and are prepared to take the risk then go ahead, its what Disney thought was right with John Carter.

Its a risky business and some one has to do it otherwise no lessons get learned!

I'd buy two PS4's in December if this were true...

https://twitter.com/megganpez/status/317526010922954753/photo/1

Theif Teaser (4)...Hugely excited for this.

Muramasa

Destiny

PS4 Controller

Beyond Two Souls - Video Preview

Damn that controller looks edgy.

Thief Trailer

Putting this video here cause it's relevant to upcoming game developments.

For a little context. This video is a "rant" from GDC about the state of the AAA games industry. It sort of reflects what Jacob and I were bantering about a little while back. And, with respect, I'll leave it at that.

It will be very interesting to see how Sony and Nintendo deal with this. 

XBOX 360 - £65 ( Q4 2013)New XBOX - £195 (Q4 2013)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-04-08-next-xbox-reveal-due-21st-may-costs-USD500-or-USD300-with-a-subscription-reports-suggest

Linkyshinks said:
It will be very interesting to see how Sony and Nintendo deal with this. 

XBOX 360 - £65 ( Q4 2013)New XBOX - £195 (Q4 2013)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-04-08-next-xbox-reveal-due-21st-may-costs-USD500-or-USD300-with-a-subscription-reports-suggest

Hmmm but what is subscription gaming? Contacted to XBOX live for 3 years maybe at maybe £60 a year? Still doesn't seem like a bad deal though. Would be a bit disappointed if the 720 didn't play 360 games though. I guess we have become a little expectant on backwards-compability these days!

A subscription based console is a horrible idea and is one of the best ways Microsoft could piss off the industry and userbase even more than they're already doing. But yes, that would mean paying a base price, and then paying monthly to "buy the rest", like a phone contract except with a games console.

If Microsoft does do this, and the rumours about it being always-online and always-on are true (and it seems increasingly apparent that they are), then Sony and Nintendo will dominate simply because MS are shooting themselves in the foot so much that they won't be able to walk anymore. Or MS will do amazingly out of sheer brandpower (but considering the PS3's slow start in face of the PS2, that may not be the case either)

Either way, this ain't the XBOX thread. Since the new thing is being revealed soon and is quite the popular discussion topic I'll make a thread for it tomorrow (unless someone would rather beat me to it )

I know this is the Sony thread, but is anyone actually planning on an Xbox 720 these days? Everything we hear is bad news. I'm firmly in the PS4 camp myself right now -- this coming from a guy who owned a 360 and not a PS3 this generation.

Make an Xbox thread, please. So I can rip the living shit out of it.

Actually, no. That's not what the threads are for : p
I only say that because I think the general concensus agrees this new Xbox sounds incredibly bad.

But yeah, getting tired of Xbox stuff in the Wii and PS threads now.

( Edited 09.04.2013 03:13 by Azuardo )

I'll create another, or someone should. It's long overdue. Edit: Create one.

I don't know how to feel about this, but I know I'm not miffed about the lack of BC, which is practically confirmed already. If this new 360 is tiny in size, I'll have no problem with getting one down the line. I'm far more inclined to get any new 360 slim, than a Wii Mini, that's for sure. 

If a subscription version lessens the cost in the UK significantly, I'm in. I am currently without XBL sub, so if they show some big exclusive games where subscription to XBL is mandatory, I'll most likely get the cheaper SKU. I don't expect Microsoft will do something lame like only offer the cheaper SKU in white only... I have no problem with saving money, I'll be putting the bulk of my money on a PS4 with all the trimmings.

Back to PS3 stuff, I'm not sure if it's out yet but has anyone heard of or tried Guacamelee? I've seen a few reviews for it and it sounds like a really good original Metroidvania.

And frankly I've been dying for a good new Metroidvania since Metroid stopped.. well... being. (so on that note if anyone can recommend one I can get cheap that'd be great, I'm planning on trying some Castlevania games soon too so don't worry about them)

Shadow Complex on XBLA is a well-known and apparently awesome Metroidvania-esque game. Wish I could play it myself.

Ah I actually got that one on launch, it's pretty ok, very Metroidy.

(But one thing I didn't know til after I bought it was that revenue from the game was going to an anti-homosexual organization that Epic Games supported and now I hate it)

( Edited 09.04.2013 15:17 by SuperLink )

Ex Retro Studios leads, were, making Megaman FPS

http://www.polygon.com/2013/4/9/4179628/mega-man-fps-maverick-hunter

SuperLink said:
Ah I actually got that one on launch, it's pretty ok, very Metroidy.

(But one thing I didn't know til after I bought it was that revenue from the game was going to an anti-homosexual organization that Epic Games supported and now I hate it)

Oh yeah, talking of Guacamelee, it really does have awesome reviews, and it's 20% off for PS Plus members tomorrow, so I might end up buying it. It's £9.99 with cross-buy (you get the Vita version free), cross-save, remote play. £7.99 for Plus members then. Could do with a Metroivania myself, so I may be swayed.

(Oh, and slight edits made to the topic title and OP. May add more info at a later date. Also, if you want to be added to the PSN list, just PM a Mod or post your PSN ID in here.)

( Edited 09.04.2013 21:58 by Azuardo )

Free cross-play too? Oh damn! If only my Vita memory card had enough space for it.  Still can't believe how outrageously expensive it is to get a decent one.

Yup, and a Platinum Trophy for those who trophy hunt.

What GB is your current Vita mem card? I think you should try checking your nearest HMV, since they have some great deals on. Someone posted that they bought a 32GB for £40. That sounds dear on paper, but it's actually a bargain considering. Otherwise, someone else said they got a 16GB for £27, also at HMV. It's well worth a look right now, since they have some real bargains on (I bought Resi 6 for £10, and DOA5 is also £10, among others).

I have a 4GB right now, but I can barely only have PS-AllStars and one other PS1 game on there. I'll have a look at HMV! I have so many PS1 games and some PSP games so I'd like a lot of space so I can have them all at once 8l