AAA Single Player Games are too expensive to make says Developer of Quantum Break

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

I love Remedy's games since I've played Max Payne 2. I've only played the first Max Payne after I've played the second one.

But it pisses me off to see them complaining about their Quantum Break not being successful and thus they're going to focus on multiplayer.

Quantum Break failed because it was a mediocre third person shooter that no one asked for. People wanted Alan Wake 2, including myself. Instead they got a poorly optimized game with mediocre shooting mechanics and for Remedy an incredibly sub-par story.

Plus the game also costed more to make because they've integrated a completely pointless TV show in it that added nothing to the overall plot. It was just meaningless filler. Not to mention the actors that were in it probably were quite a good portion of the budget for the game.

Not to mention that people at least at first had to deal with Win10's crappy Store to get it.

 

In the end Remedy you reap what you sow. Now piss off.

[Eduard the weeb]

There are mainly gone from the AAA market I believe.

 last one I would even consider to play was Mirrors Edge Catalyst 

 

Like I still think its possible to make a only single player tripe A game it would be difficult tbh

[SteveGrabowski0]

7 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Is this just their excuse for how badly Quantum Break turned out?

I thought Quantum Break was actually a really solid game. I loved the story, it had really strong voice acting, and the time slowdown effects made for more interesting combat than the typical 3rd person action game. Where they screwed up was in making it such a long timed exclusive for the ShitBox One and Windows Store. The Steam version was good though. Not GOTY material by any means but still a fun 20 hours or so.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

48 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Physically Based Rendering.

 

And what even is Physically... o, wait:

48 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

I'm not going to pretend I know a ton about it cos I don't so here's a definition from Wikipedia:

Thanks  

 

The thing is, that seems like technical slang that may be ever present among developers. As a consumer, though, I hardly demand something I don't even know what it is  It's all more or less "looks better" vs "looks worse to me", but a game is ultimately and mostly a gameplay mechanic, regardless of the makeup covering it.

Not to mention in a wide variety of games there isn't any physics to animate anyway, since they aren't 3D shooters. I mean, yes, you can take almost any game in that direction if you want to, but for example I feel personally insulted by Civilization VI's shiny water and cranked up GPU. It's like watching Chessmaster evolve ("involve"?) into Battle Chess...

 

I don't know, I would ask these managers how much of the allegedly "too high" budget (notice the difference between being very large -absolute terms- and being "too large" -relative to something-) is spent on ensuring the game is fun. Not graphics, voice acting, music, marketing, fake cinematics for the hype machine, etc, but actually on the design of the game.

Sure, "Transformers" was a much more expensive movie to make than "Twelve Angry Men", but Michael Bay better not try to tell me that "good movies are too expensive to make"

 

[Derangel]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

At the end of the day, the business is in control of the cost and content of their product.

Developing a game is both easier and cheaper now than it has ever been. It's just that game development companies choose to spend more money. They hire more developers than they used to. They hire more artists. They spend more on marketing. They are the ones choosing to do all those things.

 

The original Unreal game was created by 15 people. That was it. That includes the producers, designers, programmers, sound and visual artists. They did not use any of the convienence luxuries we have today either, like pre-made game engines. They did everything themselves.

Of course a game will be more expensive if you employ ~150 people instead of 15. That is your decision though.

I'm sure they would love to argue that the increase in people result in a better game, and I am not entirely convinced. It might be better in some regards but I wouldn't be surprised if "too many cooks" often creates problems too.

 

It's like with the LinusTechTips channel.

"We have all these ads in our videos because we need money to pay our employees".

The amount of videos (and games) haven't gone up from these video creators (game developers), but they have willingly increased the cost of production.

The only ones to blame for the increased costs are themselves. They are the only ones in control of their production costs.

Costs always go up. Things get more complicated, people get paid more, more people are needed, etc. Businesses have to keep growing and advancing in order to stay in business. Its not even a choice, they have to do it or they die. No business survives long-term by not growing. This isn't the 90s anymore. People demand advances. Better graphics, better physics, better gameplay, etc, etc, etc. There has always been and always will be a demand for companies to keep pushing boundaries and to move forward. AAA games need a lot of people because that is what it requires to get games done on that scale and those are the kinds of games that reliably sell millions of copies. Witcher 3 needed over 150 people, Cyberpunk is over 300 at this point and that isn't even going to be its peak.

 

No, they are not to blame. That is simply the reality of doing business. Your brand goes stale, you die. You have to grow, change, and advance. The choice is either find ways to keep bringing people in and making money or stick with the same thing that will grow stale and then die. That's how things work in the real world.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Costs always go up. Things get more complicated, people get paid more, more people are needed, etc. Businesses have to keep growing and advancing in order to stay in business. Its not even a choice, they have to do it or they die. No business survives long-term by not growing.

Actually, no business survives on the basis of ever-growing costs. In fact, by and large, technological progress basically means lower costs. Compound costs reductions is how we get to increase our living standards.

 

2 minutes ago, Derangel said:

This isn't the 90s anymore. People demand advances. Better graphics, better physics, better gameplay, etc, etc, etc. There has always been and always will be a demand for companies to keep pushing boundaries and to move forward.

Citation needed. Also, pressure to move "forward" sounds good, but it's not obvious what "forward" is.

 

2 minutes ago, Derangel said:

 

No, they are not to blame. That is simply the reality of doing business. Your brand goes stale, you die. You have to grow, change, and advance. The choice is either find ways to keep bringing people in and making money or stick with the same thing that will grow stale and then die. That's how things work in the real world.

I can pretty much tell you that the reality of business is definitely not "increase your costs or die". Increase your profits? Maybe. Stay relevant? Maybe. Become more costly? No, definitely not.

Size and market segment are part of a business' strategy formulation. Right or wrong, it is a choice, and each company is where its own choices take them. That's what CEOs, CFOs, and the like get those fat salaries for, you know, making choices. Fatalism would be far cheaper for shareholders  

[AlTech]

 

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

To be fair, Valve does take like 40 percent from what I have been told by devs.

30% *

 

And they pay devs after the first $1000 USD worth of sales as of Steam Direct.

[Derangel]

3 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Actually, no business survives on the basis of ever-growing costs. In fact, by and large, technological progress basically means lower costs. Compound costs reductions is how we get to increase our living standards.

 

Citation needed. Also, pressure to move "forward" sounds good, but it's not obvious what "forward" is.

 

I can pretty much tell you that the reality of business is definitely not "increase your costs or die". Increase your profits? Maybe. Stay relevant? Maybe. Become more costly? No, definitely not.

Size and market segment are part of a business' strategy formulation. Right or wrong, it is a choice, and each company is where its own choices take them. That's what CEOs, CFOs, and the like get those fat salaries for, you know, making choices. Fatalism would be far cheaper for shareholders  

Growth can also include increasing costs. Hiring more people costs more money. As people are at a company longer they get paid more than when they started. Hiring costs go up over time, over a decade starting pay increases. A company is going to be spending less money when they're a 10-15 person operation then when they grow to 100+ people. Increasing profits can also require spending more money. Developing new products costs lots of money. When talking about tech, producing the same technology costs less over time. Producing new technology costs more, until the process to do it and the parts needed get cheaper. R&D costs also go up over time as well, you spend more to develop a new product. In terms of game development, there is an exponential cost increase generation to generation. This has been true since the first game consoles. Big publishers have cut costs by putting out less games per year while they spend more per-game then they did last generation. They bring in record profits though, because they know where and how to put that extra money to use.

[Mira Yurizaki]

This led me to think about something the other day. How CD Projekt Red can fund something like The Witcher 3 and its franchise when it's a single player game with no form of continuous revenue as far as I know. Then I remembered they own GOG.com. So it makes me wonder how much GOG.com makes for them to fund their development of games. But in any case, they seem more like a version of Valve I would've liked to have.

 

On an aside, Kotaku had an article about how much it costs to make a game these days last year. Apparently the magic number of how much it's going to cost is $10,000 per person working on the game directly per month. And that includes all of the administration, logistics, and marketing.

 

38 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Growth can also include increasing costs. Hiring more people costs more money. As people are at a company longer they get paid more than when they started. Hiring costs go up over time, over a decade starting pay increases. A company is going to be spending less money when they're a 10-15 person operation then when they grow to 100+ people. Increasing profits can also require spending more money. Developing new products costs lots of money. When talking about tech, producing the same technology costs less over time. Producing new technology costs more, until the process to do it and the parts needed get cheaper. R&D costs also go up over time as well, you spend more to develop a new product. In terms of game development, there is an exponential cost increase generation to generation. This has been true since the first game consoles. Big publishers have cut costs by putting out less games per year while they spend more per-game then they did last generation. They bring in record profits though, because they know where and how to put that extra money to use.

Even if the technology gets cheaper to use, the artistic side is always going to have a flat cost. Moreso if you use a "celebrity" artist. You want Matt Mercer or Nolan North on your voice acting team? Want Jeremy Soule or Harry Gregson-Williams to do the music? That's a good chunk of the budget.

[Princess Luna]

Wanna know what's funny? Life is Strange is better than Quantum Break in every aspect, much more genuine action, much easier to live and relate to story, much more depth characters, much superior story, much better handling of the power of time, much more intense, and it probably was a lot cheaper to produce.

[Blebekblebek]

OH NO AAA GAME IS TO EXPENSIVE TO DEVELOP WE CAN'T AFFORD TO MAKE IT.

10 sec look at wikipedia

 

I'm not expert in economy, but I do know that green arrow are profit, I don't know who's they are trying to convince either, you? me? does anyone believe this stupid claim.

 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, Derangel said:

Growth can also include increasing costs. Hiring more people costs more money.

 

That's about total costs, but "growing" means higher income too, so the point is moot. I was referring to the (relevant) unit costs. If you have 10 times the staff and 10 times or more the output, then it's fine, but you don't have a "high cost problem". If you have 10 times the staff but are doing significantly less than 10 times the output then you are doing something very wrong management-wise (understanding "output" in a broad sense, i.e., overall firm profitability).

 

[Tcrumpen]

9 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Remedy Entertainment, the developed behind Quantum Break and the now infamously terrible launch of Quantum Break, has confessed that AAA Single Player Games are too expensive to make.

 

 

This is what the Remedy Entertainment head of communications had to say:

 

<Sarcasm>

Oh shit! Would you look at that??!! AAA games are too f*cking expensive to make! Boo hoo hoo. Oh dear, whatever will the gaming industry do now?

</Sarcasm>

 

Inb4, next financial analyst day for any AAA publisher "AAA Single Player games are too expensive to make". 

 

I think it's personally a whole load of shit and that they're just tired of not milking every last dime from players. Hoepfully the AAA gaming space crashes down soon or something cos they need a reality check.

 

Source: https://wccftech.com/remedy-aaa-single-player-expensive-make/

Maybe if companies cared more about the storyline and how the game flows rather than trying to impress teenagers eyes with pretty graphics they would sell better, look at the KOTOR series really dated graphics but still one of the best stroylines i've ever seen in a video game. Heck Prince of Persia Sands of Time Trilogy had really good story and last two the graphics although dated still look half decent today

[mynameisjuan]

20 minutes ago, Blebekblebek said:

OH NO AAA GAME IS TO EXPENSIVE TO DEVELOP WE CAN'T AFFORD TO MAKE IT.

10 sec look at wikipedia

 

 

I'm not expert in economy, but I do know that green arrow are profit, I don't know who's they are trying to convince either, you? me? does anyone believe this stupid claim.

 

 

Well once you realize that money is being dumped elsewhere like new games, expanding the company, outsourcing, merchandise....etc...AAA studios have 10+ games being developed at one time. That is money needed prior to development. 

 

 Call it a stupid claim but being ignorant about it doesnt help your point. 

[AlTech]

Just now, Tcrumpen said:

Maybe if companies cared more about the storyline and how the game flows rather than trying to impress teenagers eyes with pretty graphics they would sell better, look at the KOTOR series really dated graphics but still on of the best stroylines i've ever seen in a video game. Heck Prince of Persia Sands of Time Trilogy had really good story and last two the graphics although dated still look half decent today

On Consoles, Sex Appeal sells $$$.

 

On PC it doesn't nearly as much.

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

Well once you realize that money is being dumped elsewhere like new games, expanding the company, outsourcing, merchandise....etc...AAA studios have 10+ games being developed at one time. That is money needed prior to development. 

 

 Call it a stupid claim but being ignorant about it doesnt help your point. 

Actually, Activision is probably working on like 4 or 5 games at most right now.

 

3 of them are COD games coming out in the future due to Activision's release cycle for COD.

 

and the extra 1-2 are probably games we don't know about yet.

[Tcrumpen]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

On Consoles, Sex Appeal sells $$$.

 

On PC it doesn't nearly as much.

I agree that "Sex Sells"

 

But what game companies need to recognise is they still use the "Sex Sells" but not be dedicated on cutting edge graphics, Mass Effect had really good graphics for the time and they managed to use the "Sex Sells" thing but still made a game with a really great story (ignoring the ending controversy)

[mynameisjuan]

Just now, Tcrumpen said:

Maybe if companies cared more about the storyline and how the game flows rather than trying to impress teenagers eyes with pretty graphics they would sell better, look at the KOTOR series really dated graphics but still on of the best stroylines i've ever seen in a video game. Heck Prince of Persia Sands of Time Trilogy had really good story and last two the graphics although dated still look half decent today

Not all people care about story lines. I personally dont give a shit about it and care more about time put into game mechanics. Also if a game is released now with crap graphics it needs even better gameplay to make up for it which some indies are doing quite well because graphics are "the thing" now. 

 

Story, gameplay, visuals are all objective. Just dumping your money into a story will not sell more games. 

[Tcrumpen]

3 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Not all people care about story lines. I personally dont give a shit about it and care more about time put into game mechanics. Also if a game is released now with crap graphics it needs even better gameplay to make up for it which some indies are doing quite well because graphics are "the thing" now. 

 

Story, gameplay, visuals are all objective. Just dumping your money into a story will not sell more games. 

"Not all people care about graphics" you can't please everyone but a lot of gamers i know tend to agree with me that if a game has decent graphics and a good storyline they are more likely to play it than it it has cutting edge graphics and a story worse than 50 shades of gray

 

Also game mechanics can come into "game flow"

[mynameisjuan]

8 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Actually, Activision is probably working on like 4 or 5 games at most right now.

 

3 of them are COD games coming out in the future due to Activision's release cycle for COD.

 

and the extra 1-2 are probably games we don't know about yet.

Its not just activision, activision blizzard is the big dog which comprises of: 

 

Spoiler

Again money is needed elsewhere throughout the company. I dont get why you and a few others are just blaming it on greed. 

[Notional]

Maybe if they didn't make it Xbox exclusive it wouldn't be? The PC port is atrocious, so it's hardly a surprise it sold poorly on PC.

 

Making a tv series, on the other hand, is expensive. And when it ruins the gameplay, it's not really value adding.

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, Tcrumpen said:

Maybe if companies cared more about the storyline and how the game flows rather than trying to impress teenagers eyes with pretty graphics they would sell better, look at the KOTOR series really dated graphics but still one of the best stroylines i've ever seen in a video game. Heck Prince of Persia Sands of Time Trilogy had really good story and last two the graphics although dated still look half decent today

KOTOR looked good for it's time. Not amazing top of the line, but not dated either. Same with Sands of Time.

[Tcrumpen]

Just now, Derangel said:

KOTOR looked good for it's time. Not amazing top of the line, but not dated either. Same with Sands of Time.

Compared to today's AAA games graphics it looks very dated, that's the point i was making

[RagnarokDel]

10 hours ago, ScratchCat said:

Well SureAI managed to pull of a probably better game for free with Enderal using a much smaller team while only borrowing the engine and some resources from Skyrim.

 

That's like saying: Game development is easy when half the job is done for you.

[RagnarokDel]

8 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Mass Effect Andromeda - Broken AF

I'm playing it right now and apart from the terrible animations  (mostly seen in cutscenes) it works really well.