220°

Remedy pushes for shorter dev cycles

Incoming CEO Tero Virtala talks about Quantum Break studio's move to multi-project development.

Read Full Story >>
gamesindustry.biz
ziggurcat3217d ago

in an industry that keeps increasing the size, and scope of their games, they should be pushing for longer cycles, not shorter ones. why bother even having QA now when all the devs are going to do is mark everything as "Known Shippable" in order to meet their release deadline?

Overload3217d ago (Edited 3217d ago )

It seems they are going to start making smaller games or multiplayer games that are more profitable because making Quantum Break hurt the studio, when you remove the PR filter.

I know the are currently co developing a mobile title.
http://www.polygon.com/2016...

XtraTrstrL3216d ago (Edited 3216d ago )

I do feel a lil bad for them, because on the PC side atleast, M$ locking the game as a Win10/Windows Store/UWP exclusive hurt sales. They should get something out of the Win7-8-10/DX11-12 compatible Steam launch next month though.

I just really hope that if they get amazing sales on Steam that greedy M$ takes note and launches GOW:UE and GOW4 on Steam. I really want to play Gears again, but refuse to buy GOW4 on Windows Store, especially after seeing how quickly UE died already. A Win7-8/DX11 compatible version of both Gears needs to go to Steam, so that there's a chance of survivability for the competitive multiplayer playerpool.

DeeBeers3216d ago

would love to see them ditch the narrative driven BS and make multiplayer games instead.

TLG19913216d ago

Making Quantum Break didn't hurt the studio

making Quantum Break bad hurt the studio.

Shubhendu_Singh3216d ago

Because "longer cycle" strategy obviously didn't worked for them.
They took more than 5 years in making Quantum Break and it bombed. Not to mention with the TV show and hiring good actors and CGI, the budget would have been really really large.

Make few games with short cycles, and then again work your way up to bigger projects (which requires bigger dev cycles). Just like how unfortunate Ready At Dawn developer is doing. No shame in this.

Paytaa3216d ago

Quantum Break shouldn't have had the TV component or the addition of big name movie stars. It's just a waste of the budget that could have helped create a better experience.

ShadowKnight3216d ago (Edited 3216d ago )

Quantum Break shouldn't have been made in the first place. The focus should have been on Alan Wake 2. Now all their games will be multiplatform. I still think Quantum Break was one of the worse AAA games I played this year and Angry Joe review was spot on.

abstractel3215d ago

I felt the TV show was completely unnecessary (and including the famous actors), but the game itself was actually quite good. I made the mistake of listening to all the reviews and let that keep me away from the game, but I just recently played through it and thought it was a really good game that not only looked great but played great. It was only the first 30-45 minutes that felt crap gameplay wise, but once you got your powers the game became enjoyable and the story was really quite good. There was an event in the game that really got to me emotionally -- that doesn't happen often. I avoided watching all the live action segments, it just broke up the flow of the gameplay but not watching them did not hurt the story.

I wonder how many of you criticizing this game actually played even a decent chunk of the game.

andrewsquall3216d ago

Why would they increase it? Do you think an extra year or 2 would have made Quantum Break much less generic than it is?
Naughty Dog put out a game so much better than Quantum Break and it didn't take them six years to make it either. In fact, ND only released The Last of Us in June 2013, then a DLC follow up 8 months later that won more awards than any full Remedy game to date, then they remastered TLOU on PS4, then helped out a bit with Uncharted Collection for Bluepoint Games and then released a new, incredible, next gen, critically acclaimed game. And all within 3 years.

Trez12343216d ago

To be fair naughty dog is much bigger in terms of size so it's easier for them to do multiple projects.

yeahright23216d ago

How about you take as long as you need but don't announce the game until it's just a few months away from being ready? That way we won't know if your cycle was 12 months or 5 years and we get less delays after you hyped us up.

andrewsquall3216d ago

Because then you get the terrible PC version of QB that was announced only 3 weeks before the game went Gold.

Fist4achin3216d ago

I agree. If it takes so long and then there's an unforeseen delay people just start complaining to the point where it's ridiculous. There are so many games being rushed and shortcutted that the games just plain suck bc of all the bugs or choppy stories. All I want is a good finished product.

rainslacker3215d ago

I think MS was more behind the early hype than Remedy. MS wanted that big new IP reveal for the X1, and QB was the closest thing they had that seemed "next gen". Crysis was sufficient, but QB was certainly more interesting in the early days. The fact all we saw was live action footage for the reveal should have been a good indicator it wasn't going to be coming any time soon.

Benoski3216d ago

Sounds like Quantum Break didn't sell as well as Remedy had hoped, especially since a lot of cash went into this great game...

MasterCornholio3216d ago (Edited 3216d ago )

I heard that the TV part of the game was really expensive to make.

Fist4achin3216d ago

It sounds like it could have been reduced or probably made with less famous actors instead of burning through all that money.

TLG19913216d ago

Why some of these studios think hiring famous actors makes a better game.

they should have made an interesting story and better gameplay. Word of mouth would have sold the game over time.

DoubleM703215d ago

It don't matter Microsoft fronted the money.

annoyedgamer3216d ago (Edited 3216d ago )

RIP. This guy wants to ruin the studio.

BLow3216d ago

Would love for them to give some Playstation some love but it probably won't happen. Wish them well on their new strategy.....

rainslacker3215d ago

Their style of game design probably would fit right at home on PS. Other games of similar distinction or design tend to do quite well on PS. Not that they should abandon Xbox, but certainly look to expand their fan base as a whole. PC and Xbox is good and all, but why remove potential buyers unless the console maker themselves are fronting the money.

Show all comments (26)
70°

Warhammer 40,000: Boltgun 2 devs praise games like Space Marine 2 for "lowering the barrier"

Warhammer 40,000: Boltgun 2 developers discuss the huge success of Space Marine 2 and its effect on the series as a whole.

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
Jingsing1d 7h ago

How about an official level editor for Boltgun?

80°

Inside the ‘Dragon Age’ Debacle That Gutted EA’s BioWare Studio

The latest game in BioWare’s fantasy role-playing series went through ten years of development turmoil

In early November, on the eve of the crucial holiday shopping season, staffers at the video-game studio BioWare were feeling optimistic. After an excruciating development cycle, they had finally released their latest game, Dragon Age: The Veilguard, and the early reception was largely positive. The role-playing game was topping sales charts on Steam, and solid, if not spectacular, reviews were rolling in.

HyperMoused1d 18h ago

Its easy they called the die hard fans people in their nerd caves who will buy anything and then went woke to reach modern audiences....insulting the nerds in their caves along the way showing utter contempt for their fan base. very hapy it failed and any company who insults their fan base and treat their customers with contempt and insults, in future, i also hope fail.

neutralgamer19921d 15h ago

It’s disappointing but not surprising to see what's happening with Dragon Age: The Veilguard and the broader situation at BioWare. The layoffs are tragic — no one wants to see talented developers lose their jobs. But when studios repeatedly create games that alienate their own fanbase, outcomes like this become unfortunately predictable.

There’s a pattern we’re seeing far too often: beloved franchises are revived, only to be reshaped into something almost unrecognizable. Changes are made that no one asked for, often at the expense of what originally made these games special. Then, when long-time fans express concern or lose interest, they’re told, “This game might not be for you.” But when those same fans heed that advice and don’t buy the game, suddenly they're labeled as toxic, sexist, bigoted, or worse.

Let’s be clear: the overwhelming majority of gamers have no issue with diversity, LGBTQ+ representation, or strong female leads. In fact, some of the most iconic characters in gaming — like Aloy, Ellie, or FemShep — are proof that inclusivity and excellent storytelling can and do go hand in hand. The issue arises when diversity feels performative, forced, or disconnected from the narrative — when characters or themes are inserted not to serve the story, but to satisfy a corporate DEI checklist. Audiences can tell the difference.

When studios chase approval from a vocal minority that often doesn’t even buy games — while simultaneously dismissing loyal fans who actually do — they risk not just the success of individual titles, but the health of their entire studio. Telling your core customers “don’t buy it if you don’t like it” is not a viable business strategy. Because guess what? Many of us won’t. And when the game fails commercially, blaming those very fans for not supporting it is both unfair and self-defeating.

Gamers aren’t asking for less diversity or less progress. We’re asking for better writing, thoughtful character development, and a respect for the franchises we’ve supported for decades. When you give people great games that speak to them — whether they’re old fans or new players — they will show up. But if you keep making games for people who don’t play them, don’t be surprised when those who do stop showing up

Armaggedon1d 8h ago

I thought the writing and character development were fine. Sometimes things just dont resonate with people.

60°

Glen Schofield: Dead Space Wouldn’t Be Greenlit Today—Publishers Are Afraid to Take Risks

Sector sat down with Glen Schofield—creator of Dead Space and The Callisto Protocol—during the Game Developers Session (GDS) in Prague to discuss the evolution of the game industry, the current challenges of AAA development, and why it's become so hard to get original ideas off the ground in today’s risk-averse environment.

1nsomniac1d 22h ago

It’s easy enough to say that, but why? It feels weird to me when developers say this but common sense would tell you everything about the idea itself should work.

The idea of the concept seems like a winner at whichever angle you look at it so why would publishers not greenlight it?

… it’s almost as if the majority of publishers are massively incompetent at their jobs. But there’s no surprise to anyone there.