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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Yoshida: I don't understand people who only want AAA

pokoko on 02 July 2014
nitekrawler1285 said:

Sounds like someone has never dealt with children before. I probably should have said that I understand persons whom are single minded or narrow mined in their search for entertainment, gratification, hobbies, and personal consumption patterns. I don't think it's very hard to grasp at all. I'm actually genuinely terrified if he doesn't.  

No.  Listen.  What he's saying is that he doesn't understand the mentality of someone who uses game budget over game quality as a means of deciding what they play.  It's like someone saying they'll only watch a movie if it cost over 100 million dollars to make.  It's a horrible way to make decisions.



Around the Network
nitekrawler1285 on 02 July 2014
the-pi-guy said:
nitekrawler1285 said:

Sounds like someone has never dealt with children before. I probably should have said that I understand persons whom are single minded or narrow mined in their search for entertainment, gratification, hobbies, and personal consumption patterns. I don't think it's very hard to grasp at all. I'm actually genuinely terrified if he doesn't.  

Okay, now I understand your point.  
But it's not really the same thing.  

Game A and Game B are identical, only difference is that one is "AAA."  That game is preferred, it makes sense to you?  

Yes.  Coming from a developer whom has likely put out more games and even has a publisher to back them and invest to get copies on the shelves which some store has purhcased already and pay to let the market know about the game aka advertising already kinda has a seal of approval by many different parties as to the AAA product. Even if the games do look identical.  Which I wouldn't say is true of most non AAA games.   



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 02 July 2014
pokoko said:
nitekrawler1285 said:

Sounds like someone has never dealt with children before. I probably should have said that I understand persons whom are single minded or narrow mined in their search for entertainment, gratification, hobbies, and personal consumption patterns. I don't think it's very hard to grasp at all. I'm actually genuinely terrified if he doesn't.  

No.  Listen.  What he's saying is that he doesn't understand the mentality of someone who uses game budget over game quality as a means of deciding what they play.  It's like someone saying they'll only watch a movie if it cost over 100 million dollars to make.  It's a horrible way to make decisions.

 

I was gonna post the Morgan Freeman "He's right you know", but I haven't used Raptor Jesus in ages.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

160rmf on 02 July 2014

i guess i know why, the vast majority of the videogame console userbase are a bunch of dude bros, graphics whores and dudebros graphics whore, they don't give a shit about indie games. I thought this was pretty obvious with the graphic comparison threads, the "best version dillema" and with COD, GTA and FIFA sales

 

Edit: of course some people will go defensive mode and derail everithing, "Hey!? No! i love indie games"



 

 

We reap what we sow

vivster on 02 July 2014
Skidonti said:
vivster said:
Indies are only successful because there are not enough AAA games.

No, they are successful becuase they are fun, innovative, cheap, and can stand to serve a much smaller market than a hundred million dollar AAA game requires just to turn a profit. I saw you mention it would be cool if 5 AAA games released a month... which just can't happen. The industry can't sustain that. The development would be too intensive and the customers would not be there for that many games, flops would be all over the place and almost no one would turn a profit.

It's hypothetical of course. Just like "Consoles would be less popular if everyone could afford a monster PC and be savvy enough to use it on a tv."

Indies are a compromise just like consoles are. There is nothing you can't do in a AAA game that you could do in an indie game and I'm pretty sure that all indie developers would love to have more funds to boost their game.

If we had  the opportunity to choose from as many AAA games as we wanted, there would be no need for indies as all the variety would be there.

I just think this separation is silly. Indie games are not inherently more fun or innovative. The only difference between them and AAA is the budget which shifts the constraints. While indies have presentation and content constraints, they do have absolute creative freedom. It's the other way around with AAA. With enough money in the market there would be no difference. Indie games would have bigger budgets and no constraints and AAA would have more creative freedom as a failure of a game wouldn't end a company.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
deviliscry on 02 July 2014

yea too much BS complaint about indies games ,but i personally i like so many of them



JOKA_ on 02 July 2014
nitekrawler1285 said:
gooch_destroyer said:

 

"I do realise that some people are only interested in big-budget AAA games. I don't really understand those people"

 

 


What an idiot.  I want steak.  Not a god damned salad(salmon, tuna or some other light meat).  Is that so hard to understand?   Those other meats or salad does not have the same role as steak and it certainly doesn't help if I have an appetite for steak.   

Bro, you're missing the keyword: only. Yoshida isn't saying we should stop eating steak, he is saying that steak shouldn't be the ONLY thing we eat.



Platinums: Red Dead Redemption, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, Terminator Salvation, Uncharted 1, inFamous Second Son, Rocket League

nitekrawler1285 on 02 July 2014
pokoko said:
nitekrawler1285 said:

Sounds like someone has never dealt with children before. I probably should have said that I understand persons whom are single minded or narrow mined in their search for entertainment, gratification, hobbies, and personal consumption patterns. I don't think it's very hard to grasp at all. I'm actually genuinely terrified if he doesn't.  

No.  Listen.  What he's saying is that he doesn't understand the mentality of someone who uses game budget over game quality as a means of deciding what they play.  It's like someone saying they'll only watch a movie if it cost over 100 million dollars to make.  It's a horrible way to make decisions.


I can understand that sentiment if that is what he means.  It just then seems hypocritical when Sony is #1 in TV advertising spending. Are they making a horrible decision? Or can it be had both ways?  



Skidonti on 02 July 2014
vivster said:
 

It's hypothetical of course. Just like "Consoles would be less popular if everyone could afford a monster PC and be savvy enough to use it on a tv."

Indies are a compromise just like consoles are. There is nothing you can't do in a AAA game that you could do in an indie game and I'm pretty sure that all indie developers would love to have more funds to boost their game.

If we had  the opportunity to choose from as many AAA games as we wanted, there would be no need for indies as all the variety would be there.

I just think this separation is silly. Indie games are not inherently more fun or innovative. The only difference between them and AAA is the budget which shifts the constraints. While indies have presentation and content constraints, they do have absolute creative freedom. It's the other way around with AAA. With enough money in the market there would be no difference. Indie games would have bigger budgets and no constraints and AAA would have more creative freedom as a failure of a game wouldn't end a company.

Okay, in the hypothetical land where we can spend infinite money on our work and still live comfortably maybe AAA games would rule, but I still think there are other flaws in this completely impossible scenario.

I like playing Tetris. I like playing Tetris a lot. What value is added to my game of Tetris when the development budget rises from a few thousand dollars to 50 million dollars? Now my games of Tetris can be interrupted by Hollywood cutscenes and be officially scored by John WIlliams with narration by Morgan Freeman? That money adds no value to my game. For a more indie example, replace "Tetris" with "Super Hexagon".

Spending more money on something doesn't make it better. Bloated budgets often create bloated games. Some types of games are inherently low budget and cannot be improved by massive budgets.

Additionally, a game can have an intentionally low budget by artistic intent. For an example from another medium, do you think people that really enjoy creating chiptune music would, if suddenly provided with infinite money, take their chiptune melodies and get the London Symphony Orchestra to record them instead?

If I like playing the cheap and simple to produce game of chess, is my game improved if I spend millions coating the board in jewels and ivory?

EDIT: I'm not trying to attack you or your idea. I just want to make the point that money does not a better game make. Leaving things out of your experience by design is often a better decision than including as many things as you can.



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 02 July 2014
Skidonti said:
vivster said:
Skidonti said:
vivster said:
Indies are only successful because there are not enough AAA games.

No, they are successful becuase they are fun, innovative, cheap, and can stand to serve a much smaller market than a hundred million dollar AAA game requires just to turn a profit. I saw you mention it would be cool if 5 AAA games released a month... which just can't happen. The industry can't sustain that. The development would be too intensive and the customers would not be there for that many games, flops would be all over the place and almost no one would turn a profit.

It's hypothetical of course. Just like "Consoles would be less popular if everyone could afford a monster PC and be savvy enough to use it on a tv."

Indies are a compromise just like consoles are. There is nothing you can't do in a AAA game that you could do in an indie game and I'm pretty sure that all indie developers would love to have more funds to boost their game.

If we had  the opportunity to choose from as many AAA games as we wanted, there would be no need for indies as all the variety would be there.

I just think this separation is silly. Indie games are not inherently more fun or innovative. The only difference between them and AAA is the budget which shifts the constraints. While indies have presentation and content constraints, they do have absolute creative freedom. It's the other way around with AAA. With enough money in the market there would be no difference. Indie games would have bigger budgets and no constraints and AAA would have more creative freedom as a failure of a game wouldn't end a company.

Okay, in the hypothetical land where we can spend infinite money on our work and still live comfortably maybe AAA games would rule, but I still think there are other flaws in this completely impossible scenario.

I like playing Tetris. I like playing Tetris a lot. What value is added to my game of Tetris when the development budget rises from a few thousand dollars to $50 million dollars? Now my games of Tetris can be interrupted by Hollywood cutscenes and be officially scored by John WIlliams with narration by Morgan Freeman? That money adds no value to my game. For a more indie example, replace "Tetris" with "Super Hexagon".

Spending more money on something doesn't make it better. Bloated budgets often create bloated games. Some types of games are inherently low budget and cannot be improved by massive budgets.

Additionally, a game can have an intentionally low budget by artistic intent. For an example from another medium, do you think people that really enjoy creating chiptune music would, if suddenly provided with infinite money, take their chiptune melodies and get the London Symphony Orchestra to record them instead?

If I like playing the cheap and simple to produce game of chess, is my game improved if I spend millions coating the board in jewels and ivory?

Oh my god I love Super Hexagon. its basically pure gameplay, even the audio and video are there to simply complement the gameplay.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank