Current Events > No wonder AAA developers don't want to try to make new games

(+) Yeah! (+)

Look at all these games that are popular for a few weeks and then lose all popularity, total fads

No wonder we are always getting more of the same + tons of remasters

What are you talking about?

They don't want to make money? Palworld could probably be called a fad and it sold 20 million copies. It was also something new at that.

So you're saying game companies don't want to sell 20 million copies with something new and fun like palworld because it might be a fad?

Yeah, AAA development has been going downhill. Costs are rising and dev time is increasing all the time, so they're basically forced to make stuff that would be near guaranteed to turn a profit, rather than taking chances with new ideas.

I remember when AAA meant premium games that also offered fantastic experiences, like a few gens ago. I miss that. I suppose lower budget devs/indies will fill that role from now on.

Games don't need to be playable forever you know.
It's okay to make a single player game that gives you a beginning and an end and you move on to other games.

Vyrulisse posted...

Games don't need to be playable forever you know.
It's okay to make a single player game that gives you a beginning and an end and you move on to other games.

A lot of gamers dont think this.

Although games used to be pretty short

I feel like there's just way too many games out now, nothing can hold you for very long before the NEXT BIG THING

BG3 is holding strong actually

seems you have some misconception

if they made full games instead of live service games it wouldn't matter how long people played after buying it

Damn_Underscore posted...

Look at all these games that are popular for a few weeks and then lose all popularity, total fads

You know if a game like Palworld sells 5 million copies they dont take those sales away when people stop playing?

Better release more gaas like Suicide Squad, that'll fix it

Whole process is pretty fucked

"Modern" expectations of AAA games take way too long to make and are way too expensive.

Then the "modern" Gamers just binge the content rushing through it as quickly as possible to be the first or fastest to beat it or to continue to be part of the games trend. Then after a week the player base drops off and they complain there is nothing to do in the game.

All that wasted time and money just for people to blow through the game in less than a week.

Dakimakura posted...

Whole process is pretty fucked

"Modern" expectations of AAA games take way too long to make and are way too expensive.

Then the "modern" Gamers just binge the content rushing through it as quickly as possible to be the first or fastest to beat it or to continue to be part of the games trend. Then after a week the player base drops off and they complain there is nothing to do in the game.

All that wasted time and money just for people to blow through the game in less than a week.

Baldur Gate 3 didn't have this problem

EDF-5 posted...

too many games not enough players

except for Baldur Gate 3 and Elden Ring

huh.......

Games dropping off after a few weeks is completely normal. It's only because games-as-service extending game lifespans that y'all even notice it and think it's a bad thing.

BakonBitz posted...

Yeah, AAA development has been going downhill. Costs are rising and dev time is increasing all the time, so they're basically forced to make stuff that would be near guaranteed to turn a profit, rather than taking chances with new ideas.

I remember when AAA meant premium games that also offered fantastic experiences, like a few gens ago. I miss that. I suppose lower budget devs/indies will fill that role from now on.

AAA never meant you were going to have a fantastic experience. That may be what you used to associate it with, but that term has always been about budget.

Guide posted...

Games dropping off after a few weeks is completely normal. It's only because games-as-service extending game lifespans that y'all even notice it and think it's a bad thing.

Its hilarious that people whine about GAAS model, but what whine about AAA game not lasting for months.

WingsOfGood posted...

Baldur Gate 3 didn't have this problem

How come?
I don't know a lot about the game beyond some characters people have told me about.

ViewtifulJoe posted...

How come?
I don't know a lot about the game beyond some characters people have told me about.

it has an online component. i think up to 4 players i havent tried it myself

Vyrulisse posted...

Games don't need to be playable forever you know.
It's okay to make a single player game that gives you a beginning and an end and you move on to other games.

Gamers: "We're adults. We don't want to play 80-100 hour open-world games over and over"

Also gamers: "So I'm just supposed to play 15-30 hours and then hang the game up? What a fucking waste of money."

Deutschenlied posted...

Gamers: "We're adults. We don't want to play 80-100 hour open-world games over and over"

Also gamers: "So I'm just supposed to play 15-30 hours and then hang the game up? What a fucking waste of money."

Nah gimme more of them 20 hour fuckers. That's the perfect length.

Vyrulisse posted...

Games don't need to be playable forever you know.
It's okay to make a single player game that gives you a beginning and an end and you move on to other games.

+1

When will people ever look at the consumers and blame it on them? Why is it always the devs fault?

VeggetaX posted...

When will people ever look at the consumers and blame it on them? Why is it always the devs fault?

I do place some blame on consumers too. People ragging on games for not being "hyper realistic with tons of details" has been pushing developers to increase dev budgets to unreasonable rates. It's unironically why Final Fantasy has been on a steady decline. People expect these games to look hella pretty and expensive and won't accept anything less, and Square Enix can barely support the budgets of these games when the profit margins are really small.

Dakimakura posted...

Whole process is pretty fucked

"Modern" expectations of AAA games take way too long to make and are way too expensive.

Then the "modern" Gamers just binge the content rushing through it as quickly as possible to be the first or fastest to beat it or to continue to be part of the games trend. Then after a week the player base drops off and they complain there is nothing to do in the game.

All that wasted time and money just for people to blow through the game in less than a week.

This

WingsOfGood posted...

Baldur Gate 3 didn't have this problem

But also Baldurs Gate 3 is a bit more niche for the game it is so it connects to a very specific gamer.

Vyrulisse posted...

Games don't need to be playable forever you know.
It's okay to make a single player game that gives you a beginning and an end and you move on to other games.

Wish more people realized this

Why tf should it matter if a game that isn't a live service game drops in players. If a game sells millions it sells millions

Personally I think the whole game industry has got a little too complicated to throw AAA titles around like they're WWF belts.

In my experience, there's a lot more that goes behind a "AAA" title than just the game itself. My favourite example is the Saints Row reboot. It was heralded as a AAA game but then universally lambasted. I picked it up, dirt cheap, a few years later and thought that it wasn't a top-shelf game, but a respectable game that I did actually enjoy. I then realised that none of the Saints Row games were really AAA games and I'd just fallen foul to the hype and disdain.

"True" AAA games do seem to get pretty fucking lazy now. I like the Far Cry series but the format is very tired. Same with Assassin's Creed. Same with FIFA and other yearly games. Even Forza suffers, with how awful the newest version is/was.

I think this also feeds into the comment above about how many hours you want to play a game for. I quite enjoyed Skyrim and was happy to say I've sunk a lot of time into the game - which was about 400 hours (over many years). I thought this was reasonable but there are people who are happily wanging in 1000+ hours in a fifth of the time.

So what's my point? I think it's best to deliver a game you can play as much or as little as you want, and let the consumers decide. Artifically inflating a game with 6GB updates every month, to add new stuff that's either locked behind a paywall or needs constant commitment, tends to turn a lot of people off - particularly those who have the disposable income to spend on new stuff.

Oh, a new DLC once a year? Hmm, maybe I'll look into it. Having to play the game at least 3 times a week to unlock it? Sorry, more important things to worry about.

I'm picking on Forza here particularly, the last Horizon game still has monthly updates and lots of challenges to unlock stuff. Okay, I get it, new challenges are great, but if you're pushing time-limited content, then once you miss a few, you just switch off. My Horizon Pass expired in August last year and I've not even considered renewing it. I've missed half a year of stuff I now can't get, so why bother?

GTA is also as bad, I switched off from that a long while ago, and I'm really hoping that the new game doesn't come loaded with pseudo-microtrasactions. Just because you spread them over a few weeks doesn't mean they still aren't microtransactions.

I'm going back to my Switch and playing the Pokemon TCG. The game is 26 years old now but if you forgive the GBC graphics, it's as good as it was when it was new.

Palworld should be a wakeup call to the industry.

If a game launching early access that isn't AAA, super big budget, advertised everywhere etc can sell millions of copies, why the hell are these companies spending and wasting so much of their money on duds.

buddah86 posted...

Palworld should be a wakeup call to the industry.

If a game launching early access that isn't AAA, super big budget, advertised everywhere etc can sell millions of copies, why the hell are these companies spending and wasting so much of their money on duds.

I would rather they not try to cash in on the early access crafting survival game trend tbh

buddah86 posted...

Palworld should be a wakeup call to the industry.

If a game launching early access that isn't AAA, super big budget, advertised everywhere etc can sell millions of copies, why the hell are these companies spending and wasting so much of their money on duds.

Exceptions are not going to be the norm though and when you consider the nature of Palworld itself its more a one off concept that probably wont work a second time.

buddah86 posted...

Palworld should be a wakeup call to the industry.

If a game launching early access that isn't AAA, super big budget, advertised everywhere etc can sell millions of copies, why the hell are these companies spending and wasting so much of their money on duds.

Personally I think the opposite. Palworld should be the nail in the coffin for dev creativity.

If a game launching early access, with buggy AI, little to no content apart from creature collecting and breeding, assets that look like they could be stolen and no real story can sell so many copies. Then what the f*** do gamers actually want in a game.

like I enjoy Palworld and cant wait for some updates. But man if I had to pick a game release in the last 3 years to sell that much. It sure wouldnt be that

Xerun posted...

Personally I think the opposite. Palworld should be the nail in the coffin for dev creativity.

If a game launching early access, with buggy AI, little to no content apart from creature collecting and breeding, assets that look like they could be stolen and no real story can sell so many copies. Then what the f*** do gamers actually want in a game.

like I enjoy Palworld and cant wait for some updates. But man if I had to pick a game release in the last 3 years to sell that much. It sure wouldnt be that

If Ubisoft or EA released Palworld gamers would be furious at them.

Considering The Day Before was the most preordered Steam game of all time nobody should be wanting anyone to copy what is lucrative on there.

Xerun posted...

Personally I think the opposite. Palworld should be the nail in the coffin for dev creativity.

If a game launching early access, with buggy AI, little to no content apart from creature collecting and breeding, assets that look like they could be stolen and no real story can sell so many copies. Then what the f*** do gamers actually want in a game.

Cliffy B tried it twice and it failed miserably so clearly there's more to the equation than just "rip off someone and release a glitchy game"

Tyranthraxus posted...

Cliffy B tried it twice and it failed miserably so clearly there's more to the equation than just "rip off someone and release a glitchy game"

Yeah Pokemon.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Cliffy B tried it twice and it failed miserably so clearly there's more to the equation than just "rip off someone and release a glitchy game"

You attach a hook the thing is what you do because again it probably wouldnt attract too much if it was just a survival crafting game. Add Pokmon with guns.

? The whole point of the AAA industry is to get large amount of sales during the first few weeks and the price drops like a rocket a few months after to get the few extra sales. Only Nintendo actually does the opposite and instead keeps a stable price.

LightHawKnight posted...

? The whole point of the AAA industry is to get large amount of sales during the first few weeks and the price drops like a rocket a few months after to get the few extra sales. Only Nintendo actually does the opposite and instead keeps a stable price.

Probably because Nintendo is the one out of the three that are a primary console creator while the others have other massive tech industries they are a part of.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Cliffy B tried it twice and it failed miserably so clearly there's more to the equation than just "rip off someone and release a glitchy game"

Yeah. But other than the ripping off of Pokmon what is that hook? I admit the game is a bit of fun. But thats a lot of sales for a bit of fun

Xerun posted...

Yeah. But other than the ripping off of Pokmon what is that hook? I admit the game is a bit of fun. But thats a lot of sales for a bit of fun

The gun part probably. Honestly cant really place my finger on a lot of games I. The survival crafting genre that lets you go from Stone Age weapons to modern guns outside idk Ark maybe? (Feel free to correct me on that if Ark doesnt have guns)

It's slightly altered Craftopia style look, which they made

Modern gaming executives believe that people play one singular game forever and they want to milk that for all it's worth with live service.

However they typically ignore the fact that you're lucky to see a like 50% retention rate at a third of the way through most games, online or not.

So that means short repetitive live service games and remakes of things that already sold well are the only way forward.

Damn_Underscore posted...

Although games used to be pretty short

Most games from my youth could be beaten in under two hours from start to finish, if you knew what you were doing. Of course, we died a lot and had to redo everything over and over until we made it through.

pjnelson posted...

Most games from my youth could be beaten in under two hours from start to finish, if you knew what you were doing. Of course, we died a lot and had to redo everything over and over until we made it through.

Plus some games were designed with arcades in mind so the mentality in creating games was making them hard as shit to beat to extend the play time.

Damn_Underscore posted...

A lot of gamers dont think this.

Although games used to be pretty short

Most gamers don't even finish their games.

party_animal07 posted...

Most gamers don't even finish their games.

I haven't even installed all of my games