Jason Rubin, co-founder of Naughty Dog, has questioned the sustainability of the entire video games industry if it continues to churn out multi-million dollar, Triple-A titles.
Isn't this guy who's pissed that publishers haven't approached him with multimillion dollar deals or some crap?
Misleading title. That's like giving Jason Rubin credit for games he had absolutely nothing to do with. Do you know one thing that is worse than fanboys? Journalism who take advantage of it. They are the instigators of the entire gaming scene, either to rile people up or just for hits.
What's up with so many Naughty Dog and Uncharted articles in the past few days. Hopefully We'll here Uncharted 3 confirmed soon
The problem though is multi million dollar games most likely don't exist. Because most games are made within 2 years, 1 year for design and concepts then another year to make everything. 99% of games don't have 5000 people working on them at most it'd be 30 people and that's probably a lot. I would say people get taken for a ride for the PR people claims for games costing trillions when really most don't, because if they did then just about every console game would be a make or break game for the studio and how many times do you see XXX game cost 100 million dollars but the game only sells 100,000 copies world wide, that would mean the studio would be wiped out, yet they talk about making another game and yet again it costs 100 million with 500 people doing stuff on it. it's a media joke, if anything.
Your really really wrong. The only game I know that cost $100 million to make is GTA IV and that sold enough copies in the first month to pay off for the whole project. Do you really think that no multi-million games exist? How would Rockstar get the licenses for all those tracks? That alone cost multiple of million dollars. Most games cost around $20-40. Uncharted 1 and 2 only cost $40 million for both but still its a multimillion game. What games do you think are not multimillion games? Just to pay a small team of 30 people like you said for 2 years and than pay all the other companies such as Sony to put the game on the market you need more than just 1 million. and that is without any adverts at all which cost dozens of millions alone. Unless you are talking about those PSN/Xbox Arcade/Indie games the rest of the games on 360 and PS3 are multimillion productions.
You really should do research befor you come on here and spew comments. It just makes you look stupid and then people are just gonna tear you apart. Just some words of wisdom. Do with it what you want.
Rubin is not releated to ND right now.
1 - jason rubin hasn't been with ND for years. 2. it isn't ND that's saying this - it's rubin.....who hasn't don ANYTHING of interest in years. 3 whether it's the title of the story or something in the story itself - contributors should be aware of erroneous facts and either not submit them on this site or fix the mistakes.
most people only do this so they can have the ability to apporve and dissaprove stories i try to submit but every time i do there's like 4 stories already waiting approval so i just forget it
The title says Naughty Dog co founder, which he was. I say the title and your post, so I wonder if the title was something different before. Either that or people whine and complain for no reason, and honestly have zero reading comprehension.
if you want proof - look at all of the oldest posts on this thread - they reflect my statements.....so i'd watch it with the "zero reading comprehension" talk. also, (as far as this article) i don't see the point of starting to quote JR now........he's been saying lots of crazy stuff since leaving ND. i guess his lack of success and naughty dogs AMAZING success is getting to him. my gripe isn't just about this 1 story in particular - but rather; how the quality of stories (on N4G) in general has eroded over the last 18-24 months.
Jason Rubin left naughty dog about the time sony bought ND dont make this look like he is still part of ND.
N4G has to change its approval system. The title is completely misleading. It's much too easy to get something, anything, approved.
. There are so many misleading article titles today + one of them goes like "Naughty Dog goed multi? Off course not." "Goed"??? "Off"??? What???
its insane how 1 person can screw the spelling that badly, and then ANOTHER 10 PEOPLE LET IT GET APPROVED mass stupidity has never been so evident until the internet came along
They are to busy adding the twitter and facebook features to the site to bother adding a better approval system.
must hate actually...moderating.
MOD: "IIII LOOOOOVVE MONEY"
They don't need to change it, they just need people to follow the guidelines.
It needs to take 15 or 20 approves for something to be approved.
Did they change the title? The title as is, "Naughty Dog Founder: Triple-A games 'not working'" is not misleading unless you are easily misled or fabricating things in your own mind. He was a co-founder of Naughty Dog, and he said those things. Nothing about the title is non-factual.
Doesn't he have a PSN/Live type game coming? It's not hard to question something when your no longer a part of it. But there's plenty of money and fun to be had from smaller indie type games. The trouble with high budget "AAA" games is many don't live up to it. Not everyone will be willing to take the risk, but you'll still have those "win" developers that publishers will be more than happy to throw money at.
Basically the days of a studio having only ONE SUCCESSFUL AAA FRANCHISE are over. You need diversity across many themes,hardware,distribution etc. Look at EA,they have tried alot of different things. Dead Space(A+),Sims series,3 on 3 hockey via download(C+),Lots of DLC for their sports games, New MMA title ,Battlefield 1943 via download and soon a 10$ charge for used games to connect online. Activision has put out DJ Hero(B+ Fun game but WAY EXPENSIVE),Blur(D-),Transforme rs War for Cybertron(B-) and 15$ map packs for their hugely successful COD franchise.
Naughty Dog belongs to Sony. I think it's up to them to decide if they want to make less triple A games. I mean despite UC2 not selling 25 million and up, I think it was money well spent. UC2 is better then the half @$$ed crap some other companies made. Look at MW2. In my eyes that wasn't Triple A. It was junk. And yet it sold a billion worth. Why is it that people are more willing to buy junk rather than a well crafted game?
Uc2 is a great game, but the gameplay alone isnt what makes it great it's the whole package the wonderful graphics,the amazing scripted events it was all great together as a shooter it's not great and that's where mw2 has the upper hand.when it comes to Cod many people consider it to be AAA its a fastpaced shooter, with great controls that even mag tried to implement and now bc2 and possibly kz3 with great graphics, yes there are games out there with better graphics but mw visuals can hold their own plus marketing and popularity really help.
if you dont think MW2 was AAA then you have no idea what that term means.
UC2 sold nearly 4 million as of right now. It sold better then 90% of all games on the market. Most games never even pass the 1 million marker. CODMW2 players are just sheep.
How about instead of your snarky comment, you tell us what it means? AAA is a term that was stolen from Standard & Poor's credit ratings. AAA rating is for borrowers who are the most reliable and stable(mostly governments). It has no fucking meaning for games except the meaning we give to it, and in case you still don't get it, we have no fucking standard meaning when we use it for games. Everyone uses it differently. I assume you had to know that on some level, its why you left the comment you did, an asshole comment, with no substance. You did not argue your case at all, and gave no reasons why you were correct about MW2 being a AAA game. You just attacked tiamat5. You don't know what the term means either, you just disagree with the way tiamat5 used it.
what an angry asshole we have here. i never attacked anyone. i didn't even disagree with his comment. in fact, i agree with most of what he is saying. AAA was originally used with in game companys to describe a big budget game. one that they would put a lot of money into development and advertising. later gamers took that term to describe games that end up getting 90% or higher review scores. some go so far as to describe games that break the million sales mark, but that is less often used. why it turned into that i don't know. if we use the two most common ways the term "AAA" is used, you can see clearly MW2 is an AAA title. i had no idea the sensitive dicks where out today. if i did maybe i would have taken the time to explain this, but instead i felt a brief comment on him using the term wrong was more than enough.
Ok, few things. You don't disagree with the comment? Oh, I am sure you can see why I was confused seeing as your ONLY comment was disagreeing with the guy about the definition of AAA. Secondly, I would LOVE to see anything at all backing up your statement about AAA being used in house. Anything at all. Because when I read your comment, I actually did some research, and there was nothing at all corroborating that. You then go on to say that the term changed, and no longer means what it used to. Well gosh gee willikers, that sounds like what I said in my first comment. You then say you did not feel the need to explain it. Ok, then why make a comment at all? You still have not explained it either. All you have done is agree with me. The word does not have any real meaning when it comes to games, and the definition changes. Thanks for the support.
actually i did tell u the meaning(s), but you don't care to listen. not my fault you have no clue where the term came from. if you want to go on and use AAA to refer to games u like then go ahead. i made the passing comment, because its N4G and i was at work. i had no i idea some guy would get his panties in a bunch over such an insignificant post.
Ok, are you retarded? I am serious. I will once again break down what you say point by point, attempt to actually read them this time, because you obviously did not read the first time, seeing as I covered what you just said in your most recent response. You said you told me the meanings, if you had read my post, I call strait out bullshit when you say it was in house. In case that is still to vague, I am calling you a liar. It was never used that way, you made it up to give credence to your point. If this was unintentional, and you honestly think its true, because its something you heard somewhere, I will tell you that you heard wrong, and you need to stop spreading wrong information. I said this in my 2nd post, but it seems I was to vague. I hope you get it this time. You say its not your fault I have no clue where the term came from. I am sorry, but I told you EXACTLY where it came from. It was stolen from S&P. Which has been around since 1860, in case you don't realize, that is much much longer then any video game developers, almost by 100 years. You are the one who does not know where it comes from. If you had actually read any of my posts, you would have noticed that. You then say if I want to use the term AAA to refer to games I like, I can go ahead. This is pretty much proof that you did not read my posts, because if you had, I have been arguing AGAINST using the term. lrn2readingcomprehension. In summation, your most recent reply to me makes you look like even more of a dumbass. You did not even address one thing I said, you just continue to insist you are correct without any backing up of what you said. Once again, I tell you, you have argued my point for me, thanks for the support. EDIT: you realize I am not tiamat5 right? I am not the person who you first responded to. I am merely calling you out for being a dick to tiamat5. And you were, you were a dick by virtue of the fact that you attacked his knowledge without having any of your own. Every time you post in response to me, you show just how little you actually know about the subject we are talking about.
This has nothing to do with Naughty Dog, this man no longer workers for them or Sony. How the hell did this get approved?
There has to be some sort of compromise.
This, I think is the real cost of competition in the video game industry. The video game fanbase has become too fragmented. The guy referred to the time when 2 million dollar Crash Bandicot games sold 9 million copies as the heyday. I ask, "what was the install base of the platform when that happened." The first PS sold more than 100 million units, the Xbox 360 and the PS3 have sold about 80 million between the 2 of them. I think the console war has hurt the developers by limiting the upside sales potential of their games. Creating multi-plat games is not the same as creating games for one dominant system with 100 million unit install base. The cost of entry for the multi-plat option costs $600 now. That is about 4 times what it used to cost.
are u talking about?crash was one of the early games for the ps1 when it launched in 1995,ps1 didn't have a 100 MN install base back then
I think game development tools need to be improved so it doesn't cost 25-100 million for a triple A. The only real improvements I've seen this gen over PS2 gen is graphics largely and physics to a lesser extent. Somehow people needs to learn more efficient ways to make nice graphics.
Hey look at epic, with gears 10 mill and those games are amazing.
The problem with a bloated economy, i.e. most of the 90's, is that companies feel the need to expand and grow in relation to their profits. However when the economy eventually stabilizes or worse, turns downward, you have massive layoffs. This has less to do with AAA titles costing so much and more to do with companies overestimating their profit margins and overspending. As you stated, they need to become more efficient. Maximizing engines is part of the issue. Cutting the fat would be another. I'm not saying that you have to cut for the sake of cutting. However, you have to utilize your resources to the utmost. Banking on a single franchise to bring you to profit is a horrible idea. THAT has been the ruin of several companies. They need to be diverse and open to new ideas and change the current paradigm of spending big to earn big. Ultimately, gamers just want great games. Sure, great graphics are the icing on the proverbial cake. But, just give me a game that is interesting and fresh and I am all over it.
but this i feel is more of a reason to focus on smaller titles with great gameplay on psn and xbl. i miss games like nba jam,nights into dreams,and the original 2d mk games......2d games that were more about bringing people together with kick ass gameplay. i think that if more companies focused on making games as fun as possible but without making graphics the number one priority and putting them out there on both psn and xbl at a reasonable price the rest of the industry can follow suit and that might give the little guys who still have the passion a chance at dictating where the industry will wind up....this isnt a shot at e.a or activision....but lets be honest,offering dlc for the price of a full psn title is a slap in the face of gamers everywhere and the only people to suffer thru it are the consumers who have to pay for it and the indie developer who misses out on a potential customer because said customer can only make one purchase and he/she has to purchase the dlc in order to feel that he/she has a complete game anyways here's to hoping! peace and game on
Well if they would all stop making their own engines for their own games they could save a couple million. All the devs should use CryEngine 3 and stop bitching about profits.
to something like 'founder and ex-employee of naughty dog says aaa games not working'
he just wants the attention
and I only thought that you know who is bad with misleading titles just for hits.
that gamers buy every single piece of crap they make. Good games have good sales, like BC2 and MW2 for those who like it, GoW3, ME2, Heavy Rain etc etc Stop making half assed games and gamers will buy it. Misleading title, N4G moderators are so below average
Why aren't they going after the used game resellers like Gamestop and Amazon? Go get your cut from them instead of cry to us about how you're not getting paid. &asdfasf
CVG, never fails to mislead people just like that time they intentionally misquoted Cliffy.B about
thats the problem with todays industry. Not every game need to be a multi-million dollar project. It exactly the reason why MH3 moved to the wii.
I once saw this guy on GT or something and he came across as a bit of an @ss. He was one of the people who thinks pay to play is a good idea, he also wouldn't listen to what others we're saying. Naughty Dog are better off without him anyhow.
Yeah, he's an ass. His opinions about what he thinks is happening to the industry are really what he wants to happen to the industry, for his benefit. (Do less, make more) Meanwhile, he hasn't done anything of importance in many years.
WTF is with these misleading Naughty Dog articles??? sheesh...
SHOVE IT, YOU TART.
f this old employee
Multiplayer last night & besides all the updates I had to download I notice there are alot more people playing now then before. It took me a little bit to refresh my memory of the controls since I been playing alot of GOW3 but man it was refreshing to finally get 23 kills in one of my matches. I totally understand those who complain about how it has become alot easier to die now because u had a tougher time killing someone from the beta & at launch but I thought it felt just right in health damage. Now a sniper takes 1 shot anywhere to the body & your dead, where it use to be 2 shots to the body & one to the head to kill someone. I gotta admit I was a little skeptical about the multiplayer but after getting hold of the sniper & rushing with it & taking out my enemies while seeing not only my team but the other team give me props & im getting the hang of it from only playing 2 hours & now owning top rankers, I think ive adopted already & enjoying the quick kill. Oh & my rushing pistol style still works. =]
Things will change, companies will adapt, but progress will never stop. It's not as if graphics will collectively begin to get worse so developers can save money, they'll just have to adapt. There's a huge market for AAA games that push graphics, if the industry just began to ignore or neglect that portion of the market, it would only be a matter of time till someone came along to swoop in and capitalize on it. The world is changing for more than just the gaming industry, everyone will adapt, and again, progress will inevitably continue.
It seems like you're one of the only ones here who not only read the article but watched the video as well. I agree with you that the industry will adapt in a few years. But at the cost of gamers more than likely. As mentioned in the video the percentage of profitability has gone down significantly not only as the technology has progressed but also the consumer expectations. It was a really interesting show and I'm looking forward to it in the coming weeks.
Cause I could definitely see that happening, maybe when the next generation of consoles roll out, with the new tech and what not, they would have more of an excuse to up the price as well. It's hard to say though, games are quite pricey as it is. The show does look really cool though, I'll be very interested to see how things change from now until the next gen.
If Jason Rubin got back to doing AAA games this could be an different matter altogether.
somebody wants to cash in on multiplat games!!!
the new naughty dog team created a masterpiece without me....
Why would they title this article that? And not to mention how they took forever mention that he left in 2004, they know people stop reading after the first paragraph. Idiots and I wish those people would shut up about ND going multiplatform, yeah now you appreciate their work, well keep their not going multiplatform. at least not until they and Sony agree and they're Sony top tier dev. team (meaning Sony isn't letting them go).
if it only take $2 bucks to make it....
Some games take $100 Million into making and producing it. Most games are well spent like, SC II, Uncharted 2, Halo ETC. Why do Kinect games cost $50 when they're $20 quality at most? $50 for Dance Central is OK. ND must've changed a lot when he left, since I never heard about them until Uncharted.
He is correct, it game industry has expanded now than before and looking at the bad impact I think that game devs have to give more time and are earning less money in return. This is impacting the games too.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.