Designers of last year’s Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 used the processing power of the PlayStation 5 so Peter Parker’s outfits would be rendered with realistic textures and skyscraper windows could reflect rays of sunlight.
That level of detail did not come cheap.
Insomniac Games, which is owned by Sony, spent about $300 million to develop Spider-Man 2, according to leaked documents, more than triple the budget of the first game in the series, which was released five years earlier. Chasing Hollywood realism requires Hollywood budgets, and even though Spider-Man 2 sold more than 11 million copies, several members of Insomniac lost their jobs when Sony announced 900 layoffs in February.
Cinematic games are getting so expensive and time-consuming to make that the video game industry has started to acknowledge that investing in graphics is providing diminished financial returns.
It was clear this year, however, that the live service strategy carries its own risks. Warner Bros. Discovery took a $200 million loss on Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, according to Bloomberg. Sony closed the studio behind Concord, its attempt to compete with team-based shooters like Overwatch and Apex Legends, one month after the game released to a minuscule player base.
“We have a market that has been in growth mode for decades,” Ball said. “Now we are in a mature market where instead of making bets on growth, companies need to try and steal shares from each other.”
Ismail is worried that major studios are in a tight spot where traditional games have become too expensive but live service games have become too risky. He pointed to recent games that had both jaw-dropping realism — Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora (individual pebbles of gravel cast shadows) and Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II (rays of sunlight flicker through the trees) — and lackluster sales.
Looks at Balatro, the game I spent most time playing this year. Or Vampire Survivor, the game I spent most time playing last year.
Yes, they did! They certainly misread the market!
Realistic does not equal to good looking. In example Zelda Breath of the Wild looks good, but its hardly realistic. And if all games are very realistic, then it gets a little bit boring, as all games start to look the same. The AAA gaming industry is too much focused on lip sync, realistic faces, grass and puddles. I don’t feel like getting lost in a game, but more like watching a movie. It’s so boring to me (I’m looking at you Red Dead Redemption 2).
I think the point is that it would have still been a fantastic game if it hadn’t sunk a load of money into looking like a movie.
I’ve always disliked how washed out BotW looks. It’s like they could only process limited colours so they reduced the contrast and everything is light grey with a hint of colour.
It’s actually a deliberate stylistic choice. The colors are washed out with a post-processing filter. Textures are actually much more colorful. You can fix this in an emulator, but the problem is that it’s difficult to find a color preset that works in all lighting conditions. BotW has a consistent, almost painterly art style, even if it’s relatively muted.
Turns out you have to make a good game too. Who would have guessed?
Good games don’t automatically sell, on the contrary. Your average Ubisoft open world slop is “good”, but that’s not enough. Even very good, exceptional games don’t automatically sell. Game development is inherently risky. Large publishers tried to game the system by making “safe” bets, by offering spectacle in combination with tried and true mechanics and narratives. This worked for a long time, but due to changing market conditions, the core audience for these types of games getting tired of them and younger gamers not caring about the presentation, these publishers are spending more on a shrinking segment of the market.
The problem is that they maneuvered themselves into a corner. They have built huge, art-heavy studios in expensive cities to make large games that bring in large sums of money that finance this costly development. You can’t easily downsize this kind of operation, you can’t easily change your modus operandi after having built entire companies around it. I’m convinced that this will result in the death of most large publishers and developers. Ubisoft is only the start.
Why should EA, Microsoft or Sony fare any differently? Each can only hope that enough of their major competitors die so that they don’t have to fight around the same segment of the market anymore. They are all fundamentally unable to meaningfully capture the P2W and Gacha markets (same thing, really), especially in Asia, a segment where companies that were built to serve these types of games are truly at home. Those will slowly take over, until they too are too large and bloated to respond to changing market conditions - or until some event outside of their control, like a major conflict and/or economic crisis, wipes them off the map, paving the way for someone else entirely to lead the industry. The only thing that will remain constant is millions of small Indies fighting for scraps, with a tiny handful having the right combination of luck and skill (although mostly the former) to make a decent living.
Many people (including me) consider the best game of 2024 to be Balatro.
Balatro. A game made by one guy who legitimately didn’t even think anyone other than his friends and family would buy it.
AAA studios do not understand what people enjoy at all.
Balatro is 1) a fluke, an exception, a rarity and 2) not something big studios could even possibly replicate. What would be the point of a big studio trying to make a game that one developer can pull off? The closest the likes of Ubisoft in particular are getting to games like Baltro are their Indie-esque side projects that parts of their bigger studios engage in on the side, like Valiant Hearts. Those can never be enough to finance a big operation though.
You’re missing my point and arguing against a strawman here. All I’m arguing is that the things AAA studios focus on (like hyper-realism) are not the things that make a game fun, and AAA studios sound be putting fun as the focus.
I’m not arguing against a strawman, but against someone who might want to look into this topic a bit more closely. Balatro sold two million copies less than Star Wars Outlaws. People obviously want flashy spectacle more than tight mechanics - it’s just that even those higher sales figures weren’t enough to compensate for the bloated development budgets. That’s the real lesson. The old method of spending more and more money to make more and more money isn’t quite working anymore - not that people don’t want pretty graphics anymore (because they still do want those more than basic Indie art).
Balatro is…not something big studios could even possibly replicate
…and why not?
What would be the point of a big studio trying to make a game that one developer can pull off?
…money?
…and why not?
Because Balatro is a single developer’s vision realized without compromise, without producers, writers, tech people, art directors, etc. all meddling with the production in the usual “design by committee” approach that large studios are using. This kind of game can only exist as a solo or very small team project.
…money?
The mantra of big studios and publishers is to spend lots of money to make lots of money. Balatro sold a mere 3.5 million copies over the course of a year, for a price of $14. That’s just $34.3 million taking Steam’s 30% cut into account. Huge money for a solo dev (especially given that the budget was just $125,000), but both the sales figure and the sales revenue are in serious flop territory by big studio standards. Star Wars outlaws underperformed at 5.5 million copies sold, since it cost hundreds of millions to develop and market, including having the highest marketing budget of any game ever made. To put this into perspective, this means they spent significantly more than $150 million (the usual figure for a top of the line AAA game these days) on marketing alone.
You can not generate the kind of money that large publishers and studios need to survive with little Indie games.
They’re simply drawing all the wrong conclusions here:
even though Spider-Man 2 sold more than 11 million copies, several members of Insomniac lost their jobs when Sony announced 900 layoffs in February.
The layoffs don’t mean the game or company were unsuccessful, it means they found other ways to eliminate those jobs.
Warner Bros. Discovery took a $200 million loss on Suicide Squad
That’s nothing to do with graphical fidelity, it was a shit game that followed up a shit movie.
Sony closed the studio behind Concord
Lots of potential reasons for this. If you ask me, they released a $30 game into a genre chock full of “free to play” games.
Personally I appreciate “cinematic” games but titles like Balatro and Stardew Valley (neither of which I own) are proof of the simple fact that making games that are actually fun to play is far far more important, and far more profitable.
