He is partially right. Although i enjoy my uber-polished Uncharted experiences etc, for 90% of studios out there, that just isn't sustainable.
Just look at the boom of indie and mobile games while big budget titles like MOH: Warfighter are tanking.
I can definitely see where he is coming from to an extent, my wallet would appreciate this move too since i wouldn't be shelling out up to £45/$60+ on every title.
Even a tiered pricing plan would be good. £40 for your time destroying title like Battlefield and maybe £25-30 for "smaller" titles like The Darkness or yearly releases that cost less to develop from the previous years iterations.
You're most likely right but I hope you're wrong. AAA games are the ones that leave a mark and the $5 are good for a little time-wasting but nothing more than a turd in a toilet - flushed from memory after you're done.
I think people are getting confused with terminology here... I don't seem to recall the term "AAA" to be used that much until the start of the graphic intensive focus of the last 2 gens(mainly this last one). The focus of his statements seems to be on claiming that there will be fewer envelope pushing games in terms of graphics and high dev costs. the *quality* will be the same, but with less hassle in development. This would lead to better games overall as completed products and maybe even more creative games as well.
This interpretation I have come up with is based is based off one of his quotes posted on NintendoEverything from this instance, so I may not have all the details of his quote: http://nintendoeverything.c...
For what it's worth, I also think this has some merit as potential commentary on the "power" extent of the PS4/Xbox720
Nothing will change overnight. We will still see big budgeted games next generation. The good thing is we can have low priced games along with the $60 games we have now on the same system. What will likely occur is mid-priced games that get advertising like current AAA games. It's also likely those lower priced games will be new IP's with greater risks.
"It's also likely those lower priced games will be new IP's with greater risks." That makes a lot sense and also makes me think their budgets will skyrocket like console/pc games have and eventually they may become AAA $60.
Could be following the same pattern as console/pc games ironically enough.
My take on it is if you feel your studio is failing to make games that compete with the best in the business or the profits you need to run the studio, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your own business and not the entire gaming industry.
Instead of trying to complete in a losing battle against the likes of Naughty Dog, Bungie, Bioware, Sony Santa Monica, Polyphony, Turn 10, Epic, etc... just make a new experience.
1. We're going to buy the games from those developers, because we are familiar with their experiences and know we can expect a high degree of polish and quality from their games. But as for many others you need to do something unique, something new, and original so you can standout of their shadows and be the next Bioshock, Dishonored, Angry Birds (ugh), Minecraft, etc... Stop using the same old formula and sit down and think of something new.
2. If that's not your thing release a heavy story driven game, with episodic content. The Walking Dead and Alan Wake have proved it'll work as long as the game is still good.
3. If that's not you cup of tea, then try developing two separate games from two development teams and selling them on a single disc. HD Collections, PSN and XBL Collections, and games like Dead Space 2 having it's PSN/XBLA version all on the disc tend to do well in sales because it gives gamers more diversity and a great value for their money.
4. Then there's the opposite of making a heavy story driven game. Instead make a gameplay driven game, whether that's co-op, competitive, or just full of action. Left 4 Dead, Counter Strike, and hack and slash are the proof that this works as well.
5. Finally if all else fails then pick up a license (Spiderman, Ironman, Superman, Movie, TV show, event, etc...) and make a good game out of it (a great game would be better). Batman Arkham series, Hulk Ultimate Destruction, and the old Spiderman games prove this works.
Re-evaluate your studio, because you might not be working to your company's strengths. IMO a combination of 1., 2., and 4. would be best for the Splinter Cell studio. Learn from Alpha Protocol, Deus Ex, Hitman, and MGS and craft a new stealth game and set it in a unique world worth exploring (leave the real world out of it).
IMO that's how you make a AAA multi-million seller. Not Splinter Cell 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...
It's hard for it to be the future when it costs so much for developers to make. Most can't sustain that sort of risk. The big budget games will always exist, but there will be fewer and fewer I think.
Maybe for Ubisoft it isnt but all these new engines & nx gen games being prepped seem to be AAA to me.. Waiting on E3 to roll around is going to kill me with anticipation
I don't think developers that actually have respect for themselves would do things like this. NaughtyDog, Bungie, Valve, Insomniac games, etc. will continue to develop great games that exceed expectations and shine in quality.
And even if this does happen. There will come a point where people will get tired of games that aren't AAA, and there will be a high demand for excellent games. So it'll come around, don't worry
More than likely we'll always continue to have both. Some studios pride themselves on their quality(such as the ones you mentioned), however for some of the middle and low tier studios they simply are going to hit a brick wall financially when it comes to making AAA games.
A big thing this generation was that if it wasn't AAA it seemed to have this air of not being worth people's time. There were a lot of good games that didn't have the polish of those studios, but were still enjoyable...maybe not worth $60 though. I think what this guy is saying is that you'll see more of these kinds of games come into the limelight in the coming generation, and realistically there could be more profit in them since they will cost substantially less to produce.
Indie games are great but dont have the PR of AAA titles so I dont see how this will be possible unless all the studios go bankrupt making these expensive games.
It isn't just the PR of AAA titles that indie games are lacking. They're lacking the polish due to being low-budget and market appeal to get more than just a few thousand people to notice them. XBL, PSN, NN and Steam can attract only so many people. And there's still a lot of people who think that lower price = inferior quality. In effect the indie scene isn't gonna take over.
the witcher 1 and 2 were made by a small team for a fraction of the budgets of most games
the witcher 1 is better than any AAA game from the last 5 years, the witcher 2 is close as well
most of the money spent in a games "development" is in advertising, signing exclusive deals with gamestop, best buy ext... putting commercials on tv that no one watches, tell game mags, send them demos, and youtube and places like n4g will do the rest for free
60°
30°
100°
40°
Ad 
40°
10°
10°
10°
10°
0°
Just look at the boom of indie and mobile games while big budget titles like MOH: Warfighter are tanking.
I can definitely see where he is coming from to an extent, my wallet would appreciate this move too since i wouldn't be shelling out up to £45/$60+ on every title.
Even a tiered pricing plan would be good. £40 for your time destroying title like Battlefield and maybe £25-30 for "smaller" titles like The Darkness or yearly releases that cost less to develop from the previous years iterations.
I don't seem to recall the term "AAA" to be used that much until the start of the graphic intensive focus of the last 2 gens(mainly this last one). The focus of his statements seems to be on claiming that there will be fewer envelope pushing games in terms of graphics and high dev costs. the *quality* will be the same, but with less hassle in development. This would lead to better games overall as completed products and maybe even more creative games as well.
This interpretation I have come up with is based is based off one of his quotes posted on NintendoEverything from this instance, so I may not have all the details of his quote:
http://nintendoeverything.c...
For what it's worth, I also think this has some merit as potential commentary on the "power" extent of the PS4/Xbox720
"It's also likely those lower priced games will be new IP's with greater risks." That makes a lot sense and also makes me think their budgets will skyrocket like console/pc games have and eventually they may become AAA $60.
Could be following the same pattern as console/pc games ironically enough.
Instead of trying to complete in a losing battle against the likes of Naughty Dog, Bungie, Bioware, Sony Santa Monica, Polyphony, Turn 10, Epic, etc... just make a new experience.
1. We're going to buy the games from those developers, because we are familiar with their experiences and know we can expect a high degree of polish and quality from their games. But as for many others you need to do something unique, something new, and original so you can standout of their shadows and be the next Bioshock, Dishonored, Angry Birds (ugh), Minecraft, etc... Stop using the same old formula and sit down and think of something new.
2. If that's not your thing release a heavy story driven game, with episodic content. The Walking Dead and Alan Wake have proved it'll work as long as the game is still good.
3. If that's not you cup of tea, then try developing two separate games from two development teams and selling them on a single disc. HD Collections, PSN and XBL Collections, and games like Dead Space 2 having it's PSN/XBLA version all on the disc tend to do well in sales because it gives gamers more diversity and a great value for their money.
4. Then there's the opposite of making a heavy story driven game. Instead make a gameplay driven game, whether that's co-op, competitive, or just full of action. Left 4 Dead, Counter Strike, and hack and slash are the proof that this works as well.
5. Finally if all else fails then pick up a license (Spiderman, Ironman, Superman, Movie, TV show, event, etc...) and make a good game out of it (a great game would be better). Batman Arkham series, Hulk Ultimate Destruction, and the old Spiderman games prove this works.
Re-evaluate your studio, because you might not be working to your company's strengths. IMO a combination of 1., 2., and 4. would be best for the Splinter Cell studio. Learn from Alpha Protocol, Deus Ex, Hitman, and MGS and craft a new stealth game and set it in a unique world worth exploring (leave the real world out of it).
IMO that's how you make a AAA multi-million seller. Not Splinter Cell 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...
And even if this does happen. There will come a point where people will get tired of games that aren't AAA, and there will be a high demand for excellent games. So it'll come around, don't worry
A big thing this generation was that if it wasn't AAA it seemed to have this air of not being worth people's time. There were a lot of good games that didn't have the polish of those studios, but were still enjoyable...maybe not worth $60 though. I think what this guy is saying is that you'll see more of these kinds of games come into the limelight in the coming generation, and realistically there could be more profit in them since they will cost substantially less to produce.
the witcher 1 and 2 were made by a small team for a fraction of the budgets of most games
the witcher 1 is better than any AAA game from the last 5 years, the witcher 2 is close as well
most of the money spent in a games "development" is in advertising, signing exclusive deals with gamestop, best buy ext... putting commercials on tv that no one watches, tell game mags, send them demos, and youtube and places like n4g will do the rest for free
make games a$$holes, not ad campaigns!