There's been a lot of uproar about the escalating risks of console games publishing over the past six months, a lot of talk about the "death" of triple A, of boxed videogames, and of consoles full stop. The hubbub far outweighs the reality, doubtless - key franchises like Assassin's Creed, FIFA, Call of Duty continue to sell well, in spite of hectic doom-gloom pronouncements - but these are clearly serious times for the industry. Caught between market fatigue and mountainous development costs, publishers are busily consolidating veteran teams out of existence.
I ask Elliott what he makes of Epic technology boss Tim Sweeney's claim that next generation games will cost twice as much to develop - one of the more conservative predictions, would you believe. He sighs and sags, eyes roaming the carpet. "It's... I guess... for guys at my level it's... the fear is probably that which everyone has. You see these notices that studios that have been around for a long time and have produced some, like, excellent games, you know, that are either consolidating or are just being closed outright.
"And sure, it's hard not to be afraid that the future doesn't hold out a place for you but... it's a big gamble, right?" Elliott goes on, still studying the carpet. "There's no other way to phrase it. Similar to Hollywood, the stakes just kept getting higher and higher."
A few numbers to put all this in context. Estimates for how much boxed console games currently cost to develop range from the $20 million average given by EA Casual boss Harvey Elliott (as of 2008), to the whopping £50-£80 million figure, including marketing costs, proposed by Peter Molyneux last year. Pick a major franchise at random, and you'll probably notice a dramatic rise in expenditure - Halo 4's total budget, for instance, reportedly exceeds even the $60 million Microsoft spent on the development and marketing of Halo 3, the franchise's debut on Xbox 360.
Partly as a consequence, the amount the average game needs to sell to break even has soared - where once a million sales worldwide would have been an incredible achievement, publishers now expect to haul in at least three or four times as many purchases. Hence, among other things, the popularity of pre-order incentives like those dubious "limited editions", and that damaging obsession with countering pirates and demonising the pre-owned market.
12 comments so far...
Dobs on 14 Jan '13 said:
I've only recently entered the world of Xbox 360 games -- in middle age of all things. And it surprises me to learn that developers seem to build so much of these AAA titles -- or any titles -- from the ground up, so to speak. I'd imagined that some computer-aided design software might have long since made the process quite streamlined -- that the main delays and complications would only arise in the crucial creative choices and not in cobbling together the physical mechanics or the visual integrity of the games. Might someone develop a master software that provides for every developer a quick and dynamic framing-out of any game's architecture and cinematics?
OXM ETboy on 15 Jan '13 said:
Welcome to the forum, Dobs - nice first post. Did you pick up an Xbox for any particular games?
As far as streamlining development goes, it entirely depends on the game. Some of them are built using more user-friendly or simply better-understood middleware, like Epic's Unreal Engine or the Call of Duty/id Tech 3 platform. Generally speaking, though, even adapting software to serve a new concept is costly, and then there's the marketing spend to account for.
mariachi2000 on 15 Jan '13 said:
As a matter of reference... how much more expensive is a AAA xbox 360 game to make than a AAA original xbox game?
If it is double the cost then we have proof that the industry can survive the upgrade. Also, the customer base has increased dramatically over the last 7 years which makes it even more likely to survive.
I like AAA games and think most people on the forum agree... there was a poll a month or two ago showing that people buy AAA games. This means that the developers will surely survive. I think they're making a bit of a fuss to be honest.
OXM ETboy on 15 Jan '13 said:
I'm not sure, but probably by an order of magnitude. Agreed that there's a precedent for the industry surviving this kind of transition, but the odds seem to be stiffer nowadays. So many studio closures...
CunningSmile on 15 Jan '13 said:
As Ed says it doesn't bode well that so many well respected studios are closing as we approach the end of this cycle, but we've also seen a lot a new studios (particularly Eastern European ones) spring up in the last few years and quickly build strong reputations.
I think the switch to new generation will probably bring something similar to what we are seeing in retail: Companies that can forge a new identity and move with the times will thrive whilst the ones that can't will go the way of HMV. Strange as it sounds I can't shake the feeling Acti may well be one of them. Just like most of the fallen high street giants they have come to rely more and more on fewer and fewer products, and both CoD and WoW have seen a drop in customers this year. New consoles are the time people try new things, meaning they risk losing market share to newer FPS and the 14 year olds who buy one game a year probably won't be early adopters of new tech so poor old Activision may suddenly find themselves in a more competative market without the old safety net and, more importantly, having closed the very studios that they could have looked at to develop new IPs.
FishyGinger on 15 Jan '13 said:
If activision were smart they would have been investing the millions and millions they get from call of duty and skylanders but you're right, I can see them sticking all their eggs in one basket and if it doesn't work for them they could crash.
It maybe would have been better for them had modern warfare not been as successful.
Thos. on 15 Jan '13 said:
We could potentially be heading for another industry crash. Companies such as EA rely on making higher profits every year, which is simply unsustainable.
We've already had numerous failed MMOs with everyone trying to copy WoW. Free to play and mobile gaming are a big gamble, which usually fail to pay off.
People are getting wiser to money-grabbing shenanigans, and with a huge number of 'living room based entertainment devices' coming out this year, there aren't enough customers to go around, and each platform will have far fewer players than the current generation.
Dobs on 15 Jan '13 said:
Thanks for the warm welcome. Truth be told I was relentlessly cajoled into the purchase by my older brother, who hoped to combine our forces in either MW3 or Black Ops 2 online -- aided by his fearless 7 yr. old son/my nephew. Frankly, the only title I was familiar with even by name at that point, a scant six weeks ago, was the Assassins Creed franchise, and only by virtue of its many eye-catching advertisements over the years -- with their panoramic visuals and dramatic combat scenes.
Ironically, Assassins Creed 2 was then the second game I returned to the store -- after MW3 -- as I found the initial AC 2 missions tiresome and the fighting mechanics underwhelming. It's thus been a steep learning curve, as I've acquainted myself with the AAA titles via online reviews such as those provided here and by watching parts of other's gameplay videos.
I find myself gravitating toward older, less expensive games that remind me of the simpler ones I enjoyed as a teen. An intense Smash Court 3 match, however primitive it might appear next to a Mass Effect 3, for example, nevertheless grants me a challenging, "honest" game world that doesn't seem as far removed from reality as an FPS or an RPG, my two least favorite "cheat" genres thus far. (The former "cheating" mainly for its merciful health recoveries and its often endless ammo; the latter, mainly for its one-attacker-at-a-time, polite melees and its encyclopedic inventories)
In fact the only two AAA titles that have so far genuinely enthralled me are Red Dead Redemption and Bioshock (if the latter qualifies.) Extensive care and much thought were manifestly invested into both worlds. And both are grounded in a sense of reality's limitations -- the former title in every way possible, the latter at least in its graphic, philosophical revelations concerning the limits of human progress.
I therefore wouldn't consider it a great loss if fewer AAA titles were created for the next generation of consoles. More effort ought to be brought in giving the games deeper, more distinctive settings with starker rules of reality -- no more two-second health recoveries or magical time-outs for quick inventory scrolling. "These kids today..." seem to want the rules bent too far in their favor, rather than exploring disciplined game worlds, proving themselves honestly, and in the process learning something more about the real world around them.
Drainwater on 15 Jan '13 said:
Dobs your post has me wondering if the problem might be the fact that since many of the games released these days are all about the instant gratification, maybe people aren't enjoying them on some subconscious level. Sure we buy them because we think they look fun, but then we realize how easy and/or simple the game is and we start avoiding either that title's sequels or the publisher entirely. Then they escalate by throwing more money in to production to try and lure us back and we just keep repeating the cycle until something breaks. Like...the industry? I do have to agree though, reading this article had me thinking of all those fun games I played as a kid. I still fire up Super Mario Brothers or the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Arcade game (that last one was a multiplayer fest at New Year's no less!), and really, if they made more games like those, I would totally buy them. Maybe I wouldn't pay $60 or 120 pounds or whatever the conversion is, but I'd definitely be willing to pay something to see games like that again.
CunningSmile on 16 Jan '13 said:
Wow Dobs, great second post. I'll second Edwin's welcome and hope you stick around as judging by your wordy analytical post you'll fit in perfectly round here.
Sorry you didn't enjoy AC2 as it's one of my favorites, but good call on Red Dead and Bioshock two of the best games on 360. As a newbie try looking at our reviews thread and Best Games of 20X threads for suggestions of others you may like. I'll throw in my personal recommendations for Batman:Arkham Asylum and Mass Effect 1 as both are great games that really offer a rewarding experience for anyone willing to put in the time. If you like a certain amount of realism you'll probably enjoy ME1 more than it's later sequels due to it's lack of recharging health and greater reliance on health packs but the richness of the universe makes everything within it feel real and genuine, and whilst Batman does offer recharging health it doesn't kick in until after a fight ends so you still get a realistic experience of Batman's vulnerability.
And if you like cheaper and "old school" check out Xbox Live Arcade as many of the games on there, even newer ones, deliberately try to evoke a more retro ethic than most of the AAA games.
FishyGinger on 16 Jan '13 said:
Didn't metro 2033 have a dlc thing for hardcore mode with no hud etc?
Otherwise it's all horses for courses really and what I would like you might not. Fallout 3 has probably been my fav on xbox, along with AC2 and mass effect 1.
Maybe max payne for it's fairly simple but effective gameplay.
DoucheVader on 16 Jan '13 said:
"that damaging obsession with countering pirates and demonising the pre-owned market."
Damaging obsession from preventing non-content owners from getting a free ride?