By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Developers are thinking AAA development very risk and jumping to risk free Indie Development [AAA games doomed]

 

How do you buy AAA games?

Good reviewed games only 27 23.28%
 
Good reviewed day one, av... 10 8.62%
 
Good reviewed day one, average/poor no buy 2 1.72%
 
Don't care reviews, depe... 46 39.66%
 
Don't care reviews, depends on developers 9 7.76%
 
Don't care reviews, depends on franchise 8 6.90%
 
Don't care reviews, but ... 14 12.07%
 
Total:116
Mystro-Sama said:
Yet most games on the new generation of consoles sold very well and brought in profit despite launch being the hardest time to sell games.

I think AAA being too risky is a BS excuse. Once there is a reasonable install base, proper marketing, appropriately managed development, and a quality game then publishers will see profit. Look at Dark Souls.
Not everyone can be Rockstar and afford to develop a game for half a decade.

First off, all of the games out for the PS4 are pretty much only at the break even point if that.  Sporting games being the obvious exception which sell like crazy every year and cost shit to make.  I may even be under-rating the development costs, I seem to recall the break even point for a triple A game being at least a million copies sold.  

Secondly, how many studios have to shut down before you are willing to admit that triple A development is ruining the industry.  Do you wanna play the games for the graphics or the gameplay because the higher the graphics go, the lower and crappier the gameplay gets.  Going all in on graphics works for the short term, until people realize the graphics aren't really any fun.  After a few games suddenly graphics become less and less important and the person loses interest in gaming.  

Thirdly, Irrational games is owned by the same company Rockstar is owned by.  They did develop for half a decade and still decided it was safer to go indie.  



Around the Network
aryu said:


At this point, the argument is revolving around the definition of indie. We clearly do not share the same view of what an indie game is. For me, whenever a publisher heavily backs a game whether it be in development or in marketing, I don't consider it as indie.


And for me, when a developer who knows what he is doing and funds his own game with the money in his pocket, and then come out and say that he did an indie game like David Cage did, I do consider that an indie.

 

But yeah, "not indie bcuz paid marketing" is a great argument. You are right, the rest of us are all wrong.



Wright said:
biglittlesps said:
Wright said:


And your source is?

Its common sense,


You should have read Aryu's source, before. He proved that Heavy Rain was indeed funded by Quantic Dream and Quantic Dream alone. Sony only paid for the publishing and marketing.

However, it could be not true for every game published by Sony.



GAMING is not about spending hours to pass/waste our time just for fun,

its a Feeling/Experience about a VIRTUAL WORLD we can never be in real, and realizing some of our dreams (also creating new ones).

So, Feel Emotions, Experience Adventure/Action, Challenge Game, Solve puzzles and Have fun.

PlayStation is about all-round "New experiences" using new IP's to provide great diversity for everyone.

Xbox is always about Online and Shooting.

Nintendo is always about Fun games and milking IP's.

biglittlesps said:

However, it could be not true for every game published by Sony.


So you're basically saying that:

 

a) Sony lies from time to time.

b) Heavy Rain is indeed indie.

 

I agree with both.



Wright said:
aryu said:


At this point, the argument is revolving around the definition of indie. We clearly do not share the same view of what an indie game is. For me, whenever a publisher heavily backs a game whether it be in development or in marketing, I don't consider it as indie.


And for me, when a developer who knows what he is doing and funds his own game with the money in his pocket, and then come out and say that he did an indie game like David Cage did, I do consider that an indie.

 

But yeah, "not indie bcuz paid marketing" is a great argument. You are right, the rest of us are all wrong.


Why are you getting all aggressive? I told you my definition of indie is different to yours. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. You should stop taking it to heart. Games like FEZ, Braid, Limbo and Super Meat Boy didn't get the same backing as Heavy Rain and that's the reason why I consider them to be indie and not Heavy Rain.



PS3, PS4, PSV, Wii U, 3DS + 3DS XL Owner.

PlayStation Nation

NNID: aminryu1

I need to stop buying games...

Around the Network
Wright said:
JoeTheBro said:
Wright said:

Again, people's misconception of "indie" games makes them believe these are only downloadable XBLA-PSN games. They are not.

 

Heavy Rain, for example, is an indie game. And that had a full-retail release, and broke three million units sold, and it costed 60 bucks when it first released.


People stopped caring what indie meant a long time ago.

Now it pretty much just means a small studio lol.


I still care though :(

Doesn't Indie come from "Independant" ? I don't think you can call anything a Indie game that involves funding and a  exclusive contract with a publisher.



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

aryu said:


Why are you getting all aggressive? I told you my definition of indie is different to yours. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. You should stop taking it to heart. Games like FEZ, Braid, Limbo and Super Meat Boy didn't get the same backing as Heavy Rain and that's the reason why I consider them to be indie and not Heavy Rain.


Fez went through MS marketing, and Phil Fish himself complained that the marketing campaign "had been poor", which was the reason for low sales.

And the game still got indie awards.

Super Meat Boy also got promotions from Microsoft. Braid is the only one that stood alone.

 

So I'm guessing by your definition that Fez and Super Meat Boy are not indie games, right? Ah, wait, is the amount of money on advertising what makes a game stop being indie! Stupid me.



DarkD said:
Mystro-Sama said:
Yet most games on the new generation of consoles sold very well and brought in profit despite launch being the hardest time to sell games.

I think AAA being too risky is a BS excuse. Once there is a reasonable install base, proper marketing, appropriately managed development, and a quality game then publishers will see profit. Look at Dark Souls.
Not everyone can be Rockstar and afford to develop a game for half a decade.

First off, all of the games out for the PS4 are pretty much only at the break even point if that.  Sporting games being the obvious exception which sell like crazy every year and cost shit to make.  I may even be under-rating the development costs, I seem to recall the break even point for a triple A game being at least a million copies sold.  

Secondly, how many studios have to shut down before you are willing to admit that triple A development is ruining the industry.  Do you wanna play the games for the graphics or the gameplay because the higher the graphics go, the lower and crappier the gameplay gets.  Going all in on graphics works for the short term, until people realize the graphics aren't really any fun.  After a few games suddenly graphics become less and less important and the person loses interest in gaming.  

Thirdly, Irrational games is owned by the same company Rockstar is owned by.  They did develop for half a decade and still decided it was safer to go indie.  

Yep, Its true. They can't break the new game developments costs until the game sell 1million which needs very long time for the averge reviewed game now to reach and everyone expecting graphics more and more which is why the developers are trying that which costs more time because if the games they make will fall into one of the categories alreay known mostly so gamers expect better graphics and will avoid if its not mostly these days, otherwise they would focus on gameplay more, Story etc., 



GAMING is not about spending hours to pass/waste our time just for fun,

its a Feeling/Experience about a VIRTUAL WORLD we can never be in real, and realizing some of our dreams (also creating new ones).

So, Feel Emotions, Experience Adventure/Action, Challenge Game, Solve puzzles and Have fun.

PlayStation is about all-round "New experiences" using new IP's to provide great diversity for everyone.

Xbox is always about Online and Shooting.

Nintendo is always about Fun games and milking IP's.

Porcupine_I said:
Wright said:


I still care though :(

Doesn't Indie come from "Independant" ? I don't think you can call anything a Indie game that involves funding and a  exclusive contract with a publisher.


So if I fund my own game and create it from scratch with a brand new built independent studio, and then ask Nintendo to publish the game once its finished, the game is not indie?



biglittlesps said:
Lawlight said:
biglittlesps said:

Also developers are unable to try new things in games because of the risk if the game fails. Sony trying many games(Heavy rain, Beyond two souls, Puppeteer, Rain, Tearaway, Rime, Hohokum, Order 1886, Drive club, Gravity rush etc.,) still even though its risk for the sake of gaming but gamers are not supporting that well.


Gamers aren't supporting that? Says who?

They do for some but they did not do sales to be very successful and take more chances by the developers(its risky). Look at Remember me, Beyond two souls, Tearaway, Puppeteer, Wonderful 101 etc.,


Apart from Remember Me, you don't know whether they flopped since you don't know the games' budget and revenue.